🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3obj8b$blv@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Alan Anderson <aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>Philip Young <young@bunyip.ap.dg.com> wrote:
>>[...]Having eaten the seed corn, we wail and
>>gnash our teeth; but let's not pretend that this situation has come
>>about because of spending on investments for the future, such as the
>>space program. It's the neglect of such investments (and here I include
>>science R&D in general), and the lack of embedded structural solutions
>>in social programs, which has brought us to this unhappy pass in the
>>first place.

>>c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>>We have a tremendous debt because we didn't spend *enough* money!!?
>
>No, because we didn't INVEST enough money.  Pay attention.  The phrase
>"eating our seed corn" is a good soundbite; listen to it.

What is it you want to invest *MY* seed corn in? AT&T? Listening for
space aliens? Perpetual Motion machines? Cold Fusion? Bonds? Super
computers?

You don't *know* what the future holds. You don't know what the best
investment is.  No one does.
But when *I* invest my money I try to make a good profit to risk return.
When government invests my money it tries to win elections. Government
investment is SOLELY driven by politics.
And the political motivation for space "investment" is jobs for engineers
and dreams for several other people. Well I have my own dreams I'd
like to use my money for and I have my own job. You have no right to
take them.

Government "investment" is not likely to produce as much return on
that investment as private investment. Because they have different
incentives.

>>>Poppycock!  Hardware, and maybe wetware, to Mars; the money stays here.
>>>It goes to the parts suppliers, the systems integrators, the 1001
>>>companies who do business with the space program.  It means jobs to
>>>the people who work in those companies.  It filters through to the
>>
>>But don't you see. That is the same as giving it away to the poor.
>>(OK, we get neat stuff, folks have to work hard to get the money,
>>And the folks who get it get larger sums than the poor so they can
>>invest more.)
>
>Right.  We GET stuff.  Understand?  There is a real BENEFIT.

NO. We do get something for it. Giving to the poor *does* produce
wealth. It makes those who give it happy. And that *is* wealth.
We don't know how much it is because it wasn't voluntarily given.
There is no "stuff", but neither is there "stuff" in the wealth
of the services industry.

[see below for more on this]

>
>>All the things you listed are just work-fare. We could have these
>>guys digging ditches and filling them back up and the money
>>would still provide jobs and go to parts suppliers and such.
>
>No, no, no, no, no!  Digging and refilling ditches ONLY provides jobs
>to the diggers and their supervisors.  It does not PRODUCE anything;

And jobs for shovel makers and doctors and drug makers (for all the
injuries) And glove makers...

>there is no value added anywhere in the system.  The inevitable

Precisely my point. There's "No value added". But imagine a ditch
dug for a film production. They shoot the picture and the guys
fill the ditch back in. (I bet this *has* happened for some film.)
In this case there *was* value added.

[here's the below]
But perhaps I should have chosen a better example. We could have these
guys build pet rocks out of clay.
Then these guys could through the clay rocks high into
the air and let them fall back down and break into pieces.
Now here is some "stuff" that you can kick.
But there has been no value/wealth created because nobody
*wants* this enough to pay for it.

This is just like NASA.  They are putting a lot of people to work
doing *something* but we really don't know how valuable that
something is.

>administrative burden MUST be a net drain on the economy.

Bingo. Both are a net drain because people would prefer to do something
else with their money.

>>>universities who work on the scientific instruments, and helps to
>>
>>Sort of like "spinoffs" well why not make your intent
>>spinoffs in the first place?
>
>You can't be serious.  If your intent is to spin off stuff, then you're
>focusing in the wrong place.  You do something because that is what you

The original poster, >Philip Young <, was talking about spinoffs.
Perhaps a better retort would be like yours. Living generates spinoffs.
The money people would have spent on popcorn and video games instead
of NASA would have generated spinoffs as well.

-rex-

"Now is the time that men work quietly in the fields, and women weep
softly in the kitchen; the legislature is in session and no man's
property is safe." -- Daniel Webster
-- 

Work phone: (317) 451-0358  (8-322-0358)
Internet:   c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com   (Ick. It's suppose to be ahw.)