🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LFLekx.022c@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET>,
Len Lekx <LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET> wrote:
>In article <3panpc$c1@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>
>> >    The warm fuzzy you get from giving money to others is not transferrable,
>> >and returns nothing.
>> But it doesn't really consume anything does it? The $100 I give to another
>> person can still be used by the other person. (But this other person may
>> decide not to *produce* anything because they no longer need to.)
>
>    It consumes YOUR money.  (^_^)

Now we're getting somewhere. So does NASA. It consumes your money and mine.
I'm not defending welfare. I'm just showing it's relation to NASA.

But I could also say that my money is not "consumed" It is *transferred*.
(redistribution of wealth sound familiar?)
Nothing at all is consumed except the (considerable) bureaucratic overhead.
No ones time is wasted, no raw materials are consumed.

While NASA consumes the time of many, many workers, and a quite a lot of
natural resources (metal, fuel...).

>> >    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.
>
>    The unwritten assumption here is that the job would be occupied by someone
>now receiving Welfare payments... producing nothing.

Why would they? They could go out and get jobs right now. The local
Wendy's is offering $7 an hour. More importantly *could* they?
The average person on welfare could not perform my job. They don't
have the education or experience.

>> 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.
>
>    No - somebody ELSE would work for Delco... just not you.  (^_-)

Two things. 1>They (on average) wouldn't do it as well. (remember we're
talking about taking almost every engineer in the American economy and
putting them to work at NASA.)
2> They would have to come from somewhere. Who would replace *them*?

>whistles, not making radical design changes.  Auto manufacturers did not look
>into electric cars until a California bylaw threatened to cut them off at the
>knees.  (^_-)

Rightly so. They wouldn't build Edsels again unless the government threatened
to beat them up either.

Electric cars cost more to produce don't work as well and actually seem
to pollute more.  (Batteries are very toxic)

Pollution needs to have an economic cost assigned to it so that we can
let the market decide the optimal course.

>> So the U.S can increase spending and taxes by $585 billion dollars and
>> funnel it to research while the rest of the world builds better
>> cars with the knowledge gained from NASA research? Because there won't
>
>    Sure.  It's called 'selling Technology'.  We do the research, sell the
>knowledge to other countries (several times over, thus making up what was
>invested), and let them innovate with it.

???? If it is so profitable, why don't you do it yourself?
You really must not think that it *is* profitable because the only
way you can think of funding it is through taxation.

Bye.
It's been fun folks. My new job doesn't have net access yet.

-rex-

"We hold that what one man can not morally do,
 ten men can not morally do, nor a million.
 And government, which represents many millions of men,
 can not morally do."
-- 

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