🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D8q8JA.Fx3@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <3panpc$c1@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
>rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>>In article <LFLekx.0212@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET>,
>>Len Lekx <LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET> wrote:
>>>In article <3p0cht$sil@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>>
>>you are producing more than you are consuming. Private enterprise
>>doesn't think that there is a profit in what NASA does. Hence the market
>>has decided that it consumes more than it produces.
>
>The space industry requires a huge initial investment.  Most companies are
>satisfied to pay by the shot rather than build their own rockets.  Someone
>has to put those satellites up.

So do the air, rail, sea and auto transport industries. Free people seeking
profit are willing to invest vast sums if they think they've got a good
chance of being worth while. If people don't think it has a good
enough chance of success *WHY* should they be made to invest in it?

I pay for the research into building planes
somewhere in the price of my airline ticket. Those who want to launch
satellites should do the same. And they should pass the costs right
on down to me on my phone bill. If I think it costs too much I'll find
another way to communicate. How else can we decide if a venture is worth
while? By political decree?


>><spending 600 billion on NASA would mean a larger NASA work force and a
>>smaller private sector workforce.>
>
>No.  It would mean a larger NASA work force and a larger private sector
>workforce to support it.  NASA contracts out a lot of it's work to private
>aerospace firms like MacDonnell-Douglas, Spar, etc.  Someone has got to
>supply them with tools, raw materials, computers, etc.

Again, the number of humans is *FINITE*!!!!

>>>> 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.
>>
>>But are they producing something more valuable than what they *use*
>>to be producing? Remember, they can't do both.
>
>Ahhh, but others can step in to take over their previous jobs.  Remember we
>do have around 11% unemployment.  

So many fallacies, so little time. I assume you're talking Canada?
U.S. unemployment is about 5.5%. This is low for our current system.
Because of government debt and profligacy any lower and we risk serious
inflation (just ask the Federal Reserve or even Bill Clinton).
Canada is in a similar (but worse) position. (But they have room to play
with)

Now, the even bigger fallacy. One person can do a job just as well
as another. This is untrue. The vast majority of the people who are
unemployed have *fewer* valuable skills than the people who are employed.
Thus if we "take out" a person currently holding a job and replace them
with someone who is unemployed on average the replacement won't be able
to do the job as well.

><deletia>
>>>    This is a silly argument - of course there would be cars.  Heck, you
>>>might
>>
>>How! Without the 100 people on my floor of this building GM couldn't
>>build cars. If all these people worked for NASA they wouldn't work
>>for Delco.

>Yeah, you'll have real problems filling all those empty spaces.  I can't 
>think of anyone who'd want to work in a nice unionized workplace and getting
>$xx.xx/hr.  >:))))) for the humour impaired.

The United States has a *shortage* of skilled workers. I have seen
studies lamenting the fact that we will have a serious shortage of
engineers within 10 years. If you have any software/embedded systems
experience please apply at Delco (insert disclaimer to protect my butt here)
We are having trouble getting them. In fact I'm going to a new company
in a few days and they would *also* like to hear from you.

>>The number of humans in the country (and the world) is *FINITE*. If you
>>take just *ONE* of them out then there will be fewer things produced in
>>the world.
>
>If you take *ONE* of them out, there will be *thousands* clamouring for his/
>her spot.

Perhaps, but will they be as qualified?
If you hire all the engineers at Delco to work for NASA then you will
need to replace them with folks who have associates degrees or technicians,
And then you will need to replace those former technicians with high school
math majors, And you'll have to replace the burger flipping jobs of those
high schoolers with Bums off the street. At every step down the line you
will have less qualified people than you had before.

So, the person who replaces our mythical "One" will (on average) be less
qualified and produce less. And who will replace the position our
replacement use to have?

Imagine a convention of the top 500 Physicist in the world. Imagine
some tragedy (a bomb) killing them all in one swoop. Now sooner or later
all those physicist jobs *will* be filled, Heck pretend we could fill
them instantly.  Wouldn't it still be a net loss? The new physicists
wouldn't be the "top" physicists.

-rex-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "No man is an island, entire of itself;  every man is a piece of
    the continent, a part of the main;  if a clod be washed away by the sea,
    Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if
    a manor of thy friends or of thine own were;  any man's death
    diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind."  -- John Donne


-- 

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