🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3p0cht$sil@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:

> Yes, I do consider it valuable. I just don't give it as much value as the
> money they took from me to pay for it. I never said I didn't value it.

    NASA currently uses (If I recall the figures correctly...) 1/5 of 1 cent of
your tax dollar.  You consider that too much?

> >feeling inside - and even if I did, how do I quantify it?  If I give more, will
> That is what a free market is all about. The same question can be
> applied to NASA. "How do I quantify [the value I receive from NASA]?"

    There is a difference.  What NASA provides - in the knowledge it obtains, and
devices developed - can be transferred to other sectors, which can then use the
information to provide saleable articles to the marketplace... thus bringing
money _into_ the loop.

    The warm fuzzy you get from giving money to others is not transferrable, and
returns nothing.

> But that new person has to come from somewhere else. This is *not* good for

    But it is - since that person is MAKING money, not TAKING it.

> And an economy *is* the "things" people do and make. Money is just
> a good form of accounting. When people do and make things that no
> one else values they are not contributing to the economy.

    Which is why Welfare is such a bad idea... you're paying people to _not_
contribute to the economy.  NASA is at least trying.

> Sure there might be jobs and there might be work, but there wouldn't
> be any *CARS*. People would be working but they wouldn't be producing
> the goods and services that other folks *want*.

    This is a silly argument - of course there would be cars.  Heck, you might
even get an IMPROVED car... one that burns hydrogen instead of gas, or one that
uses electricity efficiently, or is far more crash-resistant, FAR earlier than if
we simply waited for the auto-makers to develop them.

> I really didn't expect anyone to take the position that spending $600
> billion dollars on NASA like projects would be good for the economy.

    Well, it's better than spending nothing on it.  (^_^)

> We're talking 10% of the GNP! Which 10% of the national economy do you
> want to do without? Health care? The auto industry?
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
                           |- I'm healthy.  (^_-)

    The auto industry is a separate entity from government agencies, and as such
is not controlled by government investment - it would exist even if we spent
nothing on Welfare.

> You're talking about taking the best doctors, lawyers, teachers,
> medical researchers and auto designers and making them work in
> space industries. If we do that we will have *less* of everything *else*.

    We're not talking about MAKING *anyone* transfer into the space industry.  No
doubt, some will feel as you do, and remain in the positions they're in.  Others
would go to space, and make discoveries nobody would even dream possible.  Yet
others would go into teaching others ... just as what's being done today.  (Not
all medical doctors work in hospitals, you know.  ^_-)

> But there wouldn't be anybody *LEFT* to apply the knowledge to make
> the existing products better OR to *build* them.

    You MUST be kidding!  Out of a global population of five billion, we wouldn't
have people to do earthbound activities?  Get real.

> NASA:
> 1)First you can not prove that it has "payed back" more than was invested.

    Better weather information, cheap long distance communications, TV from the
other side of the world?  If NASA had not provided the means, none of these ends
would have been realized.

> 2)Next you certainly can't prove that it will do so in the future.

    This is nonsensical - nobody can predict the future.  The market may crash
tomorrow, and your stocks will be worth nothing.

> 3)What NASA "invests" in is determined by politics.

    Granted.  It's difficult to respond to a market when your bosses are
concerned with image.

> 2) I can't tell you what my current investments will produce.

    Neither can NASA.

> 3) But I *can* tell you that what I invest in is determined by what kind
>    of return I can get.

    So you invest in things that have a high risk, so you can get a high return?
This is the ENTIRE basis of the space program... it's a very risky venture, but
there ARE potentials for extremely high returns.  (Look at ComSat.  ^_-)

    There are people who are investing in space industries - else the market for
launch systems wouldn't be as competitive as it is.  (^_^)

    The problem is that NASA is a government agency.  If it were left to make
money on its' own, it would be more responsive to the people who turn to it for
services.

--

Len Lekx                IRC Nick: Nammo | Television does not honour tradition.
InterNet: LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET | Most times, it does not recognize it.
FidoNet:  1:250/742.2@fidonet.org       | Therefore, it can only destroy.