Hacker News Reader

Comment by p-e-w | Hacker News Reader

Why would capex need to be covered by income during a time of investment and infrastructure buildup? Did income from the Apollo program cover its expenses?

View on HN

Public investment was responsible for Apollo, so there was no expectation of profitability. Private investment is largely responsible for the AI buildout, and private investment isn't doing that for charity

If I give you 5 trillion dollars I want to get that back plus a percentage increase on top for my troubles, right? Government programs might run without the expectation of paying back taxpayers but investors are less generous.

Investors can be very generous if they see opportunities for market capture of the next big thing

Also they might not be as smart as they have made out to be. This time it seems they might be spending more to capture market than the market is worth.

Still, there are plenty of people who take their cut of the money on the way. So at least those people will be happy.

Because most of the capital assets depreciate over a period of 5 years or so so you have to make the expenditures back during that time or you can't book any revenue.

The Apollo program wasn’t for profit and if it was it never would have yielded a return on investment.

The Apollo program successfully beat the USSR after having been noticeably behind. As a proxy for conflict it was a great deal.

Sure, but none of this would be profitable in the context of a private enterprise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com