🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh you silly man!  How many jobs does Canada's participation in various 
space ventures actually contribute to the economy?  Most of these 
industries are very specialized and employ but a handfull of fancy 
scientists.  While I realise it's important for fancy scientists to have 
somewhere to work, I really believe there are so many more useful ways to 
employ these people, especially given that the government has to 
continually support the programs.  And manned spaceflight?  That appears 
to me to be about the biggest waste of anybodies money around...just 
about everything that we could possibly want to do in space could be 
accomplished with out people; they are significantly more expensive to 
hurtle up there, are they not, than various form s of unmanned vehicles. 
I can see why you'd be concerned, being employed in the field, but your 
concern is similar to me being concerned about a reduction in the nuber 
of civil service jobs because it might make it harder for me to get a 
job.  Perhaps you should seek job retraining to adapt to the real world, 
as the rest of Canadians are being told to do.
-- 
Stu, King of CSCSS
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca

"Sara dear, our carriage awaits!"

Stuart Croall <umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Oh you silly man!  How many jobs does Canada's participation in various 
>space ventures actually contribute to the economy?  ...

Oh you silly man!  :-)  Since when must the value of everything be
measured in terms of number of jobs created?

A lot of the value of the space program is in technology spinoffs; you'd
be surprised at how much "everyday" technology nowadays was first
developed for the space program.  As examples, a lot of stuff in the
areas of micro-electronics and computers, medical telemetry,
communications, and the like were needed to put man on the moon, and
later became the basis for consumer goods.

There are also the intangibles, like having a goal to work towards, and
having something to be proud of afterwards.
-- 
Anthony DeBoer             A: "The Net goes right around the world."
adb@herboid.reptiles.org   B: "Wouldn't want to haul them buggers in on a
uunet!geac!herboid!adb      cold Sunday in February!"
                           -- CBC Air Farce explaining Internet to fishermen

Ken, ken, ken...what am I going to do with you, silly man?  Let's move 
forward.  Finally you see the light...blah blah blah...maybe you think 
Mike has seen some kind of light, but is it the only light?  You couldn't 
see the light if it was the headlights of an 18 wheeler right before it 
ran you over...

You're right.  I just should've admitted it right off the top.  All hail 
the god of...well...everything!  Ken, you can have my throne.  I warmed 
it all up for you.
-- 
Stu, King of CSCSS
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca

"Sara dear, our carriage awaits!"

In article <3o8fen$9uh@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:
 
|> Leaving the implications that social programs are a money sink?

Many of them certainly are.  Some of them may be desirable on grounds
of compassion, but they often make rotten financial investments, and
as such are the major cause of government deficits.

Why?  Because the poorer you are, the lower your tax rate.  Transfer
money to the poor, and very little of that finds its way back directly
to the public purse.  Poor people don't save much (savings -> lower
interest rates -> lower prices, more jobs, lower deficit) and don't
invest much (investment -> wealth creation).

This is not true of all social programs.  Education, for example, has
an immense long-term payback to society.  I'm also inclined to believe
that programs which provide opportunities (as opposed to income) to the disadvantaged are a net benefit, since these programs enable the
beneficiaries to participate in wealth creation; but I can't prove this
point.

In general, programs which are palliative (feed the hungry man) are, as
you put it, a "money sink".  They can be worse than no program at all,
since the hungry man now has no incentive to care for himself.  What
did pigeons do for a living before there were parks?  Tomorrow, the guy
is hungry again, needs another feed, and so on ...  You may support
such programs even so, as a matter of the rights of all members of a
civilized society, but the grounds would have to be compassion; you
can't kid yourself that they're anything but a money sink.

You, and we, have a debt problem because our governments, in their
zeal to redistribute wealth, have neglected wealth creation; so we
have less to redistribute.  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.

There's no way out, except to plant next year's crop.
  
|> 
|> Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to 
|> mars? 

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
universities who work on the scientific instruments, and helps to
provide a better education for the students.  When you're old enough
to attend one, should you choose to, you might see some of this
activity if you're in the appropriate faculties.  In the meantime,
perhaps your school can put you onto a work experience program to
give you a taste of the fun and the satisfaction of working on a
project which is both personally stimulating and of real benefit to
society.  I'm sure there are professionals on the net who could
give your teacher/adviser some ideas if you want to pursue this. 

-- 
Philip R. Young        |             young@bunyip.ap.dg.com
                       |       Philip_Young@dgap.ceo.dg.com

 "It is the lurid intermixture of the two that produces the
  illuminating blaze of the infernal regions."

  - Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Rappaccini's Daughter"

In article <D80Gtw.HyA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
(Alan Scott) wrote:

>I must respectfully disagree, oh disillusioned one.
>Perhaps these might jog your memory:
>TV
>microwaves
>automobiles
>electricity
>radio
>flight
>penicillin
>
>The way I see it, every aspect of life presently is conncected in some form
>with science and technology.  Without S&T, I would not be able to read and
>respond to your message in this forum.

OK, maybe not the majority, but there must be one or two billion people in
the Third World that have no access to any of the items you listed. And that's
a large share of the human population. As to the invention you and I are
using to conduct our argument, the computer, I don't believe that much
more than three or four percent of humans have ever used one.

The point I was trying to make was by no means against science and technology.
I intended to show how disproportionately its fruits are divided up, which must
be a cause for some concern. With respect to the second half of my
argument, the one on contribution, I don't believe any argument can be
made against it.
Right now, research and devlopment of technology involves very few people, and
surely if a greater number were to make contributions, the pace of
progress would increase accordingly.

-- 
-> "I am a seeker of truth, though I do not know what truth is.
->  I suspect there are many truths, and therefore do not trust
->  anyone who claims his is the only one." 
->  Louis L'Amour
->
-> "I come from downtown,
->  Born ready for you,
->  Armed with will and determination,
->  And grace, too"
->  The Tragically Hip
-> 
-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
->
-> sdecont2@bnr.ca

: : 	When will I get to the moon in a few days?  How much $$$$$$ do I 
: : need to spend before it's going to cost me a forutne to buy a ticket and 
: : rent a room?

:  How much might it cost your grandchild not to be able to get to the moon or
:  beyond?

	Yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand.  I believe in space 
exploration, I believe in someday being able to visit the moon, but the 
financial situation needs to be addressed also.
	This is similar to the recentr budget.  Martin could have cut 
EVERYTHING to balance the year's books, but it's not socially just to cut 
welfare completely, nor is it socially just to leave it in the state it 
currently is (in my opinion, that is).  This is the same way I feel about 
sdpace exploration.  There needs to be TEMPORARY cutbacks, nothing else.

: : 	I believe in funding research for satelittes, space stations, manned 
: : voyages to the moon, and unmanned voyages to planets in our solar system.  
: : These missions are relatively cheap.  I can't understand why a country would 
: : want to waste so much money, however, on manned voyages and the like to 
: : placesother than the moon, when we can't feasibly produce a habitate 
: : (other than a cramped space station) to begin with.

:  There would be a big "yet" involved in your hypothesis. I am thankful
:  you were not one of Isabella's or Ferdinand's advisors about 500 years
:  ago. Else, you wouldn't be here expousing your opinion.

	They were looking for a faster route to the Pacific ---> profit, 
just as Canada is doing with space exploration.  In my opinion, (this 
is my statement here, folks!), I believe Canada should make TEMPORARY 
cuts to the space programme.  Manned voyages to Mars, and the like should 
be in Canada's future, but not it's immediate concern.


: : 	I feel like an ass, I think I've beena arguing about the wrong 
: : thing for a long time now.

: Finally, you see the light.

Not really, I've only been arguing something other than what I thought.
Immiediate funding to satelitties, missions to the moon, etc -- YES
Immidiate funding to manned voyages to Mars - NO.
-- 
Mike Steele			| St. Catharines -- Canada's Canal City
msteele@freenet.niagara.com	|              Go Leafs!       

In article <D82DL3.G6A@freenet.niagara.com>, msteele@freenet.niagara.com
(Mike Steele) wrote:

>: :     When will I get to the moon in a few days?  How much $$$$$$ do I 
>: : need to spend before it's going to cost me a forutne to buy a ticket and 
>: : rent a room?
>
>:  How much might it cost your grandchild not to be able to get to the moon or
>:  beyond?
>
>        Yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand.  I believe in space 
>exploration, I believe in someday being able to visit the moon, but the 
>financial situation needs to be addressed also.
>        This is similar to the recentr budget.  Martin could have cut 
>EVERYTHING to balance the year's books, but it's not socially just to cut 
>welfare completely, nor is it socially just to leave it in the state it 
>currently is (in my opinion, that is).  This is the same way I feel about 
>sdpace exploration.  There needs to be TEMPORARY cutbacks, nothing else.

Speaking of "temporary" measures,

Income tax in Canada was first introduced "temporarily" during World War I.
When the government realized its potential for pulling in dough, it made it
permanent.

Morale: "temporary" and partial solutions to complex problems may be even 
        worse than no solutions at all.

-- 
-> "I am a seeker of truth, though I do not know what truth is.
->  I suspect there are many truths, and therefore do not trust
->  anyone who claims his is the only one." 
->  Louis L'Amour
->
-> "I come from downtown,
->  Born ready for you,
->  Armed with will and determination,
->  And grace, too"
->  The Tragically Hip
-> 
-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
->
-> sdecont2@bnr.ca

Mike Steele (msteele@freenet.niagara.com) wrote:
: : Hmmm. I'm sure that Columbus's crew must have had some misgivings about
: : falling off the end the the planet as they knew it. Knowledge is the key,
: : and limiting future exploration will only make this worse.

: 	I'm not saying we should cut funding althogether! That's the last 
: thing I'd say....  For the time being, funding shound be cut to a more 
: reaonsable level

But, at this very moment, huge projects are underway that are international
in nature. Canada has been left behind or out several times before as
shosrt-sightedness caused us to cancel or reduce technologically advanced
projects. We have both the experience and, more importantly, the people to
excel in this field. It may be expensive, but who knows how costly no or
reduced participation may be. 

: : : 	Every dollar spent generate a dollar? Huh? Explain that one again 
: : : please...
: : e
: :  Easy, if it's back in the system, someone esle is using it. Thus, it is not
: :  wasted, it is producind something for someone else.


: 	If you give me a dollar to buy some candy, one dollar is not 
: produced.  Along the way, taxes, wages, rent and other expenses are paid, 
: which are divvied up amongst many entities.  The own of the candy store 
: will not get one dollar for the candy, he or she will receive 
: substantially less.

No, but the taxman gets some, the guy at the electrical company, etc. Produced
may have been the wrong word on my part. But, what is certain is that spent
money generates wealth for someone else, which trickles down, etc, etc.

: : : :     Compare this with money spent on welfare, UI, excessive health care,
: : : :     plus a few other things.
: : : 	
: : : 	Health care is the last thng that should be cut.  I like the fact 
: : : that I pay taxes to keep me healthy.

: : What aboutnthe other things listed, some of which are discrimminatory and
: : unfair in thier very implementation.

: 	I agree.  I think Canada needs major welfare and UI reform, but I 
: don't want to start another topic in this thread.

Ditto.

Ken


: -- 
: Mike Steele			| St. Catharines -- Canada's Canal City
: msteele@freenet.niagara.com	|              Go Leafs!       

>Speaking of "temporary" measures,

>Income tax in Canada was first introduced "temporarily" during World War I.
>When the government realized its potential for pulling in dough, it made it
>permanent.

>Morale: "temporary" and partial solutions to complex problems may be even 
>        worse than no solutions at all.

>-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
>->
>-> sdecont2@bnr.ca

That is perhaps the most astute and important observation I've ever seen 
made here.  Now how 'bout we all call it a draw and go out and get 
wasted.  Drinks are on me.  I really need a stiff drink!

No I'm not a drunk, and I doubt I'll be drinking for a log while.  Just 
being silly and expressing my life's frustrations...HI EVERYONE!!!!
-- 
Stu, King of CSCSS
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca

"Sara dear, our carriage awaits!"

This is in response to a very long piece by Philip Young...I didn't feel 
like editing.

I realise that our governments have not been doing enough to create 
wealth and employment and various other indusrious sort of things.  
Originally, my argument against the space program had nothing to do with 
funds (or very little) and I was mainly concerned with the attention 
given to hose programs by government as opposed to more earth-bound 
programs to create wealth.  I still don't like the idea of the constant 
need to expand our frontiers to feed our ever increasing lust for wealth 
and material standard of living.  I realise there are plenty of arguments 
against my position, and that space exploration is a very viable and 
impressive way to generate wealth for Canada's technology industries and 
provide resources for the future.  I just don't like it, and I'm not sure 
I can explain why.  I feel very indifferent to this debate right now, and 
frankly just want a pair of tickets to a jets game.  I guess that means 
I'm going to be unfulfilled for quite a while...

Anyway, feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.  Here, I'll give you a 
topic: the post-modern critique is neither post-modern, or a critique.  
Discuss.

-- 
Stu, King of CSCSS
umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca

"Sara dear, our carriage awaits!"

In article <3o6m87$5os@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
bromley blair pat <bromley@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:
>
>>>>    The only argument people need to go to space is the same one
>>>>    used for any explorer / adventurer:  Because it's there.
>>>>
>>>>    If you think otherwise, you may as well pack everything up and
>>>>    go home.  
>       


>    Actually, it is pretty much cut and dried.  People are just afraid.
>    The universe is to explore for those who want to, and those who
>    want to do it can afford it.  Those who explore will benefit.

NO! Those who want to do it CAN'T afford it. If they could afford
it they wouldn't need to tax all the other people who don't want to do
it to *pay* for the venture.


>    If there is some military stragetic benefit, then that's the icing
>    on the cake for societies who want greater security.  So far,
>    space has helped unify people more than separate them.  

>>>>    People have a simple choice:  move forward, or backward.  
>
>>We choose the status quo every year come election time.  Is there really 
>>only two choices?
>   
>   No, you choose the status quo.  In truth, the status quo is really
>   moving backwards.  If you stagnate, you regress.  It's like running
>   on a treadmill.

You act so indignant. This guy doesn't want to "go to the stars" so
you say, "Fine. We'll leave you here you sniveling coward. We will
reap the rewards of space exploration. Lead, follow or get out of the
way."

But you can't do it without him, or me. You need our money and you really
don't care how you get it. You just want to pursue your goals and you
don't want him to whine about it.

You *think* your goal is worthy and noble and you ridicule him because
he doesn't share it. But those who disagree with your goal aren't so lowly
that you don't want them to *pay* for it.


-rex-
-- 

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

In article <3obhl6$5a7@fdcap2.ap.dg.com>,
Philip Young <young@bunyip.ap.dg.com> wrote:
>In article <3o8fen$9uh@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Croall) writes:
> 
>|> Leaving the implications that social programs are a money sink?
>

>Why?  Because the poorer you are, the lower your tax rate.  Transfer
>money to the poor, and very little of that finds its way back directly
>to the public purse.  Poor people don't save much (savings -> lower

Increasing the contents of the public purse (government) is really not
the goal.  Isn't the goal increasing the purse of a whole bunch of
*individuals*?

>interest rates -> lower prices, more jobs, lower deficit) and don't
>invest much (investment -> wealth creation).


>In general, programs which are palliative (feed the hungry man) are, as
>you put it, a "money sink".  They can be worse than no program at all,
>since the hungry man now has no incentive to care for himself.  What

>You, and we, have a debt problem because our governments, in their
>zeal to redistribute wealth, have neglected wealth creation; so we

Government can not create wealth. By there actions they can
permit, or not permit others to create wealth.

To see this you need to find out what wealth *is*. Money is not really
wealth. It is simply a great book keeping method for keeping track
of wealth. How do you know if you have *created* wealth? Wealth
is what people want. Chunks of the Berlin Wall are created wealth.
But the rocks in my driveway aren't. The wealth created is the
happiness (It's all about the "Pursuit of Happiness") one gets by
possessing the chunk. Is a candy bar wealth? If somebody wants it, it is.

But how do we measure how much wealth a thing is? By how much someone
is willing to give for it. Dollars are the way we measure that around
here. How else can we? We could all stand around and say how
much wealth I create when I go to the bathroom, but we don't know
until someone is actually willing to part with something of theirs
in favor of what I produced.

The purpose of government isn't to produce things for others to
buy. The things it produces are not measurable. They may be things
that some folks want but we have no clue as to how much wealth
was generated because it was created with tax money, not voluntary
money.


>have less to redistribute.  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

It hasn't only because the things you are talking about or small
compared to social spending.

>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.

We have a tremendous debt because we didn't spend *enough* money!!?

>|> 
>|> Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to 
>|> mars? 
>
>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.)


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.

>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?

>provide a better education for the students.  When you're old enough

Why not spend it on education in the first place?

Repeated from above:
>you put it, a "money sink".  They can be worse than no program at all,
>since the hungry man now has no incentive to care for himself.  What

This is true. But putting our best and brightest to work on a program
that people don't want enough to voluntarily pay for can be worse
as well.

Instead these people could be working toward better airplanes faster
computers, higher yielding crops, medical cures, or something
unknown altogether. It's as if the government gauranteed a $10 per hour
job to folks for picking up trash. Sure they would be producing
something we all value (note: we don't value it *that* much)
but they would produce a lot more *real* wealth if those folks worked
at McDonalds for $6 an hour.

>to attend one, should you choose to, you might see some of this
>activity if you're in the appropriate faculties.  In the meantime,

Man, you really don't like this guy, do you?

>-- 
>Philip R. Young        |             young@bunyip.ap.dg.com


-rex-
-- 

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

bromley blair pat <bromley@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>    Actually, it is pretty much cut and dried.  People are just afraid.
>    The universe is to explore for those who want to, and those who
>    want to do it can afford it.  Those who explore will benefit.

c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>NO! Those who want to do it CAN'T afford it. If they could afford
>it they wouldn't need to tax all the other people who don't want to do
>it to *pay* for the venture.

Those who want to do it COULD afford it IF there weren't a lot of
bureaucratic obstacles getting in the way.  "Two guys in a garage"
could theoretically buy and put together the necessary hardware to
put a beeping ball in orbit, but there are an awful lot of strictly
political and administrative barriers preventing such a launch.  The
engineering isn't as expensive as you make it out to be.

>But you can't do it without him, or me. You need our money and you really
>don't care how you get it. You just want to pursue your goals and you
>don't want him to whine about it.

Actually, I think we can't do it BECAUSE OF him, or you... or because of
the government officials that have no clear mandate from him or you to
"get out of the way" and let us DO WHAT WE CAN AFFORD.

>You *think* your goal is worthy and noble and you ridicule him because
>he doesn't share it. But those who disagree with your goal aren't so lowly
>that you don't want them to *pay* for it.

The ridicule should be reserved not for those who do not share the goal
but for those who would prevent us from trying to reach it.

= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
Alan Anderson                               | Ignorance can be fixed,
(I speak AT, not FOR, Delco Electronics)    | but stupidity is permanent.

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.

> Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to 
> mars?
>>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.

>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;
there is no value added anywhere in the system.  The inevitable
administrative burden MUST be a net drain on the economy.

>>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
want to do, not because what you do will do something else.  If that
something else is what you intended, than you'd do it in the first place.

>>provide a better education for the students.  When you're old enough
>
>Why not spend it on education in the first place?

(Off-topic: "Spending on education" is a nice idea.  It usually fails
when the emphasis is on the SPENDING and not on the EDUCATION.)

= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
Alan Anderson                               | Ignorance can be fixed,
(I speak AT, not FOR, Delco Electronics)    | but stupidity is permanent.

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.)

In article <3obfho$9in@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umcroall@cc.umanitoba.ca
(Stuart Croall) wrote:

>>Speaking of "temporary" measures,
>
>>Income tax in Canada was first introduced "temporarily" during World War I.
>>When the government realized its potential for pulling in dough, it made it
>>permanent.
>
>>Morale: "temporary" and partial solutions to complex problems may be even 
>>        worse than no solutions at all.
>
>>-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
>>->
>>-> sdecont2@bnr.ca
>
>That is perhaps the most astute and important observation I've ever seen 
>made here. 

Thank you, thank you very much (deep bow :-)) !!!

> Now how 'bout we all call it a draw and go out and get 
>wasted.  Drinks are on me.  I really need a stiff drink!

Sorry, have to refuse your offer, maybe in three years :-)

-- 
-> "I am a seeker of truth, though I do not know what truth is.
->  I suspect there are many truths, and therefore do not trust
->  anyone who claims his is the only one." 
->  Louis L'Amour
->
-> "I come from downtown,
->  Born ready for you,
->  Armed with will and determination,
->  And grace, too"
->  The Tragically Hip
-> 
-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
->
-> sdecont2@bnr.ca

>(Off-topic: "Spending on education" is a nice idea.  It usually fails
>when the emphasis is on the SPENDING and not on the EDUCATION.)

Example: Province of Ontario ;-)

-- 
-> "I am a seeker of truth, though I do not know what truth is.
->  I suspect there are many truths, and therefore do not trust
->  anyone who claims his is the only one." 
->  Louis L'Amour
->
-> "I come from downtown,
->  Born ready for you,
->  Armed with will and determination,
->  And grace, too"
->  The Tragically Hip
-> 
-> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
->
-> sdecont2@bnr.ca

c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>We have a tremendous debt because we didn't spend *enough* money!!?

I respond:
>No, because we didn't INVEST enough money.  Pay attention.  The phrase
>"eating our seed corn" is a good soundbite; listen to it.

Rex asks:
>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?

If you get to KEEP your seed corn, then YOU can decide.  The problem
is not so much the lack of investment by the government, it's the
drain of resources caused by "entitlement" programs which suck up
what could otherwise have been invested by non-government entities.

>[...] Giving to the poor *does* produce
>wealth. It makes those who give it happy. And that *is* wealth.

I don't agree.  Happiness is NOT wealth, wealth is NOT happiness.
Giving money to the poor effectively subsidizes poverty, and when
you subsidize something you get more of it as a result.  So these
supposedly wonderful social programs have turned into a mechanism
for maintaining and creating poverty.

>[...]
>There is no "stuff", but neither is there "stuff" in the wealth
>of the services industry.

This is arguably true for some services, but I see a lot of value
being maintained (and sometimes created) by many services.  Your
ditch-digger "shovels and gloves and doctors and drugs" argument
goes against you here.  You've misread my emphasis -- I said:
> Right.  We GET stuff.  Understand?  There is a real BENEFIT.
I emphasized GET and BENEFIT, not "stuff".  "We at large" don't
get anything from simply giving money to other people.  If they
simply dig and refill ditches or make and break clay stones, the
net result is WORSE than zero.  You've wasted their time which
they could otherwise have put to constructive use.

= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
Alan Anderson                               | Ignorance can be fixed,
(I speak AT, not FOR, Delco Electronics)    | but stupidity is permanent.

In article <3oe27r$o6k@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Alan Anderson <aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>>We have a tremendous debt because we didn't spend *enough* money!!?
>
>I respond:
>>No, because we didn't INVEST enough money.  Pay attention.  The phrase
>>"eating our seed corn" is a good soundbite; listen to it.
>
>Rex asks:
>>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?
>
>If you get to KEEP your seed corn, then YOU can decide.  The problem
>is not so much the lack of investment by the government, it's the
>drain of resources caused by "entitlement" programs which suck up
>what could otherwise have been invested by non-government entities.

In that I agree. "Entitlements" suck up the most resources by far.
And that is the stuff that could be invested privately.

>
>>[...] Giving to the poor *does* produce
>>wealth. It makes those who give it happy. And that *is* wealth.
>
>I don't agree.  Happiness is NOT wealth, wealth is NOT happiness.

Well, the only benefit I get from going to a movie is when
you boil it down, "happiness". And wealth was created by the
film maker. The makers of a film that no one goes to see haven't
produced any wealth.

>Giving money to the poor effectively subsidizes poverty, and when
>you subsidize something you get more of it as a result.  So these

Absolutely. Likewise if we give money to McDonalds we get more Big Macs.

>supposedly wonderful social programs have turned into a mechanism
>for maintaining and creating poverty.

But there is wealth in my charitable contributions. I am made
happier by giving and helping. I could give $5 to see a movie or
I could give $5 to Habitat for Humanity. I choose the one that gives
me the most pleasure.

>>There is no "stuff", but neither is there "stuff" in the wealth
>>of the services industry.
>
>This is arguably true for some services, but I see a lot of value
>being maintained (and sometimes created) by many services.  Your

Perhaps entertainment industry is better than service industry.

>ditch-digger "shovels and gloves and doctors and drugs" argument
>goes against you here.  You've misread my emphasis -- I said:
>> Right.  We GET stuff.  Understand?  There is a real BENEFIT.
>I emphasized GET and BENEFIT, not "stuff".  "We at large" don't

No, there isn't any stuff.

>get anything from simply giving money to other people.  If they

Then why do we do it? We get the pleasure of helping others,
relief from a guilty conscience, and a promised place in heaven.

Many people still get these benefits from all the money given to welfare
programs. Otherwise they wouldn't vote for them.

>simply dig and refill ditches or make and break clay stones, the
>net result is WORSE than zero.  You've wasted their time which
>they could otherwise have put to constructive use.

And that is what NASA is doing. They are making stuff and using that
stuff up. (Most of it. But I can make a clay rock museum and televise
the rock throwing parties too.)
What "stuff" do we get? I haven't gotten anything.

I have gotten benefits:
National pride, Neat pictures, interesting information, indirectly
through products helped by spinoffs, entertainment from museums.

But there are benefits from the clay rock makers/breakers:
Pride? (maybe somebody). Certainly neat pictures (can't you see all
those fools throwing clay rocks?) Entertainment. I could even build
a museum. Who knows there could be spinoffs better clay? And
even the benefit of knowing underprivilaged folks got a job where they
could learn to show up for work everyday.

NASA has diverted the energies of some very skilled and ambitious people.
This is a great loss. Imagine what they could have done elsewhere?

My clay rocks diverts the energies of some odd balls, not as great a loss
but some.

Now personally I think there is more benefit in what NASA has done.
Most people would think the same, but all the folks who would prefer
to divert NASA funds to social programs, don't.

My point is, yes you're building stuff, but is it stuff people want?

-rex-
-- 

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

In article <D80yJK.Lvr@freenet.niagara.com> msteele@freenet.niagara.com (Mike Steele) writes:

> :      Sure it can.   The moon only takes 3 days, and mars can be reached
> :      in 7 months using current technologies.
> 	Okay, you got me there....  What I mean is that neither is
> inhabitable without a large capital investment.

    But ALL frontiers are initially expensive.  (You don't think Columbus would
have gotten here without Queen Isabellas' help?  ^_^)

> 	Every dollar spent generate a dollar? Huh? Explain that one again
> please...

    Every dollar spent is used to develop something that can be sold for another
dollar.  (Or more.  ^_-)

> 	Health care is the last thng that should be cut.  I like the fact
> that I pay taxes to keep me healthy.

    Why don't you want to pay for your own health directly?

--

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.

In article <D80yr9.MHt@freenet.niagara.com> msteele@freenet.niagara.com (Mike Steele) writes:

> : >Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to
> : >mars?  I think we should have a referendum (as Reform would have it) and
> : >ask Canadians if they think we should spend money in space.  I'd be
> : >interested to see the results (I won't try and predict them, though).
> 	I'd like to see my tax dollars spent here too...

    You miss the whole idea.  When we send people and hardware into space, the
money gets spent ON EARTH.  (After all, there are no stores in orbit.  ^_-)

    It pays the salary of the astronaut, who buys clothes, a car, etc.  That
makes work for clothiers, auto makers, farmers, grocery store clerks, and so on.
Plus, the research we do in order to put men and equipment in orbit can be
applied to produce things that other people will actually pay money for.

    Unlike welfare, which pays people to do nothing...  (^_^)

--

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.

In article <LFLekx.01x0@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET>,
Len Lekx <LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET> wrote:
>
>In article <D80yr9.MHt@freenet.niagara.com> msteele@freenet.niagara.com (Mike Steele) writes:

Stu:
>> : >Do we have enough wealth?  Why do you insist on rocketing our wealth to
>> : >mars?  I think we should have a referendum (as Reform would have it) and

>> 	I'd like to see my tax dollars spent here too...
>
>    You miss the whole idea.  When we send people and hardware into space, the
>money gets spent ON EARTH.  (After all, there are no stores in orbit.  ^_-)
>
>    It pays the salary of the astronaut, who buys clothes, a car, etc.  That
>makes work for clothiers, auto makers, farmers, grocery store clerks,
>and so on.
>Plus, the research we do in order to put men and equipment in orbit can be
>applied to produce things that other people will actually pay money for.
>
>    Unlike welfare, which pays people to do nothing...  (^_^)

"[NASA] pays the salary of the astronaut".
Doesn't welfare pay the salary of the people on it. And don't they
subsequently buy "cloths, a car, etc." just like the astronaut?
I know, 'well the astronaut has job. he's doing something'.
So, Lets just hire all those welfare folks to sit at home and watch TV.
There *are* people who have jobs like that. (There must be. Maybe a person
who has a job being a research subject for a sedentary life style.)

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! 

The astronaut will have less time for all these things.

I'll admit that welfare is much larger than NASA and we should cut it
first, but we should cut both.

Because the amount of money spent hiring people to sit on their butt and
the amount of money spent hiring people to make space widgets is determined
by politics there is no sure way to know what economic value either has.
(And for every study by NASA lobbiest you can find saying how valuable
it is, I can find a study saying how valuable Welfare is. I think both
studies are ludicrous.)

-rex-
-- 

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

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.  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.

> 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.
(^_-)

--

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.

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.)

In article <3oqj6j$187@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
> 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.

    You don't consider the knowledge they've obtained about our lives, or bodies,
and our *planet* valuable?  (^_^)

> 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

    Well, to each his own.  (Personally, I don't see any value in a warm, fuzzy
feeling inside - and even if I did, how do I quantify it?  If I give more, will
it make me feel better?  If I give everything I have, so that I don't even have
enough to feed myself, I ought to feel incredible... but I only feel hungry.
^_-)

> crime. And the money *IS* going back into the economy just like all the NASA
> spending someone recently glorified.

    But NASA (such as it is...) is doing something that we can export.  The
information obtained about Earth, the technology required to maintain life in
space, can all be sold for more than we put into developing it.  Welfare doesn't
do that.

> 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

    Your job space would be open and someone would be trained to do it.  Someone
else who was good at math would be able to take your nephews' teaching position.

    (Heck, Delco might even be able to EXPAND into space ventures - producing
igniters for rocket engines, fuel pumps, etc.  An expanded company means an
expanded workforce.)

> engineering and your kids would be dumber. Scientist doing medical
> research would be working on life support systems instead. Video game

    Scientists working on closed-cycle life-support systems would teach us what
we need to know about recycling everything we use, and how to extract energy from
our wastes, and thus prevent us from ruining our world further.

> 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)

    EVERYTHING you've cited points to a larger job market - positions vacated by
someone going into the space effort would be replaced by someone else.  Companies
working to expand the frontier would gain knowledge that could be applied to
making existing products better, or to making new products.  New products means
more income, which means increased production, which means more hiring, which
means fewer folks on the dole.

> 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".

    OTOH, what have we given up by NOT diverting resources to an endeavour that
could not only sustain itself, but pay back handsomely on a number of fronts?

    Economically, this is called 'suicide'.  (^_-)

--

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.

In article <LFLekx.0208@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET>,
Len Lekx <LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET> wrote:
>In article <3oqj6j$187@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>> 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.
>
>    You don't consider the knowledge they've obtained about our lives,
> or bodies, and our *planet* valuable?  (^_^)

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.

>> 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
>
>    Well, to each his own.  (Personally, I don't see any value in a warm, fuzzy

Now you get it. *You* don't value it that much, but others do.

>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]?"


>> crime. And the money *IS* going back into the economy just like all the NASA
>> spending someone recently glorified.
>
>    But NASA (such as it is...) is doing something that we can export.  The
>information obtained about Earth, the technology required to maintain life in
>space, can all be sold for more than we put into developing it.  Welfare

A "something we can export" is just another thing to value. But
If you can sell all the knowledge for more than was invested then
private investors would be jumping to buy NASA at inflated prices.

>
>> 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
>
>    Your job space would be open and someone would be trained to do it.
> Someone else who was good at math would be able to take your
> nephews' teaching position.

But that new person has to come from somewhere else. This is *not* good for
the economy. That's like saying that hiring more soldiers is good for
the economy. No. It isn't (Unless of course the soldiers are needed to
prevent the Canadians from invading) The reason is that all those soldiers
are no longer doing the things they use to do.

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.

>    (Heck, Delco might even be able to EXPAND into space ventures - producing
>igniters for rocket engines, fuel pumps, etc.  An expanded company means an
>expanded workforce.)

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*.

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.
We're talking 10% of the GNP! Which 10% of the national economy do you
want to do without? Health care? The auto industry?


<deleted similar tit for tats>


>    EVERYTHING you've cited points to a larger job market - positions
> vacated by
>someone going into the space effort would be replaced by someone else.

The number of people in this country is large but it is finite!
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 describing "Opportunity Costs" here. Any economics text book
should explain it.

>Companies working to expand the frontier would gain knowledge that could
>be applied to
>making existing products better, or to making new products.  New products means

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

Which means we will have *less* of the existing products.

>> 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".
>
>    OTOH, what have we given up by NOT diverting resources to an endeavour that
>could not only sustain itself, but pay back handsomely on a number of fronts?
>

NASA:
1)First you can not prove that it has "payed back" more than was invested.
2)Next you certainly can't prove that it will do so in the future.
3)What NASA "invests" in is determined by politics.

ME:
1) I invested in Latin America and the Pacific Rim several years ago. It
   has paid back a couple hundred percent.
   I can prove exactly what return I got from those investments.
2) I can't tell you what my current investments will produce.
3) But I *can* tell you that what I invest in is determined by what kind
   of return I can get.

I think that my investments and the investments of millions of others
like me (Which are also heavily into Science and
Technology) have a better chance of getting a decent return than NASA.

-rex-
-- 

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

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.

Len Lekx (LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET) wrote:
: 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?

	That couldn't be answered until I was taxed....

-- 
Mike Steele			| St. Catharines -- Canada's Canal City
msteele@freenet.niagara.com	|                     
bi192@freenet.toronto.on.ca     |              Go Leafs!

In article <D8KvMy.Eq3@freenet.niagara.com>,
>Len Lekx (LFLekx@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET) wrote:
>: In article <3p0cht$sil@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:


Concerning the value of what NASA produces:

>
>: > 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?

Yes.

NASA costs about 15 billion. There
are 250 million people in the country. That comes out to $60 for every
person. My family of 5 is responsible for $300. That is too much.

And 15 billion divided by 1.5 trillion is 1 cent of every tax dollar not
1/5 of 1 cent.

Even if we add state and local it's 1/2 of 1 cent of every dollar.

That does add up. Consider a total tax bill of $3000, that's 30 bucks.


-rex-
-- 

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

In article <3oqj6j$187@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:

<deletia>

>
>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)

More likely, your car would run better because it would run on hydrogen
fuel which does not pollute the environment as badly as fossil fuels
which have become an ingrained part of a stagnating society.  Math students
would have added incentive to learn because they realize that rocket 
scientists get more money than drug dealers.  Likely they could be taught
by an artificial intelligence system devoted to the single pupil (an
obvious offshoot of the unmanned exploration missions to Mars which will
pave the way to manned colonies).  People who were previously forced to
live in sterile bubble rooms will be able to move around in their new
space-suits and interact with the rest of the world.  Scientists would
be forced to gain a better understanding of how ecosystems interact to
produce a self-sustaining habitat.  Solar energy systems would improve
so as to supply energy to all the orbiting hardware with needed power.
Non-bulky insulating thermal wear will be cheaply available on the common
market (oh, wait it already is  *thinsulate* is an offshoot of the space
industry).  Asteroid mining will produce huge quantities of metals and
minerals.  These can be used to produce satellites in situ without the
need for costly booster rockets.  Potentially dangerous research could
be carried out in locales where they would not threaten humanity in 
general.  Video game developers would be able to design more realistic
space flight games.  The Martian Operating System (MOS) will be better
than anything ever produced (who knows what new discoveries will be made?).

>
>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".

You have overlooked what we have already gained.

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


-- 
"If I get good enough at insulting anybody who questions my
bullshit ideology, I might only have to defend one untenable
piece of bullshit at a time, instead of two..."  Ted Holden Himself.
Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams

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:

>    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.

Granted. But does it produce more than it consumes? We do not know. We *do*
know that private industry did not create NASA. And we know that private
industry is driven by the profit motive. Profit is a signal that means
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 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.)

With NASA resources *are* consumed. All the hours people work and all
the materials used are resources that are consumed.

<spending 600 billion on NASA would mean a larger NASA work force and a
smaller private sector workforce.>

>> 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.

>> 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.

Both very true.

>
>> 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

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.

>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.

But you HAVE to wait for auto-makers to build them. That's what "auto-maker"
means - people who build autos.

If they all work for NASA nobody is LEFT to be an automaker! They are
all spaceship-makers.

>> 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.

If you pay them enough money most would go work for NASA. 600 billion pumped
into high tech would really raise the wages of engineers.

>Others
>would go to space, and make discoveries nobody would even dream possible.  Yet

But they wouldn't stay in their current jobs and make equally amazing
inventions (just not space related).

>> 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.

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
be any American engineers left to build the better cars here. And
a good number of the manufacturing workers won't be available to build
those cars here even if Americans could design them.

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.

>> 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.

Just as you don't know the future you don't know what would have happened
without NASA. You can only point to things that NASA contributed to.
I was asking you to put a value on the contributions and then tally
up how much NASA costs. The problem is no value was ever placed on
those contributions. And the mechanism for assigning value, the free market,
was not used.

>> 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.


>> 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.  ^_-)

Yes there are. But is the "risk/return" ratio better than the ratio
for some other investment? No it is not. At least not according to the
market. The market is not rushing to invest money on the things NASA is
"investing" in.

>    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.

That is all I want. But that requires the government to dis-associate
itself from NASA. Then it would most like split off into several ventures.
Some seeking profit in launches and communications, Some seeking profit
in research, Some in entertainment, and Some as non profits seeking
the dreams and desires of its contributors.

-rex-
-- 

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

In article <3p8jj4$hja@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:

> NASA costs about 15 billion. There
> are 250 million people in the country. That comes out to $60 for every
> person. My family of 5 is responsible for $300. That is too much.

    How many hundreds of billions are spent annually on ways to kill people?
(Defense)  Or to 'help' people who don't have the inclination to work for a
living?  (Welfare)  Why aren't you going after THEM for savings?

> And 15 billion divided by 1.5 trillion is 1 cent of every tax dollar not
> 1/5 of 1 cent.

    My mistake.  (^_^)

--

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.

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.  (^_^)

> >    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.

> 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.  (^_-)

    If I quit my job tomorrow in order to pursue other ventures, that does not
mean that the position I occupied is unnecessary.  Very shortly, it will be
filled by someone who wants to do what I did before.

> But you HAVE to wait for auto-makers to build them. That's what "auto-maker"
> means - people who build autos.

    Auto makers right now seem to be more concerned about adding bells and
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.  (^_-)

> 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.

> I was asking you to put a value on the contributions and then tally
> up how much NASA costs. The problem is no value was ever placed on
> those contributions. And the mechanism for assigning value, the free market,
> was not used.

    True enough.  (^_^)  Statement withdrawn.

--

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.

In article <3pqg5d$7uj@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:

> >    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.

    At least NASA is producing something, which can be sold around the world for
more than it took to make/learn it.  The tax revenues thus produced go a LONG way
to paying off what NASA cost.

    Welfare recipients just transfer money around, returning nothing to the
system.  Can you say 'Diminishing Returns'?  (^_^)

> Nothing at all is consumed except the (considerable) bureaucratic overhead.
> No ones time is wasted, no raw materials are consumed.

    People on Welfare still eat, go out, buy things, etc.  What they DON'T do is
anything to support their demand for such things.  Thus, the government takes
more and more money from hard-working individuals such as you and I, and gives it
to the Welfare folks.  This is not "Redistribution of Wealth", but
"Redistribution of Poverty"... people bust their butts to make something of
themselves, the government takes it away, and they have nothing to show for their
efforts.

> The average person on welfare could not perform my job. They don't
> have the education or experience.

    Education can be corrected by taking Night-School courses... once they're
working and can pay the tuition.  Experience comes with time - doing the job for
a while will show the average person what can be done better.

    Did YOU get into your current job knowing what you do now?  I think not.

> Electric cars cost more to produce don't work as well and actually seem
> to pollute more.  (Batteries are very toxic)
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                |- Which ones?  Lead-acid, NiCd, what?

> ???? 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.

    No, I _don't_ want it to be funded through taxation.  (Not REALLY.  ^_^)

    What I DO want is for the governments to lighten the regulatory load a bit,
so that it can be MADE profitable.

--

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.

In article <3pqcsu$7i2@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>In article <D8txzH.CzA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>You also pay taxes which are used to pay the salaries of university 
>>scientists.  A lot of this research is not commercially viable at present.
>>Do you feel that all non-applied fields of science should have their 
>>funding cut?
>
>I don't think that research should be directed by politics. There are
>an infinite number of things humans can research. I think *what* a person
>researches should be decided by what they think stands to return
>the greatest reward. Politics doesn't do this. The free market does.

The greatest *monetary* reward is not necessarily the greatest reward in the
long run.

>
>>It all comes down to this.  Some people feel that there is intrinsic worth
>>in knowledge.  Perhaps it will not pay us back immediately in profits.
>
>And some people think there is intrinsic worth in lots of things.
>What makes *your* life choices more valuable than someone elses?
>

The free market makes any material, greed-based motives more valuable.
Some people see a need for non materialistic returns and therefore they
urge the government to level the playing field for these other ventures.
(At least in theory).

>I pay a premium for knowledge. Others pay a premium for entertainment,
>food, housing, cars and all the other things free peaceful human beings
>desire. And the "knowledge" you are seeking others to subsidize for
>you is very close to "entertainment".

Perhaps.  I feel reasonably confident however, that I am not the only one
who is interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake.  Of course the majority
of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while
people of your materialistic stripe hold the reins.  The only way we can
make our choice known is through the democratic process since we are not
endowed with vast sums of money.  I am not saying that our choice is right
or better than the immediate profit scenario which you embrace.  I merely
ask that you recognize the possibility that our value system has some
intrinsic worth outside of the free market.

>
>*Your* choice for directing *my* money should not have greater (or even
>equal) weight to *my* choice. Remember, you might be wrong.
>
>>One needs the long term commitment that a government can provide before
>>the more obvious returns start flowing in.  Companies do not have the 
>
>Empirically we can show that governments aren't concerned with
>the long term. Look at federal funding of science for one. How
>about over grazing in the west? The national debt? Environmental
>damage in the Eastern block? You're wrong.
>

I didn't say the government was concerned.  I merely stated that it is
able to provide a long term capital commitment without seeing immediate 
returns.  It is the people who must keep the government commited to a
course.  That is why I am speaking up for this issue.  TO show that there
is interest and people do feel the need for the space program.

>>necessary patience to put the money into such a venture at this point in
>>time.  Rest assured that space will become commercially viable as the
>
>I happen to agree with you, but we certainly don't know the future.
>You could have said the same thing during Roman times. Should
>the Romans have invested 10% of they're GDP in space exploration?

Who knows, maybe they'd still be around today if they had.

>
>If you are certain it will become viable then wait. Why push it at the
>expense of other things which are viable *today*?
>
>My point is, we should wait until it *is* commercially viable, just like
>the Romans should have waited.

I feel that it is commercially viable.  It's certainly technologically
viable.  Give me a billion dollars and I'll have space-ships mining the 
asteroid belt.

>
>My whole thesis for this thread has been "Opportunity Costs". When you
>choose to follow path A you necessarily can not follow path B.
>
>By government mandate you have decided to follow path "Space
>Exploration". The free market (Which naturally gravitates to the paths
>with the highest return on investment) did not choose to be so
>heavily invested in path "Space Exploration".
>

The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
themselves and participate in something on such a large scale.  
The space program is therefore by mandate of the people through their
elected representatives.  
This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate well
with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.
It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.

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


-- 
"If I get good enough at insulting anybody who questions my
bullshit ideology, I might only have to defend one untenable
piece of bullshit at a time, instead of two..."  Ted Holden Himself.
Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams

In <3piads$1la@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com> c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
(rex i beard) writes: 

>Yes, but today and for the foreseeable future we need more than "two
guys
>in a garage" for the computer industry. We *need* all those farmers.
>and we *need* all the people to build cars. *Some* of them can be
replaced
>by mechanization. But I ask you, "Why aren't they replaced right now?
>The answer, It costs *more* to mechanize these jobs than it costs to
>have people doing them. The reason we don't have elevator operators
all
>over is because human beings are valuable and they are better used
some
>place else.

Ummm, actually, the reason that we haven't replaced as many farmers has
to do with politics--not economics, per se.  We have an elaborate
system of government price supports to pay farmers above market price
for food, and in some cases, to pay them to produce nothing at all
(ever hear of "set asides"?)  Some might say that we have been paying
some NASA employees (not necessarily through any fault of their own) to
do the same thing, in the case of station <g>.
-- 
***********************************************************************
*     ____     ___       *     simberg@ix.netcom.com                   
*    / __ \   /__ \      *     76667.3247@compuserve.com               
*   / / / |  //  ||      *     (310) 372-7963 (California)             
*  | /_/ /  //  //       *     (307) 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)           
*   \__ /  //_-/___      *     (307) 733-1391 (Fax)                    
*        _//   / __ \    *                                             
*      / //   / / / |    *                                             
*    ||_//   | /__/ /    *    "My opinions *are* those of my employer" 
*     \_/     \____/     *                                             
*      interglobal       *      "Next year in Orbit"                   
*      space lines       *                                             
***********************************************************************

ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan Scott) writes:

>In article <3pqcsu$7i2@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
>rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>>In article <D8txzH.CzA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>>>It all comes down to this.  Some people feel that there is intrinsic worth
>>>in knowledge.  Perhaps it will not pay us back immediately in profits.
>>
>>And some people think there is intrinsic worth in lots of things.
>>What makes *your* life choices more valuable than someone elses?

>Some people see a need for non materialistic returns and therefore they
>urge the government to level the playing field for these other ventures.

For being such a "non-materialistic guy" you certainly want a whole bunch
of material to do it with. (15 billion for NASA)

>>I pay a premium for knowledge. Others pay a premium for entertainment,
>>food, housing, cars and all the other things free peaceful human beings
>>desire. And the "knowledge" you are seeking others to subsidize for
>>you is very close to "entertainment".

>Perhaps.  I feel reasonably confident however, that I am not the only one
>who is interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake.  Of course the majority

You're right. I am too. I'm also interested in action movies for their
"own sake" I don't think I should make you fund it though.

>of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
>a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while

Who says you're producing something of value? How do you know it has
value? Because *you* value it. Well *I* value something else. I *don't*
value NASA. So why do you make me pay for it?

>people of your materialistic stripe hold the reins.  The only way we can

I'm labeled "materialistic" because I want to use the money that *I*
earn in ways that *I* desire. And you're not materialistic because you
want to use the money that *I* earn in ways that *you* desire?

Oh, people like me *don't* "hold the reins". Big government contract
corporations (NASA supporters) hold more "reins" than anyone like me.

>make our choice known is through the democratic process since we are not
>endowed with vast sums of money.  I am not saying that our choice is right
>or better than the immediate profit scenario which you embrace.  I merely

Yes you are saying that. Because you endorse taking it from me to
pursue your goals. If you don't think your goals are more important than
mine, why fund your goals with my money?

>ask that you recognize the possibility that our value system has some
>intrinsic worth outside of the free market.

It certainly does. *You* have intrinsic worth. You are a human being.
And therefore I should not make you subsidize my value system.
I only ask the same from you.

>>*Your* choice for directing *my* money should not have greater (or even
>>equal) weight to *my* choice. Remember, you might be wrong.
>>
>>>One needs the long term commitment that a government can provide before
>>>the more obvious returns start flowing in.  Companies do not have the 
>>
>>Empirically we can show that governments aren't concerned with
>>the long term. Look at federal funding of science for one. How
>>about over grazing in the west? The national debt? Environmental
>>damage in the Eastern block? You're wrong.
>>

>I didn't say the government was concerned.  I merely stated that it is
>able to provide a long term capital commitment without seeing immediate 
>returns.  It is the people who must keep the government commited to a

Politicians *never* do anything without immediate returns. They have to
stand for election frequently. Sometimes they do things that have
value over the long run, but only when they get immediate returns from
voters.

>course.  That is why I am speaking up for this issue.  TO show that there
>is interest and people do feel the need for the space program.

And just how good has that long term commitment been? Space Station?
Super Collider? Space Shuttle? Are we still on the moon?

>>>necessary patience to put the money into such a venture at this point in
>>>time.  Rest assured that space will become commercially viable as the

>I feel that it is commercially viable.  It's certainly technologically
>viable.  Give me a billion dollars and I'll have space-ships mining the 
>asteroid belt.

Really? Go for it. Start producing business plans and looking for
venture capital. Private industy is very capable of raising a billion
dollars.

>>My whole thesis for this thread has been "Opportunity Costs". When you
>>choose to follow path A you necessarily can not follow path B.
>>
>>By government mandate you have decided to follow path "Space
>>Exploration". The free market (Which naturally gravitates to the paths

>The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
>democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for

The "majority of voters" if given the chance would seriously cut back
NASA. The reason it hasn't been cut more is because *most* of that
majority is more concerned with something else while a very vocal minority
is *very* concerned with keeping it.

But this isn't a debate over what the majority wants.

>This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate well
>with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.

It seems to survive better in democracies.
"Free market" and "democracy" are definitions.  The *definitions*
have nothing to do with one another. However, by definition a "democracy"
can do away with freedom hence sometimes democracies violate the freedom
in the marketplace.

>It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.

Free markets don't have anything to do with voting and making political
decisions.

The "dollar vote" in the free market is in fact much better than the
analogous democratic vote. In the market place your "one dollar vote"
is never canceled out by my "one dollar vote". So we both get one dollar
of what we desire with our one "vote".

In politics your one actual vote can cancel out my one vote. NASA is
a great example of that. My vote goes against politicians for NASA
and yours goes for them. One of us loses. 

>>-rex-

>Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams
-- 
Margaret (and sometimes rex)        rbeard@holli.com

In article <rbeard.801449952@walnut> rbeard@walnut.holli.com (Rex Beard) writes:

> Who says you're producing something of value? How do you know it has
> value? Because *you* value it. Well *I* value something else. I *don't*
> value NASA. So why do you make me pay for it?

    This same argument can be used to justify cutting funding to just about
anything.  I don't use hospitals much, so why should I be made to pay for so much
health care?  I don't drive, so why should I subsidize roads?  I don't have
children, so why should I have to pay school taxes?

    Some things are done, not because they are good for individuals, but because
they are good for groups.  Space programs (NASA included) are good for the entire
species.

--

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.

In article <rbeard.801449952@walnut>,
Rex Beard <rbeard@walnut.holli.com> wrote:
>ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan Scott) writes:
>
>>of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
>>a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while
>
>Who says you're producing something of value? How do you know it has
>value? Because *you* value it. Well *I* value something else. I *don't*
>value NASA. So why do you make me pay for it?

The majority of society values it.   Otherwise the government wouldn't be
funding it.  That's one of the better uses of democracy. 

>Politicians *never* do anything without immediate returns. They have to
>stand for election frequently. Sometimes they do things that have

They are not concerned about monetary returns to the government.  The only
returns that politicians worry about is votes.  If they realize that 
funding the space program will increase votes, they will continue to do that.

>value over the long run, but only when they get immediate returns from
>voters.
>
>>course.  That is why I am speaking up for this issue.  TO show that there
>>is interest and people do feel the need for the space program.
>
>And just how good has that long term commitment been? Space Station?
>Super Collider? Space Shuttle? Are we still on the moon?
>

My point. 

>
>>The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
>>democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
>
>The "majority of voters" if given the chance would seriously cut back
>NASA. The reason it hasn't been cut more is because *most* of that
>majority is more concerned with something else while a very vocal minority
>is *very* concerned with keeping it.
>
>But this isn't a debate over what the majority wants.

Here, I think is the crux of the issue.  The only way to continue with the
space program is to educate the people.  Let them know that the money used
for space research results in numerous spinoff technologies which will
enhance their lives.  Most people, and you have even said this yourself,
don't believe that the space program will affect them at all.  This is
proven to be wrong.  

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.  Your part of society will
continue to build cars and burn fossil fuels, oblivious to other 
possibilities, maintaining the status quo for those in control.
Perhaps the dream of space will be killed by a short-sighted society.

>
>>Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams
>-- 
>Margaret (and sometimes rex)        rbeard@holli.com


-- 
"If I get good enough at insulting anybody who questions my
bullshit ideology, I might only have to defend one untenable
piece of bullshit at a time, instead of two..."  Ted Holden Himself.
Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams

ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan Scott) writes:

>In article <rbeard.801449952@walnut>,
>Rex Beard <rbeard@walnut.holli.com> wrote:
>>ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan Scott) writes:
>>
>>>of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
>>>a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while
>>
>>Who says you're producing something of value? How do you know it has
>>value? Because *you* value it. Well *I* value something else. I *don't*
>>value NASA. So why do you make me pay for it?

>The majority of society values it.   Otherwise the government wouldn't be
>funding it.  That's one of the better uses of democracy. 

Like Mohair subsidies? Social Security for drug addicts? Or helium reserves
in Oklahoma? Research into Cow Farts?

NASA (and the others) are funded by a representative republic.
There was never a vote by "the people" on NASA, nor on the others.

One draw back in a republic seems to be "pork barrel" spending.
(Please note: a republic is still better than a democracy.)

>>
>>>The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
>>>democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
>>
>>The "majority of voters" if given the chance would seriously cut back
>>NASA. The reason it hasn't been cut more is because *most* of that
>>majority is more concerned with something else while a very vocal minority
>>is *very* concerned with keeping it.
>>
>>But this isn't a debate over what the majority wants.

>Here, I think is the crux of the issue.  The only way to continue with the
>space program is to educate the people.  Let them know that the money used

If they are all educated then you wont need to take the money from them
in taxes. That would be nice.

>Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.  Your part of society will

I guess so. But it just doesn't seem fair. While we disagree. You still
won. NASA still has my money.

>continue to build cars and burn fossil fuels, oblivious to other 
>possibilities, maintaining the status quo for those in control.

Uh, funding for NASA *IS* "the status quo for those in control."

>Perhaps the dream of space will be killed by a short-sighted society.

I'm not killing anyones dreams. I'm just trying to have some dreams
of my own.

You can still go to mars. I won't stop you. I just don't think it's
polite of you to demand that I help.

Look I like all this high tech stuff. Why do you think I'm reading
sci.space.*? I would like to help, but I want to be *asked* to help,
not *forced* to help.

-rex-
-- 
Margaret (and sometimes rex)        rbeard@holli.com

In <D939Gr.8KK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan
Scott) writes: 
>
>The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
>democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
>themselves and participate in something on such a large scale.  
>The space program is therefore by mandate of the people through their
>elected representatives.  
>This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate
well
>with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.
>It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.


Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.
Yet, when they go to the polls, person A gets one vote and
person B gets one vote.  Despite the fact that person B has 
contributed to the government far more than person A, he gets
no more say in how that money will be spent.
THAT'S NOT FAIR !!

-- 

******************************************************************
Ronald P. Menich
Applied Probabilist
6839 Lockridge Drive
Doraville, GA 30360

These words are my own and do not reflect
those of my employer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

Ronald Paul Menich (rmenich@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <D939Gr.8KK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan
: Scott) writes: 
: >
: >The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
: >democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
: >themselves and participate in something on such a large scale.  
: >The space program is therefore by mandate of the people through their
: >elected representatives.  
: >This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate
: well
: >with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.
: >It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.
: 
: 
: Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
: That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.
: Yet, when they go to the polls, person A gets one vote and
: person B gets one vote.  Despite the fact that person B has 
: contributed to the government far more than person A, he gets
: no more say in how that money will be spent.
: THAT'S NOT FAIR !!

Why should wealth and political power go hand in hand? Maybe Person
B isn't brighter/more hard-working/more successful/"Better" than 
Person A ... he merely happens to have a rich dad who can afford to send him 
to the best schools (Yale, Oxbridge or wherever) etc.. Whereas Person A might
have been raised in the inner cities, by parents who never could afford to
send him to college. Thus, Person B gets unfair _inherited_ opportunities 
Person A never gets...unless you introduce scholarships and similar things
to help gifted, underprivileged people.
---
IMHO, this is why some redistribution of wealth and "one man-one vote" are 
essential if democracy is to survive. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to
a divided society where wealth and poverty are inherited, not necessarily
because "good" people become richer while "bad" people fare less well.

 
: -- 
: 
: ******************************************************************
: Ronald P. Menich
: Applied Probabilist
: 6839 Lockridge Drive
: Doraville, GA 30360
: 
: These words are my own and do not reflect
: those of my employer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

-- 
MARCU$

---------------------------------------
      Do you think you can tell,
        A smile from a veil,
    Do you think you can tell...?

Marcus Lindroos
PL 402 A
07880 Liljendal, FINLAND

Email:mlindroo@aton.abo.fi
Fax:358-15-616667
WWW:http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo
--------------------------------------

In <3r4du2$9q3@josie.abo.fi> mlindroo@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF)
writes: 
>
>Ronald Paul Menich (rmenich@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in
taxes.
>: That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.
>: Yet, when they go to the polls, person A gets one vote and
>: person B gets one vote.  Despite the fact that person B has 
>: contributed to the government far more than person A, he gets
>: no more say in how that money will be spent.
>: THAT'S NOT FAIR !!
>
>Why should wealth and political power go hand in hand? Maybe Person
>B isn't brighter/more hard-working/more successful/"Better" than 
>Person A ... he merely happens to have a rich dad who can afford to
>send him to the best schools (Yale, Oxbridge or wherever) etc..
> Whereas Person A might
>have been raised in the inner cities, by parents who never could
>afford to send him to college. Thus, Person B gets unfair 
>_inherited_ opportunities Person A never gets...unless you introduce
> scholarships and similar things to help gifted, underprivileged
> people.


Then again, maybe Person B is a self-made millionaire and Person A
is a slouch.  Another possibility is that both Person A and Person B
are just regular people.  Another possibility is that both are
idiots.  The fact that Person B pays four times as much as
Person A in taxes does not mean that Person B is a bad person
and should be further punished!

I think taxation and representation should be proportional.
Such a rule puts a natural check and balance in place on
those who would confiscate the wealth of others.
-- 

******************************************************************
Ronald P. Menich
Applied Probabilist
6839 Lockridge Drive
Doraville, GA 30360

These words are my own and do not reflect
those of my employer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

Marcus Lindroos INF (mlindroo@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: Ronald Paul Menich (rmenich@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : In <D939Gr.8KK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan
: : Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
: : That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.
: : Yet, when they go to the polls, person A gets one vote and
: : person B gets one vote.  Despite the fact that person B has 
: : contributed to the government far more than person A, he gets
: : no more say in how that money will be spent.
: : THAT'S NOT FAIR !!

: Why should wealth and political power go hand in hand? Maybe Person
: B isn't brighter/more hard-working/more successful/"Better" than 
: Person A ... he merely happens to have a rich dad who can afford to send him 
: to the best schools (Yale, Oxbridge or wherever) etc.. Whereas Person A might
: have been raised in the inner cities, by parents who never could afford to
: send him to college. Thus, Person B gets unfair _inherited_ opportunities 
: Person A never gets...unless you introduce scholarships and similar things
: to help gifted, underprivileged people.
: ---
: IMHO, this is why some redistribution of wealth and "one man-one vote" are 
: essential if democracy is to survive. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to
: a divided society where wealth and poverty are inherited, not necessarily
: because "good" people become richer while "bad" people fare less well.
: -- 
: MARCU$

foolish people tend to lose their money no matter how they start off.
wise people can make money no matter how they start off

wisdom can't be taught


I`d wager (wisely i think) that there is some correlation between
smarts and dollars.

I'd rather have government by the able than government by the inept


just some thoughts
vincent pribish
pribish@nd.edu 

vincent pribish (vpribish@sparc3.aero.nd.edu) wrote:
: Marcus Lindroos INF (mlindroo@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: : Why should wealth and political power go hand in hand? Maybe Person
: : B isn't brighter/more hard-working/more successful/"Better" than 
: : Person A ... he merely happens to have a rich dad who can afford to send him 
: : to the best schools (Yale, Oxbridge or wherever) etc.. Whereas Person A might
: : have been raised in the inner cities, by parents who never could afford to
: : send him to college. Thus, Person B gets unfair _inherited_ opportunities 
: : Person A never gets...unless you introduce scholarships and similar things
: : to help gifted, underprivileged people.
: : ---
: : IMHO, this is why some redistribution of wealth and "one man-one vote" are 
: : essential if democracy is to survive. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to
: : a divided society where wealth and poverty are inherited, not necessarily
: : because "good" people become richer while "bad" people fare less well.
: : -- 
: : MARCU$

: foolish people tend to lose their money no matter how they start off.

Perhaps, but a) I bet they have a hell of a good time losing it, and
b) you start the average person off with a lot of money and I bet they
do a hell of a lot better than if they were born in some inner city
slum with none....

: wise people can make money no matter how they start off
:
: wisdom can't be taught
:
: I`d wager (wisely i think) that there is some correlation between
: smarts and dollars.

and I'd wager there is some correlation between dollars and smarts too...

that kind of reasoning goes both ways...

Larry Edwards

In <D9CHos.GG7@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan
Scott) writes: 

>The majority of society values it.   Otherwise the government wouldn't
>be funding it.  That's one of the better uses of democracy. 

This might be true in a pure democracy, but we have one of the
representative variety, in which many of the benefits are concentrated
among small minorities with noisy lobbies, while the costs are diffused
over an uncomprehending electorate.  I don't think that a majority of
society values mohair subsidies or the helium reserve, but they get
funded nonetheless.  The current space program direction is much more
driven by the needs and desires of the aerospace industry than by the
public, which remains largely ignorant of how much we spend on it or
what it does.
-- 
***********************************************************************
*     ____     ___       *     simberg@ix.netcom.com                   
*    / __ \   /__ \      *     76667.3247@compuserve.com               
*   / / / |  //  ||      *     (310) 372-7963 (California)             
*  | /_/ /  //  //       *     (307) 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)           
*   \__ /  //_-/___      *     (307) 733-1391 (Fax)                    
*        _//   / __ \    *                                             
*      / //   / / / |    *                                             
*    ||_//   | /__/ /    *    "My opinions *are* those of my employer" 
*     \_/     \____/     *                                             
*      interglobal       *      "Next year in Orbit"                   
*      space lines       *                                             
***********************************************************************

>>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald Paul Menich <rmenich@ix.netcom.com> writes:


Ronald> Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
Ronald> That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.

This is exceedingly unclear to me.  You see, person A is taking a
lower paying job at his company so that person's C, D, and E might
also be employed there, also paying $5,000 per year in taxes, and not
consuming welfare and UI.  Thus person A is actually saving the
government the cost of welfare and UI for these three other people.
Hmm.  I think things are a lot more complex than simply how much tax
one pays.
-- 
-- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)   | A barbarian that requires a justification
DB2/PE Development.               | will use the nearest appealing one.  Blame
Shouldn't there be a shorter word | the barbarian, not his justification for
for the concept "monosyllabic".   | his acts.

paulward (paulward@torolab.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
: >>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald Paul Menich <rmenich@ix.netcom.com> writes:


: Ronald> Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
: Ronald> That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.

: This is exceedingly unclear to me.  You see, person A is taking a
: lower paying job at his company so that person's C, D, and E might
: also be employed there, also paying $5,000 per year in taxes, and not
: consuming welfare and UI.  Thus person A is actually saving the
: government the cost of welfare and UI for these three other people.
: Hmm.  I think things are a lot more complex than simply how much tax
: one pays.
: -- 
: -- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)   | A barbarian that requires a justification
: DB2/PE Development.               | will use the nearest appealing one.  Blame
: Shouldn't there be a shorter word | the barbarian, not his justification for
: for the concept "monosyllabic".   | his acts.



WHAT!?!?!?

1.  person A DOES NOT take a lower paying job so that other people 
    can work there too.  He takes the lower paying job because he
    can't get a higher paying one (usually)......geez
2.  companies dont try to go out and hire as many people as possible
    they hire as many people as they a) need  and b) can afford  
    unless they NEED persons C,D, and E tey wont hire them...etc


In the system as it stands, the person who contributes least gets
more of the benefits of our government

the gov shurely isn't run like a business...


vincent pribish

U.S.A. membership has it's priveleges...
membership fee $5000/year...discounts for students and seniors

.

mlindroo@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:


> Why should wealth and political power go hand in hand? Maybe Person
> B isn't brighter/more hard-working/more successful/"Better" than 
> Person A ... he merely happens to have a rich dad who can afford to send him 
> to the best schools (Yale, Oxbridge or wherever) etc.. Whereas Person A might
> have been raised in the inner cities, by parents who never could afford to
> send him to college. Thus, Person B gets unfair _inherited_ opportunities 
> Person A never gets...unless you introduce scholarships and similar things
> to help gifted, underprivileged people.
> ---
> IMHO, this is why some redistribution of wealth and "one man-one vote" are 
> essential if democracy is to survive. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to
> a divided society where wealth and poverty are inherited, not necessarily
> because "good" people become richer while "bad" people fare less well.









RRRRRRRRRRR. . . .



Methinks I doth hear the sound
of a Can of Worms being opened. . .



Bruce Lewis
Studio Go! Multimedia
Los Angeles
bchan@deltanet.com/studiogo@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------
"You know, no one's going to really
be free until Nerd persecution ends."
                                �Gilbert Lowe (Anthony Edwards)
--------------------------------------------------
( ^_^ ); My opinions are not necessarily those of Studio Go!, folks.

>>>>> "vincent" == vincent pribish <vpribish@aerogold.aero.nd.edu> writes:

vincent> paulward (paulward@torolab.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
vincent> : >>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald Paul Menich <rmenich@ix.netcom.com> writes:


vincent> : Ronald> Person A pays $5,000/yr in taxes.  Person B pays $20,000/yr in taxes.
vincent> : Ronald> That is, person B has contributed four times as much as person A.

vincent> : This is exceedingly unclear to me.  You see, person A is taking a
vincent> : lower paying job at his company so that person's C, D, and E might
vincent> : also be employed there, also paying $5,000 per year in taxes, and not
vincent> : consuming welfare and UI.  Thus person A is actually saving the
vincent> : government the cost of welfare and UI for these three other people.
vincent> : Hmm.  I think things are a lot more complex than simply how much tax
vincent> : one pays.
vincent> : -- 
vincent> : -- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)   | A barbarian that requires a justification
vincent> : DB2/PE Development.               | will use the nearest appealing one.  Blame
vincent> : Shouldn't there be a shorter word | the barbarian, not his justification for
vincent> : for the concept "monosyllabic".   | his acts.



vincent> WHAT!?!?!?

vincent> 1.  person A DOES NOT take a lower paying job so that other people 
vincent>     can work there too.  He takes the lower paying job because he
vincent>     can't get a higher paying one (usually)......geez

My, what a narrow view of reality we have.  The only reason people
work at a given job is because it maximizes their profits.  You should
read some Adam Smith.  Enlightened self-interest is not "maximize your
profit" but do what you choose to do within the constraint of
self-preservation.  

I guess your view is the one with the most toys wins.  In fact, the
one with the most toys dies as does the one with nothing.  Materialism
seems so shallow when put in that light.

vincent> 2.  companies dont try to go out and hire as many people as possible
vincent>     they hire as many people as they a) need  and b) can afford  
vincent>     unless they NEED persons C,D, and E tey wont hire them...etc

Economics 101.  Companies will hire to the point of zero marginal
return.  If A is worth $60000 but takes on $20000, they can hire B and
C and still have a marginal return on the additional hires.

vincent> In the system as it stands, the person who contributes least gets
vincent> more of the benefits of our government

Hmm, I guess all those capital gains exemptions really benefit those
poor capitalists.

vincent> the gov shurely isn't run like a business...

How do you fire a citizen?

vincent> vincent pribish

vincent> U.S.A. membership has it's priveleges...
vincent> membership fee $5000/year...discounts for students and seniors

vincent> .

-- 
-- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)   | A barbarian that requires a justification
DB2/PE Development.               | will use the nearest appealing one.  Blame
Shouldn't there be a shorter word | the barbarian, not his justification for
for the concept "monosyllabic".   | his acts.