🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LFLekx.01z2@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET>,
Len Lekx <LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET> wrote:
>In article <3oleh7$2e7@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>
>> >    Unlike welfare, which pays people to do nothing...  (^_^)
>> Doesn't welfare pay the salary of the people on it. And don't they
>
>    If you want to call it a 'salary', IMHO the person getting the money should
>be producing something of value to the person giving them the money.

But astronauts and welfare recipients aren't. *I'm* giving them the
money and they aren't giving me anything that I value enough to give
the money they have taken.
Just as if the astronauts were building horse buggy whips. Sure they're
making something, but it has no value to the person they got the money
from.
Remember value like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

>The person
>who sits around, does nothing, and gets money is a leech - the person who goes
>out, makes something, and gives it to someone else in exchange for money is
>useful.

Absolutely correct. But astronauts aren't doing this.
Even a person who does a lot and gets money from people who didn't want
to give it to him is a leech.

>> And the welfare people can even do other things with their time. They could
>> read and gain more knowledge, They could clean their home, fix their car
>> fix their own meals be there to raise their children.
>> Heck they could even get a second job!
>
>    But they don't - there's no incentive.  Why do all that work when the
>government gives you more than you'd make anyway?  It's HARD to hold a job.
>(^_-)

Well, *many* welfare recipients do work (besides raising children and cleaning
their homes) Because they have free time they get jobs in the underground
economy - mowing lawns or dealing drugs.

Just like NASA the money spent on welfare is done so for a reason. The "value"
we get is relief from a guilty conscience and hopefully a reduction in
crime. And the money *IS* going back into the economy just like all the NASA
spending someone recently glorified.

Now I agree with you. Welfare spending is counter-productive. It allows
people to work less. It creates a culture of dependency and actually seems
to *increase* crime (despite the desires of its proponents), it encourages
people to do exactly what it pays them to do, nothing. It does produce
value: relief from a guilty conscience.

But NASA has created a culture of dependency (how many companies would
fail without it?) It also encourages people to divert resources to
space en devours. It does produce value: entertainment, & knowledge.

Both NASA and welfare have negative effects. Welfare (and other transfer
payments) are so *HUGE* that the side effects are very noticeable.

What if NASA were allotted $600 billion? We might land on Mars, heck
try to terraform the thing. BUT at what expense? I would most likely be
working for NASA and therefore your car (notice the address) wouldn't
run as well. My nephew, a math teacher, would instead have gone into
engineering and your kids would be dumber. Scientist doing medical
research would be working on life support systems instead. Video game
developers would be doing flight simulators. The developers at Intel
would be designing space robot arms. Bill Gates would have made
SOS (Shuttle Operating System) instead of DOS... (Wait a minute.
maybe it wouldn't *all* be counter productive)

The counterproductive nature of NASA would be more obvious, just like
the counter productive nature of welfare is obvious today.

What have we given up because of the resources that were diverted to
an endevour that could not sustain itself in the market place?
Economically these are called "opportunity costs".

-rex-
-- 

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