That reminded me the explanation of why Space X could reduce the costs of making a rocket by fractions.

Elon said that the problem with NASA was that they had sub-contractors, that had sub-contractors ad. infinitum. So each one of these sub-contractors had to make a profit. SpaceX try to make everything in the building process.

NASA, Boeing, etc. optimize for a different cost structure than Space X. Space X wants to build cheap rockets, Boeing wants to build products that will be funded by governments. This means Boeing has subcontractors in various voting districts in the US (military contracts) or around the world (other government / commercial).

If some rule said Congress couldn't pick projects based on what districts got the work (good luck with that), then Boeing would change its model.

No, SpaceX wants to build cost-efficient rockets, that's completely different than cheap. But anyway, what you're saying is that Boeing want's to suck money from the government however it can, while SpaceX wants to actually build stuff? You are just confirming the comment you replied to.

I meant no insult with "cheap" and thought it positive.

The business model Boeing is operating under is different. You can disparage it, but it is a fact of live for any defense contractor or airplane manufacture in the last 50 years of the 1900's. Boeing wants to build stuff too, and its engineers are very good.

SpaceX didn't grow up under these conditions. It will be interesting if they have to change after a few trips to DC.

SpaceX is being funded by governments. Oh wait, no, hum, many of its customers are governments. How is that different than Boeing's space business?

The amount SpaceX is taking from government contracts is a small percentage of Boeing's business.