This is almost nothing. The surface of the Earth spins at almost ~450 m/s near the equator and that's being some ~6300 km from the center. Climbing up another 10 km is not going to appreciably change your horizontal velocity.
You've lost me. Are you admitting that you have no counterargument to the video, which argues that space elevators are too impractical to be made in the forseeable future, or just pretending I didn't post it?
And by argument above, do you mean your paranoid rantings about government takeover of SpaceX? Personally, I'm more worried about corporations having too much influence on the government, not the other way around.
As for your nationalisation examples:
1. The gold confiscation had nothing to do with private companies
2. oil nationalisation didn't take place in America
3. I have no idea what in the 70's you're refering to
4. Bailouts: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SpaceX will never be so integral to the national economy that it can't fail without taking down the whole system. Nor that Elon Musk will take on so much risk that he is in danger of failing.
And you can't have it both ways, Mr. "However, lazy quips aside, the past is not the future." If that's the position you're going to argue from, then you can defend literally any claim about the future, to the point where effects no longer have causes.
If you really want to learn about how moneyed interests have corrupted the US government, you should read _Republic, Lost_ by Lawrence Lessig http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780446576437
1 - gold confiscation illustrates the power of the political class over private interests in the US
2 - oil nationalisation illustrates the power of the political class over commercial interests globally
3 - Google is your friend
4 - The future size of SpaceX is mostly irrelevant as to whether they fall victim to the whim of a politician's nationalisation decree. The only excuse they need is SpaceX took the cheque and, after all, we know Musk didn't 'build it on his own'.
Your 'moneyed interests' point hints that you may be a partisan leftist? Since they are generally uninterested in discussing the facts we should probably stop here. If you are not a partisan leftist, I suggest you get up to speed on the abuse of political power in the West since FDR's Executive Order 6102.
So, dropped the space elevator subject? Did you watch the video? I'm still waiting for your explanation of how the video is wrong and space elevators are practical.
And no, I'm not a partisan anything. The disproportionate influence of those with power in the US is harmful to the interests of every part of the political spectrum, from left to right (including libertarians). With a government more beholden to the people than those in power we might not have better policies or politicians, but at least it would be 'our' fault. This the basic premise of the book I recommended. Which, by the way, was written by a former fan of Reagan and is non-partisan. Would you be so kind as to link me to specific information that you think is well researched and well written, as I have?
1. Oh, so you're saying that the banks were OK with the fact that Americans were still distrustful of them and keeping their money in gold rather than in banks?
2. Are you saying there's a global political class? Besides, the most recent (partial) nationalisation of an oil company (in Argentina) has what seems like the overwhelming support of the people.
3. You're really not giving me much to go on. All I have is "absurd nationalisations of the 1970s" which I'm now guessing refers to more stuff that happened in other countries, mostly not in "the West."
4. The size of SpaceX relative to our economy is relevant if you're trying to say the bank bailout of GM takeover is the precedent that the government will use. And the gov't didn't take a controlling stake in any of the bailed out banks. <s>But, as you say, the future is not the past, so why bother establishing precedent for something?</s>
----
> after all, we know Musk didn't 'build it on his own'.
That you have never bothered to find out the context in which Obama said that is very telling. Here it is[0]:
> If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.[1] There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
So, in the sentences before what gets quoted, Obama is talking about "this unbelievable American system" that includes roads and bridges. And it's true that if you built a business, it's likely you did not build the roads or bridges we have today. So, isn't it reasonable to assume that Obama's 'that' referred to those same roads and bridges? Especially when his next point is that government research created the internet. If he really meant to say "you didn't build your business" wouldn't it have been a non-sequiter? And the gov't created the internet "so that all the companies could make money off the internet"
And you can't tell me that SpaceX, of all companies, hasn't benefitted from US infrastructure. They employ former gov't engineers, they transport their rockets between LA, Texas, Marshall Islands, and Florida using roads, bridges, and ports. Paypal wouldn't have existed without the internet. Even if Musk earned his money some other way, SpaceX uses the internet and its technologies extensively. I'm sure most of their employees went to public schools at some point. They're using NASA's launch facilities at Cape Canaveral.
> The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Pro tip: when someone says "the point is" what usually follows is their point. And in his main point, Obama acknowledges that success is partly due to intrinsic aspects of the individual. And he's not proposing that the government do everything, he's proposing that the government do things like provide fire fighting services[2]. The thing is, those still have to be paid for, which is why he gave that speech asking corporations to pay more taxes.[3]
[1] And there's no question that Elon Musk received help. One example: he was strapped for cash at one point recently and borrowed money from friends (had plenty of assets, not enough liquid assets)
[2] And even a libertarian would have to agree that the government should do that. Along with national defence, it is a public good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
[3] Whether that is the best way to pay for things is a separate debate I'm not interested in having here.
