Milei alters Internet rules to make way for Elon Musk’s Starlink

[wrangler]

You are correct. That was just a secondary comment about competition.

Still my main point is that Starlink is a specific service that fills an important need in Argentina, even though as others mentioned, it is a small population. Chile has similar needs and has been using Starlink for at least the past two years $480 installation and $52 USD per month. I have mixed emotions since I am not a fan of the Starlink owner and it is unfortunate that they have been able to pollute the sky. Amazon will also start with similar low earth orbit satellites.

View attachment 9382

Well, guess what? The Chinese are also launching a service. The sky is going to be full of these satellites.

 

[antipodean]

Sound more like tax free lithium extraction with zero benefit for Argentina with producing anything with it here creating zero jobs.

Have you ever visited Australia?

 

[antipodean]

even in the USA, Starlink is so expensive that only the upper 10% or so of the population can afford it. And currently, less than a half percent of the US population has chosen to pay for it.
This is just the way it is.
I certainly would not pay that much, in any country.

You do realize that once upon flying in a jetliner was limited to the uppermost echelon of society where an average intercontinental ticket went for around $6.000+++ in today's money? Now it seems even a blue-collar retiree can afford to jet between North and South America once or twice a year. Just imagine if governments of the day had said "don't bother allocating land, investing in and building airports as they only serve the rich".

Starlink is a fairly new technology and as demand grows, competition grows and prices start to drop, it will connect more people and businesses (you know, those things that employ people) in communities that are today relatively disconnected to due the prohibitive costs of installing fiberoptic networks in remote and sparsely populated areas and even offering basic internet at affordable prices today to these people.

 

[Reply Guy]

Current cost of Starlink for the smallest capacity lowest price plan -
$600USD for equipment up front.
$120USD a month, subject to future increases.
Like many Milei proclamations, this one will only help a very tiny number of the ultra rich.
Estancias will have Starlink.

Correct. Most people live in cities where starlink doesn't make any sense.

It's only really viable for areas that are off the grid. Rural areas with poor internet connections, and you need to make a decent salary. I wouldn't say you need to be ultra rich to afford $120 per month.

Like any new technology it will be expensive, and as the technology improves and becomes more ubiquitous, price may come down. At one time computers were only for the rich, now every person in a villa has a computer in their pocket.

Overall I'd say it's a good thing, it just doesn't impact many people.

 

[Rich One]

Correct. Most people live in cities where starlink doesn't make any sense.

It's only really viable for areas that are off the grid. Rural areas with poor internet connections, and you need to make a decent salary. I wouldn't say you need to be ultra rich to afford $120 per month.

Like any new technology it will be expensive, and as the technology improves and becomes more ubiquitous, price may come down. At one time computers were only for the rich, now every person in a villa has a computer in their pocket.

Overall I'd say it's a good thing, it just doesn't impact many people.

If it costs US$52 in Chile with a smaller population, in Argentina may be lower perhaps US$40.. IMHO

 

[Jerry Nelson]

"Even the deployment of Starlink would result in jobs and tax revenue."

Here we go again. Maybe when some people become expats they forget about the reality as demonstrated in America.

Infrastructure projects have the potential to create jobs and stimulate the economy. According to a report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, an infrastructure plan may create or save 15 million jobs over 10 years and would increase the share of infrastructure jobs from 11% to 14% of all jobs in the United States.

Infrastructure projects can have direct impacts, such as GDP growth, job creation, increased income, and better health, as well as indirect impacts, such as ripple effects throughout the supply chain.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in Illinois is expected to create jobs and bolster the nation's economic growth by investing in critical infrastructure programs.

A report by the Penn Wharton Budget Model shows that public infrastructure investment boosts the productivity of private capital and labor, leading to higher output.

However, infrastructure projects often take months or years to complete, and targeting infrastructure spending effectively to meet macroeconomic goals is frequently problematic.

Additionally, the infrastructure sector struggles to recruit and hold onto current infrastructure workers, which limits the pool of talent to take on existing needs, let alone expand the pool of talent to take on new tasks.

Can Infrastructure Spending Really Stimulate the Economy?

Public infrastructure spending is a popular policy tool intended to boost the economy, but it may only be effective in certain circumstances. Learn when it works.

www.investopedia.com

Seizing the U.S. infrastructure opportunity: Investing in current and future workers

www.brookings.edu

 

[wrangler]

"Even the deployment of Starlink would result in jobs and tax revenue."

Here we go again. Maybe when some people become expats they forget about the reality as demonstrated in America.

Infrastructure projects have the potential to create jobs and stimulate the economy. According to a report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, an infrastructure plan may create or save 15 million jobs over 10 years and would increase the share of infrastructure jobs from 11% to 14% of all jobs in the United States.

Infrastructure projects can have direct impacts, such as GDP growth, job creation, increased income, and better health, as well as indirect impacts, such as ripple effects throughout the supply chain.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in Illinois is expected to create jobs and bolster the nation's economic growth by investing in critical infrastructure programs.

A report by the Penn Wharton Budget Model shows that public infrastructure investment boosts the productivity of private capital and labor, leading to higher output.

However, infrastructure projects often take months or years to complete, and targeting infrastructure spending effectively to meet macroeconomic goals is frequently problematic.

Additionally, the infrastructure sector struggles to recruit and hold onto current infrastructure workers, which limits the pool of talent to take on existing needs, let alone expand the pool of talent to take on new tasks.

Can Infrastructure Spending Really Stimulate the Economy?

Public infrastructure spending is a popular policy tool intended to boost the economy, but it may only be effective in certain circumstances. Learn when it works.

www.investopedia.com

Seizing the U.S. infrastructure opportunity: Investing in current and future workers

www.brookings.edu

Jobs for whom, Americans, or the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have been allowed in through the southern border? Are you comparing the United States to Argentina? What might work there, if it still does, may not work here.

 

[Jerry Nelson]

Jobs for whom, Americans, or the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have been allowed in through the southern border? Are you comparing the United States to Argentina? What might work there, if it still does, may not work here.

That's the point. "It" doesn't work there. Just take a look at all the times people have claimed a pipeline would create jobs and boost the economy. Here are just two examples: XL Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline. The jobs for Starlink may probably be very similar. There is lots of work during installation, only to see the jobs dry up when the project is completed. It takes different skills to build something for the servers that are needed than to keep those servers working. What do you want to do? Hire a cartonero?

 

[NomadTrader]

That's the point. "It" doesn't work there. Just take a look at all the times people have claimed a pipeline would create jobs and boost the economy. Here are just two examples: XL Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline. The jobs for Starlink may probably be very similar. There is lots of work during installation, only to see the jobs dry up when the project is completed. It takes different skills to build something for the servers that are needed than to keep those servers working. What do you want to do? Hire a cartonero?

Jerry,

I believe the argument for pipelines creating jobs does have a few components: the short term jobs created during the construction process and the long term, downstream jobs created in industries which have greater access to lower cost petroleum/ natural gas resources. There are significant petroleum products industries that make economic sense in the Louisiana/Houston region where these resources could get refined and processed.

The Keystone XL pipeline was designed to increase Canadian heavy oil exports to the gulf region for export to our friends and allies around the world. Europe could certainly use those resources right now. So it is true a chunk of those jobs would have been in say... Germany or Japan. But I suspect that manufacturers in Louisiana would have made use of those resources as well.

However, the reason why there were no jobs beyond "the jobs that 'dry up' when the project is completed" is because the Biden Administration stepped in a cancelled the project after it was more than half done.

The Keystone XL pipeline failed to create jobs because Joe Biden shut it down. In a similar vein, there are no 'downstream jobs' from the Mountain Valley Pipeline because it isn't completed yet.

It seems strange to me that you would make an argument that pipelines don't create jobs and use the example of a pipeline that was shut down for political reasons and then rail against it for not creating jobs! The other example you sited is not yet completed, so... unsurprisingly...it hasn't yet created any downstream jobs either.

 

[Jerry Nelson]

Jerry,

I believe the argument for pipelines creating jobs does have a few components: the short term jobs created during the construction process and the long term, downstream jobs created in industries which have greater access to lower cost petroleum/ natural gas resources. There are significant petroleum products industries that make economic sense in the Louisiana/Houston region where these resources could get refined and processed.

The Keystone XL pipeline was designed to increase Canadian heavy oil exports to the gulf region for export to our friends and allies around the world. Europe could certainly use those resources right now. So it is true a chunk of those jobs would have been in say... Germany or Japan. But I suspect that manufacturers in Louisiana would have made use of those resources as well.

However, the reason why there were no jobs beyond "the jobs that 'dry up' when the project is completed" is because the Biden Administration stepped in a cancelled the project after it was more than half done.

The Keystone XL pipeline failed to create jobs because Joe Biden shut it down. In a similar vein, there are no 'downstream jobs' from the Mountain Valley Pipeline because it isn't completed yet.

It seems strange to me that you would make an argument that pipelines don't create jobs and use the example of a pipeline that was shut down for political reasons and then rail against it for not creating jobs! The other example you sited is not yet completed, so... unsurprisingly...it hasn't yet created any downstream jobs either.

That's funny. Naive as hell, but funny.

Mountain Valley Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org