Can the Ares Program Be Salvaged?

MarkWhittington writes "The Augustine Commission has not officially presented its findings to the White House, but already a push back is starting to occur over the possibility that the Ares 1 rocket will be canceled after three billion dollars and over four years of development. According to a story in the Orlando Sentinel contractors involved in the development of the Ares 1 have started a quiet but persistent public relations campaign to save the Ares 1, criticized in some quarters because of cost and technical problems."

Comments

Should it be salvaged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should NASA be in the space launch business?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Whether it should or not, it looks like we're definitely on track to make sure we never get into space on our own again.

Oh wait, that wasn't the goal, was it?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[0123456]

Oh wait, that wasn't the goal, was it?

I always thought that the goal of Ares was to provide a method of finally killing the shuttle program: by promising a successor which would maintain the shuttle program jobs, they would have the political clout to close down the shuttle support manufacturing (external tanks, etc) to ensure that it couldn't fly past 2010 and then they would close down Ares once its job was done.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[dkf]

Should NASA be in the space launch business?

On the basis of the stories coming out, I suspect NASA shouldn't even be in the rowing-boat launch business. Don't get me wrong. They do amazing things with the things they put up there, but they just seem unable to get a grip of launch costs. So it should be someone else's job, someone else (or even many someones) who can keep costs down so that NASA money can be spent on the bits that really inspire everyone.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Planesdragon]

So it should be someone else's job, someone else (or even many someones) who can keep costs down

Whenever you see cost overruns, you're seeing "someone else" running the price up.

Government can be amazingly effecient -- if you can cut through "procurement" and "government contractgors."

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[damburger]

Yes, they should. They've achieved great things whilst privately funded space flight has mostly floundered. Take your libertarian bullshit to the conspiracy nuts, because it only makes sense if the moon landings never happened.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Lonewolf666]

What you really need is multiple vendors competing. Right now launching heavy cargoes into space is an oligopol of a few government organizations. AFAIK only NASA, ESA and the Russian FKA have high capacity launching systems at the moment.

Companies like Space-X are entering the market, but their Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet and might need a few more years if it can take commercial payloads.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[cheesybagel]

You mean ULA, Arianespace and ILS.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[jamstar7]

Oh wait, that wasn't the goal, was it?

I always thought that the goal of Ares was to provide a method of finally killing the shuttle program: by promising a successor which would maintain the shuttle program jobs, they would have the political clout to close down the shuttle support manufacturing (external tanks, etc) to ensure that it couldn't fly past 2010 and then they would close down Ares once its job was done.

OK, so why am I getting the feeling that somebody, somewhere, is busy printing out their 'Mission Accomplished!" banner to fly when they cancel Ares once and for all?

Far be it for me to piss on NASA's fire, but dammit, bout the only thing they've done in the last 25+ years is make space safe for robots. We got to the Moon in '69 by the quick & dirty method: throwing enough money at engineers til it worked. Problem with that solution was, it didn't leave a thing to do next. If we'd worked on a single stage to orbit reuseable vehicle, built a real space station for construction, and built a reuseable lunar probe there at the space station, we coulda had a goddamned lunar colony already and been ready to head for Mars. Instead, we got a space truck that's about to come apart if you breathe on it hard, and a 'habitat' in a bad orbit that costs a mint to maintain, doesn't do much real science, and just makes our international partners look good while we pour more money down the rat hole. Oh, and we're gonna deorbit it within a year or so of shutting down our space truck program.

Yes, some cool shit's been done with unmanned probes like the Mars Rovers, the Cassini Probe, the Hubble telescope, et. al. Done on a shoestring cause 99% of NASA's budget's tied up in the ISS. We've learned a lot about keeping unmanned probes alive and kicking way past their bedtimes. We've learned the Shuttle ain't the best vehicle for heavy lifting (the Russians coulda told us that if anybody'd bothered to ask 'em), that solid fuel boosters ain't that safe when trying to lift a man-rated vehicle (can't turn the damned thing off once you light it up), and that we've got a long way to go to relearn what we used to know to make a man-rated stack to put somebody back into orbit again once we finally put the Shuttle in a museum someplace. And we've learned that the only people going into space for real are gonna be military-trained pilots, ubergeek 'mission specialists' with decent security clearance, high ranking Federal politicians, and the occaisional uberrich guy willing to shell out a few million for a vacation he can brag about to anybody who cares to listen at his country club. As for the rest of us, we're stuck here on the ground, and my big question is, have we missed the window of opportunity to conquer space right?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[c6gunner]

What would we have achieved if we'd given the same amount of tax payer's money to private companies instead of a creaking bureaucracy?

A really nice movie stage in the Arizona desert?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Herby Sagues]

Even at this point, with all the money sunk into the program, there's no financial or technical reason to continue with it when there are less expensive, more efficient and more effective alternatives. Ares (and the whole constellation program) is a total failure even with the current schedule and if no further delays happen. It will be simply too late to be an effective continuation of the shuttle program, and it will imply that thousands of employees specialized in construction, launch management and everything that's not R&D will have to be laid off, just to be rehired and retrained five years later when the program is approacing realization. The schedule gap between Shuttle and Ares is simply not admissible, and the future capabilities of the program ate too limited. At the same time, the DIRECT proposal offers a much more seamless continuation to the shuttle program, allowing the factories, equipment and, especially, people to continue working with minimal changes, and to be launching rockets with only a minimal interruption after the decomissioning of the Shuttle. And in fact, since the vast majority of the expendable components of the shuttle are shared by the Orion rocket, if it were necessary to extend the shuttle program by one or two launches, the cost would be much, much smaller than with Ares. Why go with a more expensive, more limited, late, untested and technically inferior program when the alternative is there?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[MrKaos]

Whether it should or not, it looks like we're definitely on track to make sure we never get into space on our own again.

Agree. Clearly it looks like a case of picking a platform, despite it's warts, and committing to ongoing development of that platform. Had this occurred with the original Saturn V launchers there would have been a process of continued development that would mirror the reliability of the Soyuz launchers for less ongoing investment. What's the point of paying infrastructure cost 3, 4 times over when maintenance is more cost effective.

Starting from scratch is *always* going to incur the up-front development costs. Ares or Direct, who gives a shit, does it work, can the problems be solved now lets get on with it. Unfortunately the vested interests appear to be impeding every aspect of human progress.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[ajlisows]

That is a good idea. Private companies are NEVER corrupt. If the government would have kept that money given to the Telcos we would NEVER have gotten the communications infrastructure upgraded.

Wait, that's right. We DIDN'T get it upgraded. The Telcos pocketed the money.

Companies could say "Sure, we've got a great plan to launch men to Mars by 2018!" When 2018 comes around, they could say "uhhhh, we tried but it's really hard to do" (which is totally believable in this instance) "if you gave us the same amount of money, we'll have a man on Mars by 2028!"

I'm not a fan of big government either, but I also am not big on trusting huge corporations working with any sort of "public interest" in mind...which is what the space program is because the odds of any real financial gain from space exploration in the next 50 years are very low.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Richard_at_work]

What, precisely, do you think is actually happening here? NASA isnt developing and building Ares I, Alliant Techsystems, Boeing and Rocketdyne are - all private companies. NASA is acting as the administrator of the program, a position you would need however you decide to source your rockets.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[qc_dk]

a massive planet-wide economical crisis?

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[SlashWombat]

It seems to smack of gross incompetence. Where did all the money go? One has to wonder how many people ought to be sacked over this, from engineers through to accountants.

I imagine the Russians could have developed a dozen different launch vehicles for this sort of money. I believe that NASA already uses Russian Rocket engines on several launch vehicles, so totally outsourcing a development program shouldn't seem too outlandish!

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[ThunderThor53]

What would we have achieved if we'd given the same amount of tax payer's money to private companies instead of a creaking bureaucracy?

Isn't that effectively what we did for the shuttle? Lockheed Martin makes the external tank, ATK makes the solid rocket boosters. Rockwell Collins built the orbiters themselves, at a cool $1.7 billion a piece. United Space Alliance, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, pockets about 90% of the $450 million cost of each flight. United Space Alliance is responsible for mission design and planning; software development and integration; astronaut and flight controller training; system integration; flight operations; vehicle processing, launch and recovery; vehicle sustaining engineering; flight crew equipment processing; and Space Shuttle and International Space Station-related support to the Constellation Program. (Sorry, I can't find a link on the amount of each launch that's passed directly to contractors. I'll have to cite my experience working at one of the contractors that takes such a large cut of that money.

All of these, at least originally, were on cost-plus contracts. Government contractors on cost-plus contracts make the government look like the model of efficiency.

Now maybe if we had given out the same amount of money as a firm fixed price contract.... But when the original request for proposal went out, I doubt anyone would have bid on it under those circumstances.

P.S. NASA and the DoD deserve their fair share of the blame for the exorbitant costs of the shuttles. Defining requirements that are never used (DoD wanted to use the shuttle to launch and service satellites in polar orbits, launching from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California) is a great way to increase the cost of a project.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[ultranova]

What would we have achieved if we'd given the same amount of tax payer's money to private companies instead of a creaking bureaucracy?

We'd enriched a few shareholders, who'd then blame their failure to deliver on government intervention, between rants about how it's wrong to tax that money they've "earned" just to keep some poor bastard from dying in the streets and how any oversight is a horrible insult on their liberty - to crush others beneath their boots, but that's never said outright - of course.

That's my guess anyway, based on how it's worked with every other industry. Capitalism as its finest, unles you count outright feudalism.

Re:Should it be salvaged?

[Moofie]

Well, I imagine that we'd have space hardware that's almost identical to what we have now, since every scrap is built by private companies.

I'm sure you had a point in there somewhere, but it was buried under a pretty big pile of not understanding how stuff gets made.

The fallacy of sunk costs

[ShooterNeo]

Yes, 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money has been blown. However, the decision to make is : will the gains from FUTURE spending exceed FUTURE costs? We don't factor in the 3 billion already spent in this decision. Alas, it's impossible to quantify gains since a few moon rocks and some pretty pictures don't have a readily assignable value. I'd say no, because I think the 20 billion or whatever a working Ares rocket line would cost could be better spent on other areas of space exploration. 20 billion would pay for a lot of unmanned missions, or could be used to develop a cheaper way to get to orbit (such as lasers or an EM accelerator or something)

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

Or a launch loop, which is a practical alternative to a space elevator that doesn't require exotic materials. Not that it'll happen in this "no we can't do it, think of the {amoebas,corporations,children}!" age.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

Oh, and I hate to reply to myself, but from the article:

Lofstrom estimates that an initial loop costing roughly $10 billion with a 1 year payback could launch 40,000 metric tons per year, and cut launch costs to $300/kg, or for $30 billion, with a larger power generation capacity, the loop would be capable of launching 6 million metric tons per year, and given a 5 year payback period, the costs for accessing space with a launch loop could be as low as $3/kg.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[negRo_slim]

Yes, 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money has been blown.

So we are going to bicker over 3 billion? Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[falconwolf]

Or a launch loop, which is a practical alternative to a space elevator

The wiki article does not say launch loops are practical, but it does include a Difficulties of launch loops as well as "Competing and similar designs" section.

All the same, thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of launch loops before, at least that I can recall.

Falcon

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[Thaelon]

You have a strange definition of practical if it includes a 2000km maglev track that's 80km in the air.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

You have a strange definition of practical if it includes a 2000km maglev track that's 80km in the air.

Obviously, it'd be a massive undertaking, but it's practical in that we know how to build the thing with known materials. Space elevators, on the other hand, require exotic substances we simply don't have right now.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[shentino]

While sunk costs are often fallacious to consider by themselves, they often do serve as a good heuristic to predicting future costs.

And sometimes, taking into account sunk costs is the only way to realize it will never fly, much like looking back on all you're losses may be the only way you'll ever realize that you've been had by a 419 scammer.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

The structure supports itself using the energy stored in the moving ribbon. That's the whole point. It's not a 2,000km long, 80km-high viaduct.

Also, it's pathetic and sad if we forgo what would be one of the greatest advancements of our time because we're afraid somebody might knock it down like so many bricks. I can't believe that you're so paralyzed by fear that you'd rather do nothing than attempt something great, and, fail or success, at least say you've tried.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[QuoteMstr]

A space fountain is a launch loop turned on its side. AIUI, the advantages of a launch loop over a space fountain are that:

• a launch loops impart significant horizontal velocity to the payload as well as height, which makes achieving orbit once at the apex easier
• both redirecting hubs of a launch loop are on the ground, whereas one in the space fountain must be suspended

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Small change, really, compared to the amount of money the government has blown on car companies and bailing out Wall Street.

To put that in perspective, 3 billion is the same amount the government dumped into "Cash for Clunkers"

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[SBrach]

It always bothers me when people complain about government programs that should have been used to help the economy. My argument is that when we spend money on NASA, or the military that money is being used to pay, for the most part, Americans for something useful thereby helping the economy. CARS on the other hand was paying Americans to throw away perfectly good cars. It is one of the few examples of government spending where the "Well they don't just take the money out into the desert and burn it argument" doesn't really work.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[phantomfive]

We have been. If you look at this graph, you will see defense spending has been dropping regularly since the 50s. Wartime has tended to push it up, but other than that it's gone down. That's a large part of how Clinton managed to balance the budget (notice defense spending went down during his term despite fighting a war in the Balkans at the same time).

Defense spending has been largely replaced with entitlement spending, mainly medicare/medicaid and social security (as you can see in (this chart; I couldn't find one that goes back to the 50s. Also the huge projected jump after 2030 is not realistic since it is mostly interest payments, and it will be difficult to find someone to loan us money at that point, making cuts a necessity). Right now defense spending is only about 21% of the US budget, as opposed to the major entitlements which make up about 44% of the budget.

All the same US defense spending probably is excessive, considering it about matches the spending of the entire rest of the world combined. but on the other hand some of those toys are really fun. However they are not the biggest expense, the biggest expenses are operating/maintaining bases, and paying our soldiers. If we are serious about cutting expenses we will have to close bases and reduce the number of soldiers.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[ShooterNeo]

Agreed. SpaceX could probably have built at least ONE fcking prototype rocket ship for 3 billion dollars. They spend a few hundred million for their first successful launch. Instead we've got dick for all that money. Even if SpaceX couldn't have finished a mega heavy lift booster, I bet they could have flown a modular part of a larger design for 3 billion bucks.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[antirelic]

Or we can stick with the constitution and cut from, I dunno, Social services spending (the other 40% of wasted tax money that isnt part of the governments constitutional mandate).

I mean, look at how much good social security has done for us. Dont believe me, ride into the projects of Los Angeles or Washington DC. Those people have greately benefited from the benevolent government teet.

Yeah, f' the military. What has THAT ever done for us? I mean, the internet is over rated and Japan and German are much superior languages and cultures (well, at least they were under homicidal fascism).

Just sayin.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[interploy]

I think you haven't taken into account the human brain's capacity for analyzing objects. There's something about being present that changes everything in the way we perceive things. It's that same difference as seeing a picture of a place and really being there. Maybe we lack the technology or it's simply something to do with the human condition, but we humans never really understand what's out there unless we actually go to see for ourselves. I've no doubt we could send any number of probes to Mars and not get an nth of the information as one actual crew going out there to do research.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[ShooterNeo]

Yes and no. The problem is that right now the underlying first technology was never developed. We have no cheap way to get into orbit at all. So, in order to send a crew to mars, we would have to burn up as much wealth as would be produced by the entire lives of about a million people. That is, about a million people would have to work their entire lives in order to get around 10-20 people to Mars for a couple years. Or about 100,000 folks to get some astronauts to the moon. (yes, I know, the labor is spread out among more people than that, but it's simplest to equate to man-lifetimes)

It isn't just money - it's the labor.

Laser launch, for instance, could potentially radically change that equation, such that a measily few "man decades" of labor is consumed for every person we launch into orbit.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[c6gunner]

Or a launch loop [wikipedia.org], which is a practical alternative to a space elevator that doesn't require exotic materials.

Practical? The guy wants to take a 4,000 km long iron cable with a 5cm diameter, and spin it at velocities fast enough to raise the whole thing into the air. And then he wants to put the strain of a few hundred tonnes of payload on it.

The only question seems to be whether it would disintegrate while still on the ground, or whether it would last long enough to build up some speed and launch itself into a different country.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[lordholm]

So, you mean that this thing, which would reach an altitude of 80 km, be 2000 km long, effectively being the largest human built construct on the planet (save for the wall of china perhaps), would only cost a mere $10 billion. Contrast this to the construction of one of the worlds largest suspension bridges the sound bridge between Malmà and Copenhagen. This bridge which is about 7 km in total length costed around $6 billion to build in an area where there where infrastructure enough to support the project, and where they where using well known engineering principles and techniques.

So, building a 285 times large constructs (not adjusted for it going up as well), based on unproven methods, in a remote area of the world with little infrastructure, probably infested with malaria, is of course very likely to cost only a mere 40% more than that bridge.

Seriously, that sounds really ridiculous.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[quenda]

effectively being the largest human built construct on the planet (save for the wall of china perhaps)

The Great Wall is long since in ruins and pales in comparison to the Great Rabbit-Proof Fence of Australia, which I'm told is visible from the moon, after a few Fosters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_proof_fence

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Thing about estimates on something that needs a bucket load of R&D, is that they are total rubbish. Fact is we are not even in a position to *estimate* the cost of such a launch system.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Oil pipelines, highways and ocean cables are >2000km in length and a lot of them are far more "massive". Sometimes we forget what we are prepared to do (and have done) just to drive a car or burn a ton of oil for power when we consider these sorts of things.

Re:The fallacy of sunk costs

[evilviper]

Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.

When you are completely ignorant of something, it is quite easy to come to believe it could be partially or completely removed without adverse effects.

Wrong Question

[WindBourne]

The question should be SHOULD Ares I be rescued? Honestly, I do not think so. It always struck me as a waste since other rockets of similar size were available. That bring us to Ares V. Should it be? I honestly do not know. I know that USA needs multiple types of launchers and they need them to be low costs. I would very much like to see an Ares V or a Direct 2** be in the mix. Which is better? I am not sure. Personally, I have to give the nudge to Direct since it uses far far more of the current launch human-rated equipment. There is a lot to say for that. In the end, I am much more concerned that we will not do the right thing WRT to private space. I have aborted that several times. This time, we need to get it started AND give them an ALTERNATIVE destination; Basically, we need to get Bigelow building his Space Station. Also we need tugs combined with a fuel depot to haul things around. While it is nice to say that this is about NASA, but it really is not. It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer

Re:Wrong Question

[jpmorgan]

You can certainly argue that Ares I should be replaced by man-rating commercial boosters. Some would argue that it's cheaper to engineer a man-rated rocket from scratch than go back and redesign an existing one, but it's a complex issue that I certainly am not qualified to weigh in on. But that's something that requies a great deal of knowledge of aerospace engineering and the projects themselves to determine. On the other hand, Ares V, as intended, will have significantly higher payload capacity than any other other rocket around. Bigger than Saturn V. So the debate about replacing Ares V with something COTS is moot... there IS nothing COTS that will fill its role. It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer Honestly, if congress just allocated some money and threw it at NASA with a 'go build X' mandate, that'd be perfect. The problem with NASA is congressional micromanagement. For example, Congress banned NASA from spending any money on development of VASIMR propulsion, or inflatable space habitats, both of which are key pieces of technology that should be a backbone future space development. But nope, no money, because of some special interest in some congresscritter's district somewhere, that has a vested interest in NASA using an inferior piece of technology.

Re:Wrong Question

[0123456]

Some would argue that it's cheaper to engineer a man-rated rocket from scratch than go back and redesign an existing one, but it's a complex issue that I certainly am not qualified to weigh in on.

The whole 'man-rating' concept is really bogus: the shuttle couldn't be called 'man-rated' in any real sense when it kills its crew one flight in fifty.

The primary difference between manned and unmanned launchers is aborts and engine-out capability; if you're launching a bunch of humans and you lose a couple of engines but can still achieve a low orbit, that's preferable to having to make a risky abort. If you're launching a satellite and can only put it into a low orbit where it won't stay up for long, you're better off just dropping it into the ocean.

So yes, you'd want to ensure that aborts could be handled safely at any point in the flight, and add extra capability to handle engine-out failures which where the unmanned launch would be better off to just crash and burn. But those are relatively minor issues... you may lose some payload from flying a non-ideal trajectory, and you'll add some cost and perhaps some mass to improve engine-out capability; but those kind of changes hardly register when compared to NASA's record of spending billions of dollars and several years to achieve... nothing.

On the other hand, Ares V, as intended, will have significantly higher payload capacity than any other other rocket around. Bigger than Saturn V. So the debate about replacing Ares V with something COTS is moot... there IS nothing COTS that will fill its role.

Which leads to the obvious question: 'so what?'

What will Ares V achieve which will be worth its development and flight cost? Do we really need to build a huge launcher which will fly maybe once a year if we can launch the same payload on four or five flights of a smaller launcher which will see the cost-benefits of mass production?

I'm willing to be convinced that NASA really _need_ a huge, expensive launcher of their own, but I've seen no evidence so far that it will prove cheaper than buying launches elsewhere.

But nope, no money, because of some special interest in some congresscritter's district somewhere, that has a vested interest in NASA using an inferior piece of technology.

That, though, I could somewhat agree with... but I think you put too much blame on Congress and too little on NASA 'not invented here' syndrome (c.f. the Delta X).

Re:Wrong Question

[falconwolf]

It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer

It is the wrong question. As for your post I'd ask if congress should pay for it, with tax payer money? And the answer is "NO!!!" Before this statement of yours you gave the right answer. Bigelow, Richard Branson, and other space entrepreneurs should be able to keep their money so they can invest in space programs.

Falcon

Re:Wrong Question

[falconwolf]

The whole 'man-rating' concept is really bogus: the shuttle couldn't be called 'man-rated' in any real sense when it kills its crew one flight in fifty.

Only those who would be on board can make the decision on whether something is "man rated". And a number of astronauts have answered "Yes" even after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Some 15 years later they were still saying "yes" after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. As Morgan Freeman's character in "Chain Reaction" says in testimony before a congress subcommittee death is a price some are willing to make for human progress.

those kind of changes hardly register when compared to NASA's record of spending billions of dollars and several years to achieve... nothing.

NASA achieved nothing? After Russia was the first nation to put an object into orbit with the Sputnik program in 1957, because of JFK the US was the first nation to land a person on the moon with the Apollo 11 launch on 16 July 1969.

I wouldn't call those, or the Space Shuttle, nothing but NASA hasn't done much since then.

I'm willing to be convinced that NASA really _need_ a huge, expensive launcher of their own, but I've seen no evidence so far that it will prove cheaper than buying launches elsewhere.

I'm sitting on the fence as to whether a heavy launch vehicle is needed, but if so then instead of the US designing and building new ones either the US Saturn V or Russian Energia can be used.

Falcon

Re:Wrong Question

[WindBourne]

There is paying for things and then there is incentives. There is a STRONG difference. COTs is about INCENTIVES. What I am suggesting is that we do several things :

1. Provide more incentives for Human rated launch vehicles. Not Ares V/Direct 2**, but getting a few more private human launch. I would really like to see Northrup push SS3 along quickly.
2. We need a several other place for private space to go to besides NASA and DOD. We need to get Bigelow started. I think that we should buy a sundancer and BA-330 and attach them to the ISS. That gets Bigelow started and they will progress with their private stations.
3. We need TUGS AND Fuel Depots. We should offer up a two contracts to pull things around as well as de-orbit some of the NASA junk. But it will require that it be by re-fuelable tugs along with fuel depots.
4. The final one is several landers for the moon. For that, I think that all we will have to do is offer up several contracts for that. The two obvious choices for those are Armadillo and Blue Origin. Carmack will need outside money, but I would put money on it that several billionares will be VERY interested in that.

I really think that with LITTLE BIT OF MONEY, we can prime the pump for getting us into LEO AND ONTO THE MOON. The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.

Re:Wrong Question

[falconwolf]

There is paying for things and then there is incentives. There is a STRONG difference.

If your "It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years" isn't paying for things then what is it? Where is that money they are allocating coming from?

We need a several other place for private space to go to besides NASA and DOD. We need to get Bigelow started.

Which is what I said.

The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.

But you are still suggesting using taxpayer money. Tax funding got us to where we are now, and I don't think any more is needed as long as government doesn't get in the way. Private businesses should be allowed provide their own launches and services but without the government handouts.

Re:Wrong Question

[evilviper]

What will Ares V achieve which will be worth its development and flight cost? Do we really need to build a huge launcher which will fly maybe once a year if we can launch the same payload on four or five flights of a smaller launcher which will see the cost-benefits of mass production?

Several NASA engineers have commented before that having only the shuttle, rather than a Saturn V, drastically increases the cost of any large mission (specifically, ISS). Requiring that each piece be split into 10 chunks, rendezvous in space, get put together by astronauts doing slow, difficult, expensive spacewalks, etc., ends up costing much more than a simple bit of math would suggest. In addition, other contingencies have to be planned for. Each of the 5 pieces has to be self-sufficient since they have to wait months to be joined up, and plenty of contingencies have to be planned for, because it's not okay if all your work burns up in the atmosphere because launch #5 had to be delayed by a month to fix a safety issue somebody noticed while it was on the pad...

See Skylab, where the space station was put up in one launch, versus ISS, which has been a work in progress for how many years now??

And finally, the number of smaller flights needed is closer to 10, not 5. Ares V is planned for 188,000kg to LEO. That's 8X the capacity heavy lifters like the shuttle or the Delta IV can provide...

Re:Wrong Question

[Cochonou]

The Saturn V ? But it is obsolete, and this has a very specific meaning in the space industry: it cannot be built anymore (if we had the blueprints, which we actually do not) because its subcomponents are no longer manufactured. Fighting obsolescence is a difficult matter, and requires redesigns to keep up with the pace of the technology. In a design as old as Saturn V, it would be such a nightmare that I can easily understand that NASA finds more cost-effective to design a new rocket.

Why?

[ATestR]

The question is not whether Ares can be salvages. Instead, we should as should it be salvaged. Like its predecessor, the Space Shuttle, it is entirely too political in origin, promising to be all things to all people, and instead doing a half-assed job of doing much of anything beside making some congressman's constituents happy.

Wrong question to ask

[macraig]

Another case of mis-framing: the question to ask is not "can the Ares program be salvaged?" but rather "should the Ares program be salvaged?" That's what the Augustine Commission is intending to decide, right? Perhaps the Commission should be sequestered like a jury, to keep it from being unduly influenced by these nervous contractors afraid they're about to be kicked from the back of the gravy train?

Re:Wrong question to ask

[jpmorgan]

No, the question is 'will the Ares program be salvaged.' The answer is 'yes.' Now, I'm not saying that Ares I should be killed... or that it should be saved. But if you try to kill it, all the congresscritters whose districts are going to get money out of Ares I (the SRB components are built by Thiokol, for example), won't let you. If the NASA tries to replace it with something else, Congress will step in and earmark part of NASA's budget specifically for Ares development. NASA has sucked since Apollo, since congress saw the awe and wonder that space exploration inspired and realised it would be a great, unkillable jobs program.

Am I cynical? Yes. But NASA has been enormously hindered by congressional micromanagement over the years. And none of it has been for the benefit of the space program.

WIth all due respect, you're totally wrong

[ifwm]

"We don't factor in the 3 billion already spent in this decision"

If this weren't a political entity, then you would be correct.

As it is, the 3 billion already spent is a VERY important variable in the CONTINUED support of NASA.

Your analysis is naive, as it considers NASA a business, not a political entity that is subject to voter whims like "THEY ALREADY WASTED THREE BILLION ON THIS".

Ignoring that, or pretending that "We don't factor in the 3 billion already spent in this decision" is wrong and ignorant of the polics that are involved in 3 billion dollar government spending decisions.

Augustine's views are well-known

[Anonymous Coward]

Augustine's personal views on human spaceflight have been known since 1990:

--
In its original report, the [Augustine] committee ranked five space activities in order of priority:

      1. Space science
      2. Technology development
      3. Earth science
      4. Unmanned launch vehicle
      5. Human spaceflight
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_the_Future_of_the_United_States_Space_Program

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/05/does_the_choice_1.html

Re:Augustine's views are well-known

[QuantumG]

haha.. If you'd watched even a single second of the committee meetings you'd know that Norm Augustine has no personal opinion on the matter anymore... except maybe the same one all of us have, confusion at what the hell NASA has been doing for that last 40 years.

The fallacy of the fallacy of sunk costs

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if the billions spent on every cancelled shuttle replacement had gone towards a real project, we would *actually have something*. Following your logic (and that of many politicians), we have spent billions upon billions and have fuck all to show for it.

Meanwhile, the smart money is on China to carry on the banner of human space exploration. They don't suffer from political paralysis.

I don't so much care if we do it, or not do it, but today we have the worst of both worlds. We spend the money but don't get the results. Let's make up our damn minds one way or the other already and stop waffling around for decades on end. Either it's not worth it to send humans into space, and then let's stop spending the money and just send up robots, or it's worth it for whatever other benefits it brings, and then let's just fucking get ourselves a shuttle replacement already.

Re:The fallacy of the fallacy of sunk costs

[tftp]

Let's make up our damn minds one way or the other already and stop waffling around for decades on end.

You can't have this because you need a government that is continuous over decades. The USA has a government that is permanently in "trolling for votes" mode, and in that mode persistence and steady hand do not pay if the results of today's investments will be visible only 10 or 20 years from now. A President would go down like a lead balloon once the opposition explains to voters that he took $10B of their money and "just burned it." The USA is probably doomed to achieving only short term goals (not longer than 8 years.) Leave long term goals to China, those guys know how to plan ahead and know what persistence of power means.

Re:who gives a fuck?

[couchslug]

"take your comic books, light them on fire and shove them up your faggot ass."

While that's a wee bit harsh, we don't have even the slightest immediate need for manned missions.

Robots are what we should be developing. Sending people to do a machines job so others can live out Buck Rogers fantasies is an appropriate task for COMMERCIAL space outfits. Learning about space is an appropriate use for robots, which we will require to exploit the resources that are the main reason for going offworld in the first place.

There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

http://www.directlauncher.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Launch_Vehicle

The DIRECT system is a better option:
1) Most of the hardware is man-rated; unlike Ares

2) NASA does not have to retool manufacturing; unlike with Ares

3)Can be ready sooner with heavy lifting as an option

Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling. Orion, the capsule, is a go no matter what.

Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs, Lockmart would still manufacture the capsule, and Boeing would get it's money from being part of United Space Allaince.

Re:There is another option

[vlm]

Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling.

Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs

Think about how those two quotes, apparently intended to be in opposition to each other, yet strangely similar.

Senator Frank Moss has been out of office since before the first battlestar galactica series in the late 70s, and dead for six years. Its time to let the SRBs die, please. They've killed enough people.

In a similar manner, why keep all the same contractors doing the same old, same old, if all that changes is the project name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moss_(politician)

"Senator Helped Thiokol Win Shuttle Contract ."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1367&dat=19860303&id=eM8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5585,719942

Re:There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

The SRBs have been redesigned since Challenger which is why there hasn't been another accident related to the Solid Rockets Boosters. If you remove the SRBs then you will have to design a whole new engine, in the class of the Apollo era F-1s since each SRB puts out the equivalent thrust of almost TWO F-1 rocket engines each.

Re:There is another option

[0123456]

If you remove the SRBs then you will have to design a whole new engine, in the class of the Apollo era F-1s since each SRB puts out the equivalent thrust of almost TWO F-1 rocket engines each.

Or you could just buy RD-171s...

Re:There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

SRBs are more efficient, the RD-171 burns kerosene not liquid hydrogen so it takes more propellant. Plus it would take four of them on the first stage. Now you are talking about a stage the size of the first stage of the Saturn V. The first stage of the Saturn V weighed just over 5,000,000 lbs versus the the 2,600,000 lbs for the SRBs combined.

Re:There is another option

[Kartoffel]

That would have been the RS-84. Killed in 2004 by Bush and friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_Initiative

Part of the problem is that every new president to come along insists on throwing out the last 4-8 years' worth of work and starting over. NASA can't see any projects through without orders from the commander-in-chief and budget from congress.

So remember that whatever Augustine says, it's merely a recommendation. The death of Constellation, if it comes, will be at the hands of Obama and Congress.

Re:There is another option

[Kartoffel]

No way we'd purchase foreign engines, though they are very nice ones.

Instead, I'd restart the RS-84 program and use that for a first stage Ares I without thrust oscillations. For heavy lift, simply cluster a number of Ares I common cores, optionally recovering or even flying back the strap-ons for reuse.

Re:There is another option

[falconwolf]

http://www.directlauncher.com/

Looking at that page, I see one problem right away, it combines 2 roles in 1 launcher. If it is used to put people in space but doesn't carry a full load of cargo or it carries a full load but with no crew then there's waste. And what are the chances each launch with have a full load and a crew?

Falcon

Re:There is another option

[ozbird]

No way we'd purchase foreign engines, though they are very nice ones.

Lockheed Martin already use the RD-180 engine on the Atlas III and V, so using the RD-171 makes a lot of sense - strapping astronauts to a solid rocket booster does not.

Re:There is another option

[cheesybagel]

8 years is enough. It is about the time they took to design and build Saturn V with all the trimmings for a lunar launch. So much for CAD, CAM, etc making design to manufacturing faster....

Re:There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

The problem lies in the size of the Altair lander that NASA wants to use not just for simple landing but long duration stays. It is significantly larger then the Apollo lunar lander. It would take a colossal rocket to launch the mission in one rocket. We are also much further along orbital rendezvous then they were in the '60s, the Progress spacecraft can automatically dock with ISS.

Re:There is another option

[Kartoffel]

NASA is not LockMart. Besides, we have the RS-84.

Re:There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

NASA also had a nearly unlimited budget, post-1963, to get the job done. Modeling still can only go so far, you still have to go ahead and build it.

Re:There is another option

[cheesybagel]

Ares I is nowhere near a Saturn V to cost what it did. Compare what they achieved for Ares with what SpaceX did with way less resources: SpaceX has designed three engines (Merlin, Kestrel, Draco) plus several variations of these engines which would be considered work that would take years at regular NASA contractors (compare time schedule for Merlin regen engine with RS-68 regen).

SpaceX has also launched Falcon 1 and will launch Falcon 9 years before Ares I is supposed to get a launch. They have also done a test of the Falcon 9 first stage engines before Ares I did test its supposedly simpler 5 segment SRB. The cost for all this was about an order of magnitude less than what Ares I has cost so far.

Re:There is another option

[EMUPhysics]

Although to be fair the Falcon 9 will use 9 Merlin engines and will not have enough thrust to lift the Orion CM/SM combo. It would require the Falcon 9 Heavy which would use 27 Merlin engines. That is a lot of points of potential failures.

Re:There is another option

[falconwolf]

The problem lies in the size of the Altair lander that NASA wants to use not just for simple landing but long duration stays.

I don't know what that has to do with using the same vehicle, DIRECT, for a bunch of different tasks, manned and unmanned space flights or low earth versus high altitude orbits versus outer space flights meant to do different things.

Falcon

Re:There is another option

[jamstar7]

If you remove the SRBs then you will have to design a whole new engine, in the class of the Apollo era F-1s since each SRB puts out the equivalent thrust of almost TWO F-1 rocket engines each.

Or you could just buy RD-171s.../blockquote>

Gotta admit, the Russkis knew what they were doin when they built that Energia.

Re:There is another option

[jamstar7]

Combining 2 roles in one launcher is not waste, it's versatility. Developing 2 different rockets is always more expensive than developing one and using it for both roles. Plus, with one rocket launching twice, instead of two being launched once, economies of scale brings the per-launch cost down twice as fast for DIRECT than it does for Ares.

Multimissioning a booster for unmanned cargo runs and manned capsuals with some cargo underneath seems to me to be a Swiss Army knife solution. Yeah, you can use it for a tool if you rilly gotta do it, but you're better off with the right tool for the job. Current Shuttle launches max out at about 3Gs, whereas unmanned launches can hit 20Gs when you're going for max efficiency. I'm a fan of a man-rated 'spam can' booster AND a 'big dumb booster' for cargo launches. Just makes sense to me...

Re:There is another option

[Nyeerrmm]

Certainly it makes more sense if you're starting from scratch. However, since we're not, the question becomes more complicated. On one side, you have the argument that we should make the best architecture possible for the sake of the future, with the disadvantage of long lead time, risk and high cost. On the other side you have the argument that we should build something that takes the most advantage of the currently in place manufacturing and infrastructure to minimize the gap and keep things running, but this leads to a long-term non-optimal solution. To me, Ares seems to be a 'worst of both worlds' compromise between the two, by limiting us to shuttle derived technology while still having to redesign it all in practical terms.

Personally, I feel something like DIRECT is better simply because it can be finished much more quickly than a completely new launch infrastructure, and is thus more likely to be finished before it gets cancelled. After this I would say slow development of a better series of vehicles should begin, although this seems less likely politically.

Can NASA be salvaged ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is the real question. With the US fiscally bankrupt ( unable to meet its current commitments even with 100% taxation ), its productive industry off-shored, its people leveraged to the hilt ( those still with jobs ), and foreigners no longer willing to finance its deficits, everything but feeding and housing its people will be on the chopping block. With luck, Nasa may be able to retain a presence in space by launching other countries satelites for hire. This is a truly appalling prospect for the people who put a man on the moon fourty years ago. You'all should hang every politician and banker you can get your hands on for doing this to you.

Re:Can NASA be salvaged ...

[Nadaka]

Hardly insightful. we have about an 11-13 trillion dollar economy, our current federal commitments are about 2-3 trillion. We have problems, but they are nothing close to what you claim.

Re:Why Do Space Stories Bring Out The Kooks?

[0123456]

NASA and teh space shuttle!!! It's like totally fail. Cuz it's like, teh goverment.

I think you got it.

The shuttle's problems were predicted before it flew, and even NASA appear to have understood that they couldn't possibly achieve the things they were claiming it would do (e.g. they didn't even have enough capacity to build the external tanks to support the two-week turnaround they were claiming they'd achieve).

No private company looking for a viable means of launching payloads cheaply would have built the shuttle; only a government could fail so spectacularly.

Sure, it's done a few useful things, but nothing even begin to justify the cost.

Let's not forget:

[assemblerex]

Over elaborate escape sequence consisting of several escape stages / chutes
Explosion of lift vehicle would melt escape chutes even if successful
Malfunction resonance would kill the astronauts before they can hit the escape button

No, it can't be "saved"

[TopSpin]

This was spelled out for you 15 months ago right here on Slashdot.

There is no saving Ares. Not because there is anything wrong with Ares. The "technical problems" are trumped up exaggerations of the engineering challenges that have emerged and been overcome. The "cost overruns" are fictional; Augustine is "finding" dramatic cost overruns because that helps justify killing the project. The reason there is no saving Ares is that the US voted in people that despise manned space flight. They have "better" places to spend money so whatever plans the US had for manned space flight are on hold for the indefinite future.

Lots of apologists appeared to muddy the waters but the bottom line is that the original plan to give the Constellation money to the NEA (a.k.a "early-education") was never repudiated by anyone in the Administration. We're just doing the necessary political push-ups to bury NASA's manned space flight capability.

It is amusing to watch as NASA and it's contractors make sweeping their work under the rug difficult; the engine test will be dramatic and will unavoidably appear in the news cycle. Ares I-X has a launch date and is being erected right now... It's kinda hard to characterize all this as "failure."

Re:No, it can't be "saved"

[Graymalkin]

The Ares I-X is a stunt at best and a sham at worst. The Ares I-X has a dummy fifth segment and a dummy payload attached meaning it's simply a Shuttle SRB with an inert payload attached. One of the major challenges with the Ares I is the fifth engine segment, it completely changes the dynamics of the rocket. The Ares I-X launch does nothing to test the Ares I design in anything resembling its actual flight configuration. It won't be until the Ares I-Y flight in 2013 that the five segment engine will actually be tested and even that won't be testing the J-2X engine. The whole Ares I stack won't be tested with the Orion 1 until at least 2014 and likely not until 2015.

To say there's no problems with the Ares I is disingenuous. The thrust oscillation issues have theoretical fixes but until the Ares I-Y and Orion 1 flights there's still a lot of unknowns. The likely solution will be added dampening mass and stiffeners which will mean the Orion won't be able to launch with a full compliment. The Block 1A Orions will only be able to launch three astronauts to the ISS instead of the originally planned four. Because of launch pad changes needed for the Ares V the Ares I is only going to have a single civilian launch pad (LC-39B). This puts a hard limit on the number of Ares I launches that can be done in a year which increases the cost of each individual launch. Because of this the Block 1B (cargo only) Orion was canceled entirely.

Having a low limit on the number of launches that can be made every year and the low payload mass make the Ares I almost entirely unsuitable for ISS missions. The per launch cost is derived from the cost of the actual launch vehicle and the infrastructure costs to run the manned spaceflight operations divided by the number of launches per year. The infrastructure/operations costs are the same (or similar) no matter how many launches are performed every year since you don't stop paying people in between launches. The more launches that happen the cheaper each individual one is since you're getting more payload out of every man-hour worked and thus the cost of a pound of payload decreases. The Ares I being limited to a single launch pad means at best you can get six launches a year if there's a 60 day turnaround for the pad and nothing ever goes wrong.

The Ares I being unsuitable for ISS missions means it doesn't have anything it is good at until the Ares V is completed and lunar missions are ongoing. The Ares I doesn't have enough launch capability to launch an Orion with an experiment module/palette so it can't do Spacelab type missions. Orions could be launched for independent operations but with only three crew members each person would have to wear multiple hats which puts a lot of strain on individual astronauts and keeps their schedules booked. Such a configuration would also make for a cramped cabin since mission instruments would need to be packed in alongside the rest of their supplies. I'm sorry but the Ares I is a shitty rocket and a waste of time and money for NASA. It might be a different story if the Orion was smaller or the Ares I wouldn't kill the crew without vibration dampeners. As it stands however the Ares I is a boondoggle and the sooner we shitcan it the better. An EELV or DIRECT option would be far better not just for Orion missions but eventual Moon, NEO, and Mars missions.

Re:No, it can't be "saved"

[falconwolf]

We're just doing the necessary political push-ups to bury NASA's manned space flight capability.

And what's wrong with businesses running manned space flights?

Ares I-X has a launch date and is being erected right now

Ah but the wiki article on the Ares I-X says this about it:

• First stage: live, four-segment solid rocket RSRB
• Second stage: dummy (future upper stage, J-2X motor)
• Third stage: dummy (future instrument package)
• Fourth stage: Orion Boilerplate with Launch Abort System (LAS)

Two out of four stages are dummies. There is no working model and while that's not a failure it's not a success either.

Falcon

Re:No, it can't be "saved"

[QuantumG]

well said.

Yes, but what does it need saving from?!?

[Bureaucromancer]

Aside from the predictions and suppositions I have yet to see evidence of the insurmountable problems of Ares I. No, it was not necessary to develop a new vehicle, but at this point why waste the effort to turn around. Just about every launch vehicle and spacecraft ever developed have had weight and payload problem during development, frankly the only thing that seems different about Ares is that the internet has made the whole development process much more visible. I hate to imagine what people would have said if the internet had been around during development of the Apollo LM. As far the as the design goes, I've never loved it, but there is something to be said with commonality between Ares I and V (and we do need the V for realistic missions beyond Earth orbit). Assuming the I-X mission next month is succesful I think any doubts about the actual workability of flying an SRB solo will be dead. On the Orion front, quite frankly I am, and always have been thrilled. We are correcting the mistakes of the 70s, and getting Apollo back, with modern technology no less. Apollo and Orion are actual spacecraft; designed for SPACE, and able to explore. The shuttle is what happens when an ICBM knocks up an Airbus. In all seriousness, while the shuttle was an impressive experimental vehicle, as an operational system anything but satellite retrieval could have been done just as well, and usually cheaper, by an enlarged Apollo capsule (read Orion) and unmanned launches of the Saturn V. Satellite retrieval is very impressive, but almost never used, and the experimental side of the program could have been done cheaper and faster with a mini shuttle launched on a conventional vehicle. All of this is moot anyway, since Obama could never survive the political hit of killing American manned spaceflight (the effective outcome of cancelling Orion), so only the Ares I is up for discussion in the real world. At this point we might as well take the vehicle that is being developed, and hope it will, as NASA claims, be operationally cheaper than Delta or Atlas. Switching now would drive up development cost for Orion, throw out the billions in work that has been done on Ares I, and quite possibly damage the badly needed 100+ ton booster (Ares V) program. In the worst case scenario Ares will be a comparable booster to the United Launch Alliance options that wasn't needed, but kept the SRB engineers employed while between cancelling the shuttle and starting up Ares V development.

Re:Yes, but what does it need saving from?!?

[0123456]

Assuming the I-X mission next month is succesful I think any doubts about the actual workability of flying an SRB solo will be dead.

Aside from the fact that 'Areas I-X' bears almost no resemblance to 'Ares I', anyway.

Re:Yes, but what does it need saving from?!?

[Bureaucromancer]

It does in terms of flight dynamics, and that really what matters. It proves the damn pencil with a weight on the end can actually fly controllably. Ares I-X will tell us if the vibration problem is fixed, and if the vehicle is fundamentally stable. The rest of the issues come down to payload, and from what I here are being sorted out. It's not so much a test of the Ares vehicle as of the Ares configuration, and it's the configuration that has a lot of people worried.

Re:Yes, but what does it need saving from?!?

[MrKaos]

Aside from the predictions

I really wanted to read your comment but please, some whitespace.

But..

[Jamamala]

I thought Ares died?

So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[falconwolf]

Yes.

Seems to me could recoup the loss by, oh I don't know, cutting 3 billion from defense spending? Seems to me a lot of things could get done by diverting money from Defense.

Agreed. But this should be done anyway. By no means am I religious but I do believe in turning weapons into plows. Even more, I believe workers should be able to keep the money they work to earn and not have some government bureaucrat or politician demand people give it to them. Especially at the point of a gun.

At least government military weapons. Now the government and politicians better keep their grubby hands off privately owned blades, firearms, and other weapons.

Falcon

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

Not this libertarian garbage again. So it's okay for a corporation to tread upon workers, pay them less than a living wage, force them to work long hours, and conspire to drive up prices for the goods they need, but heaven forbid the government get involved and regulate?

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[0123456]

So it's okay for a corporation to tread upon workers, pay them less than a living wage, force them to work long hours, and conspire to drive up prices for the goods they need, but heaven forbid the government get involved and regulate?

If employees aren't worth 'a living wage' -- whatever that might mean -- then if 'the government get involved and regulate', the company will just shift the jobs abroad to wherever the cheap workers are.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[bencoder]

as long as the worker chose the work voluntarily and is therefore free to quit, Yes.

Do you have a problem with personal choice?

Or do you just believe that only you and people like you are capable of making the right choices, and should therefore force those choices on others?

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

There is no choice when there's a great power asymmetry between labor and capital. Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

So we're doomed to a race to the bottom? Capital must be free to move across borders? We can't possibly raise our standard of living above that of the shittiest shithole nation in the world, because companies will just move there? We couldn't possibly use things like regulations and tarrifs to ensure that companies can't outsource everything?

Fuck you. You start with your desired outcome and come up with premises to support it. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[shentino]

We're doomed to a race to the bottom because no amount of government regulation is going to stop corporations from doing everything they can to minimize costs, which incidentally implies paying their workers as little as possible.

One may as well try to hold back water with a sieve.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[fahrbot-bot]

I do believe in turning weapons into plows.

Yes, a GBU-28 would make a hell-of-a plow... :-)

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

We're doomed to a race to the bottom because no amount of government regulation is going to stop corporations from doing everything they can to minimize costs, which incidentally implies paying their workers as little as possible.

No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:

• Minimum wage
• Progressive income taxes
• Taxing capital gains as income
• Strong unions for collective bargaining
• Laws against unlawful termination
• Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws

Or are you just presupposing that there's nothing we can do, and moving from that assertion to the idea that even trying is wrong?

These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

Look at all the fine automobiles turned out by the USSR, for example.

The USSR was a command economy with no competition, internal or external, or even market feedback. It's a completely invalid comparison. Libertarian fuckwads like you have the infuriating habit of comparing everything but Laissez-faire capitalism to authoritarian command economies. Either you're being deliberately dishonest or you're simply incapable of comprehending that societal organization is more subtle than a binary choice: capitalism OR authoritarianism. Either way, the comparison engenders more heat than light.

And if I'm going to start up a new company to make widgets, why on earth would I start it somewhere with laws like that?

Because places with laws like that are wonderful places to live, and you live there too. Companies are founded every day in the EU.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

So do you support collective bargaining or not? If not, why? Your own principles dictate that you should: unions are a natural consequence of the freedom to assemble and the freedom to contract.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[falconwolf]

So do you support collective bargaining or not?

Yes I do and so do other libertarians. Collective bargaining is part of free assembly which they support. Ah, I see you say as much but then you mouth off diatribes against libertarians.

Falcon

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

Well, good for you, but your fellow Libertarians don't seem to be fond of the idea.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Jarnin]

Unions are bad because it's still a division of labor and capital. There's no reason to have a division of labor and capital at all. There are things called "Co-operatives" where the labor and capital are one and the same.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[sunspot42]

Libertarian *uckwads like you have the infuriating habit of comparing everything but Laissez-faire capitalism to authoritarian command economies.

That's as concise a summary as I've seen. They really are the mirror image of communist lunatics like Lenin. Although I must say, the way the free market halfwits crashed the world's largest economy only 20 years or so after being handed partial control, authoritarian command economies certainly seem to work better than laissez-faire free for alls.

Both wind up with psychopaths running things after a certain amount of time (Stalin, Mao, the lunatics at Enron, AIG, Citibank, etc.). But at least the command economies can keep the trains running on time.

The really odd thing about laissez-faire cluster*ucks is how much they behave like command economies. In a command economy you wind up with political psychopaths in charge who enforce groupthink thru ideological propaganda. The ideology influences policy and behavior, so you wind up with insanity like the Soviet government refusing to fund the study of genetics because it clashed with the Party line. Or the insanity of Mao's great leap forward, which was anything but. Irrefutable evidence which contradicts the ideology is simply ignored or shouted down by propaganda-baked fanatics. So the society as a whole follows utterly irrational beliefs right off a cliff.

In a laissez-faire economy you wind up with a few wealthy psychopaths - a kleptocracy - in charge of the economy and government. Command authority isn't vested in a single individual, but that doesn't seem to matter much. If anything, it's worse - you wind up with an uncoordinated gang of crazed thieves in charge, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, destroying the economy in the process. They use propaganda to incite bigots, psychotics and religious fanatics to vote against their own best social and economic interests, in order to seize and maintain control of the government and prevent it from stopping their psychopathic rampage (indeed, government is now feeding their rampage - witness the recent multi-trillion dollar "bailout" of Wall Street).

It's something like having a cabal comprised of folks like Jeffery Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and Charles Manson running the country. Their primary interest isn't in running anything - they're only invested in keeping anything from interrupting their rampage, as (in this case) they steal everything in sight. These psychopaths are so greed-crazed, they don't even seem to realize they're destroying the very system they've been stealing from. They're parasites that are killing their host. The whackjobs running Enron are a textbook example. And just as in command economies, the society as a whole follows these nuts right over a cliff (witness the housing boom and bust).

The solution seems to be having a government structured in such a way that it simply doesn't allow psychopaths to gain enough power - political or economic - to have any substantial influence over either the government or the economy. So companies the size of AIG or Citibank would automatically be broken up, or taxed so heavily they'd be better off broken up. Extreme concentrations of wealth would be taxed out of existence, and exotic "investment" vehicles would be taxed and treated like what they really are - gambling. Government itself would be structured in such a way that no single position, or even large group of positions, would have enough power to substantially alter either the structure of the government or its relationship to the economy - particularly when it comes to allowing any individual or corporation to become too powerful.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Planesdragon]

If employees aren't worth 'a living wage'

Employees are. But the specific work they're doing probably isn't.

We need a $0 minimum wage, along with a real reverse-taxation welfare system. Let teh workers withhold work without starving, and you'll suddenly see the real market value of labor.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[mrlibertarian]

So do you support collective bargaining or not?

Legally? Yes. But do I think collective bargaining is a good idea? No.

Collective bargaining is a price control that is voluntarily agreed upon. Just like government price controls, you get shortages when the price is too low and a surpluses when the price is too high. Unions hold the price of labor too high, which creates a surplus of labor (i.e. unemployment) in the unionized industry.

What makes price controls particularly horrible is that they hurt the people at the margins. Take, for example, the record high teenage unemployment we have right now. If it weren't for the minimum wage, teenagers would be able to get jobs by asking for a lower wage. But they don't have that option, so they are forced into unemployment.

Just like the minimum wage, you might think that being in a union or a cartel is in your interest, but it's not. Being in a union means you can't guarantee yourself a job by asking for less money or benefits. Being in a cartel means you can't undercut your inefficient competitors with lower prices.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[tftp]

Because places with laws like that are wonderful places to live, and you live there too.

If you can live quite well in the USA on $100K/yr then you can live like a king on the same money in India or China. You'd have a palace and servants there; but in the USA you'd have a $1,000 sq.ft. house on a noisy street in a bad neighborhood, and you'd be mowing your lawn all by yourself.

This is especially important when you consider that if you move your business to, say, China your $100K of income can easily become $300K or even more. Asia now is the place where money is made; the USA today is the place where taxes are paid. You'd have to be totally insane to open a new business in California, for example - you'd need to hire a CPA and an HR director before you hire your first worker, and if by some miracle your widget has market you can't manufacture it here anyway, so why not to set the whole thing up abroad in the first place?

It is also important to understand that owners of a company do not have to live near the factory; those days are over - you have managers to crack the whip on the factory floor; you, on the other hand, are free to do other things - to relax on beaches of other countries, or to talk to Wall Street, or to wine and dine someone toward an acquisition.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[budgenator]

There is no choice when there's a great power asymmetry between labor and capital. Unions would be a great remedy,.

Actually the great equalizer is the ability of common people to buy and sell stocks and bonds, with greater utilization of 401K retirement programs the fate of the common worker is increasing tied to the very corporations you ascribe the power asymmetry too.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

401K accounts and their ilk are cruel. Regular people don't have the knowledge to properly invest and hedge against market failures, and don't have the time to learn how to do so. And we shouldn't expect them to: life is not about finance. Furthermore, 401k users are at the mercy of the market. If someone happens to retire during a bear market, then through no fault of his own, his standard of living is much reduced versus someone who has the good fortune to retire into a bull market.

Old-fashioned pensions are much better for normal people because then it is up to the pension-providing organization, which employs savvy financial wizards, to manage the money. And since pension payouts are guaranteed, this organization has every incentive to properly manage the account.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[hitmark]

i would say that a lot of issues goes away ones one look at what money is supposed to represent...

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[falconwolf]

Well, good for you, but your fellow Libertarians don't seem to be fond of the idea.

From the article you provide:

"So, my suggestion for a libertarian alternative to the EFCA is simply this:"

"Any employer (company) that refuses to allow its employees to unionize, should be disallowed the charter of incorporation and its consequent benefits."

Yeap, that's so evil, standing up for the rights of employees to unionize. Oh, but wasn't your object to libertarians was that they didn't support unions?

Falcon

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[uncleFester]

.. you do realize that each one of those listed items is itself an increased cost to the corporation which buttresses the argument you're trying to oppose? and if you're going to artificially inflate the costs to that corporation in this country.. they'll go elsewhere. check what's happening in corporate america today as some validation.

I was at the IBM location in Charlotte, NC this past week for a workshop. I was there ~3-4 years ago.. they have a nice-sized campus of a number of buildings on the north side of town. Today, I believe I heard one of the site folks mention they now occupied less than half the space. What was more disturbing was the comment that a fair amount of the work have been moved offshore.

You want to keep sqeezing the corporate sector, go right ahead. What will you do when the sponge dries out?

-r

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[NormalVisual]

Unions would be a great remedy, but you libertarian fuckwads are opposed to those too for some unfathomable reason.

How about chilling out with the name-calling just because someone doesn't agree with your political opinions? You're not helping your point and you come across like a immature, petulant child.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[fahrbot-bot]

I agree with your comments, but lighten up; it was a joke [ notice I used a :-) ].

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[hibiki_r]

And you call that an equalizer? Realistically, even a million of people with 401k investors have very little power, yet by investing, they are giving financial companies money to play with.

If anything, the major governance issue that we see today in corporations is that small shareholders mean squat, as the people in charge of the operations can bleed the company for years without much risk. They get gains when the company does well, and lose very little when it doesn't. The power of executives is lower than it was back in the 1830s, but not by that much.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[MrKaos]

So do you support collective bargaining or not? If not, why? Your own principles dictate that you should: unions are a natural consequence of the freedom to assemble and the freedom to contract.

Unless they think they are part of the privileged few who have the birthright to suppress all for their needs and wants. But those people who undermine freedom for the masses are the 'Useful Idiots' to the elite who are actually in that position of wealth and power.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

You're confusing cause and effect. The flight of business offshore is allowed and encouraged by our lax regulatory environment and "free" (to screw you) trade policies. When we had strong regulation, companies didn't leave. Europe, which has strong regulation, is not seeing the hollowing-out of their economy the way we are.

Ergo, regulations are not causing our corporate flight. And if you look at history, it seems that the opposite is true: lax regulations are associated with offshoring.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[falconwolf]

There are things called "Co-operatives" where the labor and capital are one and the same.

Do you think workers could have built Ford? Or Intel? General Electric?

Guess what... Because capitalism is and free markets require the voluntary exchange of goods and services co-ops, cooperatives, are allowed in capitalism and free markets. And not all co-ops are employee owned, I am a member or owner of 2 co-op. I joined them because I buy from them a lot and they support other local initiatives and businesses as well as organics.

Falcon

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[f16c]

The sponge dried out long ago. They've sponged enough from us. All of these pro-business diatribes basically want all of us to bend over to our corporate overlords. Fuck 'em. I had no idea so many of my generation wants to go back to 19th century industrialism or hated the United States so much.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[f16c]

This is a logical contradiction. The employee is worth X but should be paid $0?

Don't fart too hard or your brains will be crushed...

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[QuoteMstr]

Don't forget that on Slashdot, we have people with ages ranging from 13 to 70. You can't assign them to a "generation". I have no data to back this up, but my hunch is that the libertarians here are part of the older crowd who embraced Ronald Reagan's "government is always bad" idea, and who will never let that go. It's a very simple and satisfying worldview, really. It just has the slight disadvantage of being wrong.

Of course, that leaves the younger Ron Paul and Ayn Rand fans. I attribute them to there being 25% or so of the population that will vote for the authoritarian no matter what. You can explain that using childhood upbringing, natural organic psychological variation, orthodox religious upbringing, or any other mechanism, but the fact remains that in all modern societies at all times, you have people who would be happiest under a strong, masculine, swaggering leader who told them and everyone else exactly what to do.

Even Western Europe has these people. Over there, though, they do a much better job of marginalizing this dangerous group.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[drmerope]

Many "european" countries lack a minimum wage which is widely (but as you have shown us, not universally) recognized as a confused and unfortunately effective barrier to entry for inexperienced workers. A barrier that blocks them from securing the basic work experience to reach long term employment.

Unfortunately there is a large cadre of people in the US stuck in a 150 year intellectual time warp, spouting the same discredited ideas.

The rest of your list makes no sense as its connection to work wages is tenuous at best.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I must say, the way the free market halfwits crashed the world's largest economy only 20 years or so after being handed partial control,

Oh, please. You can't lay this crash on a free market. It was caused by a totally distorted market.

A free market would let companies make any loans they want, to anyone they want, but would not bail out anyone for any reason. Prudent companies would make good loans, and would not float wads of bad debt as new "credit instruments".

The non-free market we had allowed banks substantial freedom to make loans, while pressuring them to make a bunch of loans to poor credit risks. The banks didn't kick much about the bad credit risks because it was assumed that house prices always rise, so the bank could always repossess the house and it would be worth more. The banks were free to make wild loans, knowing they would be bailed out.

And some large government entities (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) shoveled lots of bad debt, and a few corrupt politicians pocketed large bundles of cash.

You want a free market? How about personal computers. The government does not regulate what kinds of computers can be sold or bought, and does not bail out computer makers who make dumb decisions. And hey look, computers are damn affordable these days; today for $400 you can buy a computer that is hugely faster than anything you could buy for several thousand dollars ten years ago.

authoritarian command economies certainly seem to work better than laissez-faire free for alls.

Oh, for *uck's sake. Did you know that the USSR had a negative GDP? They took valuable raw materials like iron ore and turned them into shoddy USSR steel. Then they used that shoddy steel to make really shoddy cars. They would have been better off to have shipped their raw materials to Europe, sold them for cash, and used the cash to buy finished goods.

The USA hasn't been a laissez-faire free for all for many years now, but back in the days when it was closer to one than it is now, it never had a negative GDP.

I won't bother to comment on the rest of your diatribe. Maybe you could try reading a few books on how economics works, or something.

Have a nice life.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Richard_at_work]

Why should a company subsidise your way of life?

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Richard_at_work]

If unions are a natural consequence of the freedom to assemble and the freedom to contract, why don't company bosses have that same freedom?

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[maxwell demon]

No. What he said is that you should be allowed to even offer $0. You're of course not likely to get anyone to do the job for that wage, but that's your problem. The point I think the OP is making is that if you remove the need to work for living (through the reverse-taxation), then companies will no longer be able to offer wages below the worth of the work, because no one would take that job. People will only take the job if the wage offered is worth it.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[ultranova]

We're doomed to a race to the bottom because no amount of government regulation is going to stop corporations from doing everything they can to minimize costs, which incidentally implies paying their workers as little as possible.

Yes, and the point of regulation is to remove undesirable (to us the people) things from the set of "everything they can". Minimum wage laws, in particularly, exist precisely to rise "as little as possible" to the point where one can live on that.

One may as well try to hold back water with a sieve.

I love that analogy. It starts with using a method you know won't work (sieve) and tries to suggest that thus no method can work, when in reality a bucket will work just fine. That's exactly the kind of deception libertarians and other free-market fundamentalists like to engage in.

Your effort is futile, however, since this latest economic crash engineered by the financial geniuses demanding free unregulated market has finally driven home to pretty much everyone just what their place in such a society would be. I expect and hope that we'll finally get some toll barriers back up to protect and encourage domestic industries, as well as tight regulation to keep banks and other financial entities from screwing up again.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[ultranova]

Both wind up with psychopaths running things after a certain amount of time (Stalin, Mao, the lunatics at Enron, AIG, Citibank, etc.). But at least the command economies can keep the trains running on time.

In a command economy, the psychopaths control the country as a whole, so they have a vested interest to at least try to keep it running. In a fre-for-all economy, the psychopaths are running individual corporations and can jump from one to another, so their best bet is to loot the rest of the economy for the benefit of their corporation, then loot those profits and jump ship.

Even a psychopath might hesitate to pee on his own pool, but never on anyone elses.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[ultranova]

Why should a company subsidise your way of life?

Because if it doesn't benefit me, why should I allow it to exist? Repeal all laws concerning limited liability and corporate veil and let's see how the owners like being personally responsible for all debts and grievances anyone might have against their business.

Legal fiction can be unimagined. Just saying.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[shentino]

Minimum wage jobs don't stop people from outsourcing to india and china.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[budgenator]

Peter Lynch would disagree with you, even thuogh he was the was the portfolio manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund from May 1977 to May 1990 - a period which the fund rose an astounding 28-fold per share - giving it the title of the best-performing mutual fund in the world at the time, he still said

the individual investor is more capable of making money from stocks than a fund manager, because they are able to spot good investments in their day-to-day lives before Wall Street. Investment philosophy

Quite simply keeping a portfolio containing a diverse assortment of risk levels and types such as stocks, bonds and commodities and making periodic adjustments to keep the percentages of each sane, your investments will do well over the long term. For example not to long ago the stock market was getting crazy high, selling off stocks and buying commodities like gold and platinum would have positioned you to ride their wave while their prices have tripled, again now that they are crazy high selling some and buying the now under-valued stocks back will position you to ride the recovery wave coming. This isn't rocket science. Oh sure it's hard to save enough to do this as an individual, but then again it's not hard to get a taxpayer ID for a local investment club; the advantage here is the club also gets to vote their stocks unlike your investment in a commercial mutual fund. Now you also have a say in the business practices and ethics of your "evil corporation"!

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Darth Eggbert]

Sometimes you have to let something die in order to make something greater. If a bank can't survive because it made bad loans, let it go. If it crashes the economy for a while, we will learn from the experence. Maybe we will learn a very important leasson about risk vs. reward. The problem is we wont learn this leason. The leasson we will learn today is "Daddy Government will make it all better... for now."

I wonder why everyone thinks we have "Rights" to physical things. All "Rights" are effemeral; life, liberty, justice, freedom, religion. Nobody has a "right" to a job, money, food, shelter, or medicine. Physical things are needs and wants, not "Rights". Needs and wants need to be supplied by the person, or by charity freely given, and in a socity where their "Rights" are protected they are Free to do so.

Darth Eggbert

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[sunspot42]

Yeah, that's a great point.

It's also important to keep in mind that a corporation is just a vehicle to generate money right now for these nuts. So the guys running Enron or AIG could give a flip if their actions cause the company to crash and burn a year or two down the road, so long as they can extract millions (or billions) out of the scam before the sh*t hits the fan.

Countrywide is a great example. Orange Ooompa Loompa Angelo Mozillo over at Countrywide cashed out to the tune of $500 million while running what amounted to an enormous Ponzi scheme straight into the dirt. Investors in Contrywide and its spin-off IndyMac have been left holding a flaming bag of poo, as have the taxpayers, who now have to bail out Mozillo's mess.

But what does he care? He made his hundreds of millions - money he would have never made from honest work. If Countrywide had been a legitimate company he might have made $100 million or so over the course of a lifetime, tops. In laissez-faire bizarro world, it's actually a lot more profitable to run an enormous scam and destroy corporations and capital left and right.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[sunspot42]

Oh, for *uck's sake. Did you know that the USSR had a negative GDP?

And what year would that be in, Einstein?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif

The non-free market we had allowed banks substantial freedom to make loans, while pressuring them to make a bunch of loans to poor credit risks.

More BS, but at least you're consistent. Was the government "pressuring" these poor independent lenders like Countrywide and Ameriquest - who were responsible for over half of the subprime loans now going tits up - into making exotic loans on overpriced properties in the Oort Clouds of suburbia, and then forcing them to bundle those loans up into fraudulently-graded tranches and sell them off in the mortgage securitization market?

No.

In fact, the only loans the government kinda-sorta forced banks to issue were those in limited geographic areas covered by the Community Reinvestment Act. Those CRA loans are typically far lower in value than most of the subprime loans currently going bad, they were issued on more conservative terms, and lo and behold they're defaulting at lower rates than non-CRA loans.

In other words, we'd have been better off if the government had forced lenders to only issue loans covered by the CRA. But that would be all communist or socialist or something.

During the peak of the mortgage bubble I was receiving well over a dozen solicitations a week, in e-mail, telemarketing calls and direct mailings. A friend of mine received a mortgage offer for her dog, who was dead. The government didn't kill her dog, and it didn't force some flaky lender to market its scam loans to her dead pet. Their own rapacious greed did that.

A free market would let companies make any loans they want, to anyone they want, but would not bail out anyone for any reason.

I'm sorry, but what did the bailout have to do with the crash? The crash came before the bailout.

Why don't all of you libertarian geniuses, who seem to have trouble with basic concepts like cause and effect, move to some libertarian wonderland like Somalia or Haiti, where the government is virtually non-existent and chaos reigns supreme. They're OK places to be if you're already rich and can afford your own little army I suppose, but you don't see many factories, universities or other hallmarks of advanced civilization popping up there.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[sunspot42]

Okay, yes, they both groups did crash their respective countries' economies, so in that perhaps some equivalence could be drawn, but there's the small matter of TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SLAUGHTERED by the former group, but not the banksters.

I'm looking at things purely from an economic standpoint, not from a moral standpoint. Stalin and some of this fellow command economy psychopaths managed to keep the trains running, which is more than you get in failed states like Haiti or Somalia or those other libertarian wonderlands with little to no regulation (because there's little to no government).

Although I have to say, supposedly small-government America is doing a pretty good job in the death, oppression and destruction department. We have a far larger percentage of our population incarcerated than China, and I believe we even have a larger prison population in absolute numbers, which is a pretty impressive achievement (I'm sure Mao would be so proud of us), even if we aren't quite as execution happy as the Chinese (yet!). And of course, we're now world famous for waging extraordinarily expensive yet utterly pointless wars for completely illegitimate reasons, resulting in between 100,000 to a million (depending on which study is correct) deaths in Iraq alone.

I will say that our free market kleptocrats and the political lackeys they foist upon us have a ways to go to catch up with Stalin and their ilk in the bodycount department. But give them time. A few more decades of melamine-contaminated milk, deadly prescription drugs marketed on the basis of fraudulent test results, support for brutal dictators across the globe, health insurance rescissions and so forth and our domestic kleptocracy could certainly give the lesser foreign tyrants a run for their money in the slaughter department.

And still not get the trains to run on time.

some types of enterprises, like building airplanes, are inherently more efficient at large scale

Perhaps. But there's no reason why a single entity has to be ginormous in order to achieve the efficiencies of scale. There's no reason why multiple corporations couldn't pool their resources in the same way individuals pool their resources in order to form corporations in the first place.

I don't see why the non-parasitic sectors, like software, aircraft, industrial machinery, and so on, should be blasted by government because of the malfeasance of financiers

Except all of those sectors are just as parasitic, even if they're smaller. The software industry receives tens of billions of dollars a year from the government. What, you think government PC's get Windows installed for free? Who enforces copyright, and runs the court system sue-happy corporations use to enforce their patents? How much do you think the big aircraft makers haul in every year from their government contracts?

Corporations need to be kept small enough to drown in a bathtub when they step out of line.

Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion?

[Rich0]

Uh, did you just use libertarian and authoritarian in the same sentence? You do realize that they're almost polar opposites.

I lean fairly libertarian, although I do believe in a regulatory framework that allows and forces companies to compete on fair ground, with control over externalities. For example, I'm all for taxing oil from the Middle East to pay for wars in that region. I'm also all for tarrifs on imports from countries that don't have reasonable worker safety and environmental standards. I'm fine with anti-monopoly regulation as well. In fact, you'll find I support all kinds of regulation.

That said, I'm also for minimizing the role of government in general, and on the balance I'm fairly libertarian.

There are many areas where libertarian approaches can provide the best experience from even a socialist perspective. Take schools - you can have highly controlled state-run schools that are essential social laboratories with mandatory union teachers. Or, you could still provide a free or cheap eduction to everybody but with a more competitive school system.

Healthcare is another example where there are socialized solutions that provide for care for the indigent, and a more sane system of billing/etc than what we have now, but which allow consumer choice to drive quality. Health care, admittedly, is a bigger challenge since people tend to be poor consumers when it comes to health care - probably not the best place to start implementing a libertarian paradise.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ares-V: Yes Ares-I: No

[QuantumG]

You fail to mention that the two are part of an architecture that you can't justify one without the other. Kill Ares-I and Ares-V will follow.

Bush's rocket

[damburger]

The Obama administration might be swayed unduly by the 'can it' side of the argument because this rocket began development under a previous administration. There are engineering arguments pro and con (and, by the way, pretty much everyone on slashdot is not at all qualified to assess them) so they may fall back onto political reasons if they can't decided based on technical ones.

NASA will, hopefully, go on though. Libertarians are idiotics, and space libertarians even more so.

Re:Bush's rocket

[fermion]

Conservatives do often claim that liberals attack people while conservatives in their infinite goodness only attack policies. Therefore it is not surprising that some would say that Obama is expected to kill the program simply because they hate Bush.

In fact, as has been mentioned, there are many reasons why the Ares program, and the some of the US space program objectives over the past five years make little sense. It is very arguable that sending humans to the moon and other planets is not really cost effective. It is very arguable that developing a significant present in LEO, of which the ISS is a very good start, is the way to go. It is likely that if we are going to make our way to other planets, the best method would be with vehicles designed to escape the earths gravity, then other vehicles to get us to the moon, the other vehicles to get us elsewhere.

Right now we are focused on basically throw away vehicles that will get us from earth to where we want to go. Even the shuttle has to be rebuilt after every mission, and only the airframe is reusable. The Ares continues on these assumption, simply separating the human and cargo rated components. It is an improvement, but really won't get us to the moon or anywhere else in an efficient manner.

Re:Bush's rocket

[cheesybagel]

Ares I is a turd. Ares I-X is an exercise in public relations. None of the components in Ares I-X is supposed to be used in Ares I. The first stage is a regular SRM with a dummy segment, and the entire second stage is a dummy. It looks pretty in pictures, but it cannot launch anything into orbit.

Re:Ares-V: Yes Ares-I: No

[ciroknight]

They're not really two parts of the same architecture; they're two parts of the same project, namely Constellation.

[car-metaphor]
Imagine you're taking a trip across the country. You want to take everything you can with you, because you don't know anyone and you don't really want to pay for lodging. You need: a car to get you across the country and a trailer to pull your stuff in (tents, food, etc). The only requirement of the car is to be man rated. The only requirement of the trailer truck is to carry cargo (let's just say it's automated). The car does not architecturally lean on the trailer in any way: it's just a people carrier. It doesn't matter if the car is an Ares I or a repurposed Delta or a Soyuz. It doesn't matter if the trailer is an Ares V or a Delta-Heavy.
[/car-metaphor]

Killing Ares-I probably kills the Constellation project (seeing as Ares-I is the only lifter for Orion), but I'm certain a lot of the technology could be re-appropriated to a new project.

But then again there are even better options, so perhaps the whole project should just be flushed and the appropriate administrators canned.

What would Von Braun Say?

[hofmny]

Building Rockets is tricky business. Everyone magically wants results after only 3B? That's chump change... or is it? We have earlier designs that work well so what exactly are they trying to accomplish here that is costing them all this money? Are they trying to increase maintainability/reusablity and use less fuel? Or is this just another rocket? Maybe our space program needs to be more like the modern army... light (as in weight), fast, innovative, and cheap (cheap, lightweight, reusable and mass produced vehicles and launch methods).

Honestly, why don't we go with the Saturn V? Von Braun & NASA developed this great rocket that allowed us to get to the moon (and it's proven to work)... what's wrong with that one?

Re:What would Von Braun Say?

[cheesybagel]

The problem with the Saturn V is that it was too expensive. That was the reason for canceling it in the first place. After over 40 years most of the component manufacturers are probably gone. New manufacturing standards, environmental standards, etc, mean you would have to reverse engineer it piece by piece, which would cost only slightly less than making an entirely new design. IMO they never should have built Shuttle, but made downscaled versions of Saturn V using the same components (e.g. engines). Saturn V was too big and still is. But the time for that has come and gone.

Re:What would Von Braun Say?

[Amiralul]

IMO, they should never fall back to rocket design, but advance in Shuttle-like spaceships, like X-33 for instance. It's far more cheaper and useful than a whole non-reusable rocket.

Re:Not this libertarian garbage again.

[QuoteMstr]

"Oh no, you've brought out those big, nasty words! Oh no, we're scared! Nevermind his ideas, ignore the person I called a communist!"

Someday, you'll be hurt by the policies you advocate. Will you be such an ardent advocate of the rich then?

Re:Ares-V: Yes Ares-I: No

[TorKlingberg]

They're building a new rocket from the ground up and at full cost that does nothing we can't do with the existing Delta or Atlas rockets.

Neither of those are man-rated. Could they be? I don't know. It is quite possible that the acceleration or vibrations are too strong.

Re:who gives a fuck?

[hofmny]

While I agree that commercial space outfits need people, I disagree with your absolutely stated position that humans are not needed in scientific exploration of space. Let's take a look at the Mars Rovers for a great example:

In all their technical ecstasy, they are slow -- they take forever to do any task, whether its to drill an amazing "life finding" 2cm into a rock, or move across the landscape. A simple rock throws them off course and gets them stuck for days while people back on earth, through video cameras, spend weeks trying to get the wheel unstuck in a delayed communications nightmare. Dust storms can completely kill their ability to power themselves, and built up dust diminish the power they can draw from the sun. Advances in AI have been crap in comparison with the other developments in technology. Their "brains" are spread between Mars and Earth and a brain that can think at the speed of light is what we need here... First off, NASA's two Martian orbiters, through which information is relayed to Earth, can only transfer a single megabit of data per second. Worse still, these orbiters only work in 15 minute increments before they must be repositioned -- a process that takes hours. Furthermore, bandwidth is unsurprisingly limited on the Red Planet -- messages between Earth and Mars usually suffer 4 - 20 minutes of lag, depending on the positions of the conversing planets.

People, on the other hand can diagnose and repair computer and equipment problems themselves. They have use of their senses and high developed brains to identify and troubleshoot issues. They have the ability to do "boatloads" more science, like pick up a damned shovel and start digging a 6 foot hole to find fossils... Or simply the ability to pick up a rock with their fingers and look at, or smash it open with a hammer.
Additionally, humans can take samples on Mars back to labs on Mars (which is what the whole Mars/Ares mission will have, as labs and habitable quarters will arrive separately and will be awaiting the astronauts) and analyze things there, with educated humans, instead of using crude tools on robots to analyze some of the most important scientific data to mankind.

I know its more dangerous and sometimes robotic probes and rovers make more sense, but it is just the opposite sometimes... it makes more sense to send a human to do a human's job. On top of that, human's need a challenge to keep us focused and growing in a positive direction, and conquering space with manned ships is a great approach to what we need to do. Giant interplanetary (and eventually intersolor) starships with the ability to house groups of experts to study the science of our planets, the stars, and everything else will do more than any group of robots ever could!

Ares IS Salvage

[DynaSoar]

When National Geographic wanted some space history background material, they contacted NASA' history office. NASA's history office sent National Geographic to http://www.astronautix.com/ I assume NASA sent NatGeo there due to its objectivity and completeness, because they sure didn't send them there for pro-NASA propaganda. This is a good example: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm

Ares is a salvage project from its inception. It is an attempt to build a family of lifters from existing designs, technology and manufacturing as much as possible, with as little new design, technology and manufacturing as they can get away with.

Ares was designed by ATK Thiokol, manufacturer of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, using derivative components of the shuttle, and in the case of Ares 1, the solid rocket boosters as the main engine. It is far more adaptation than it is invention. This is in keeping with NASA's "faster, cheaper" mind set that served well in many planetary probes. But since it is not a ground-up design, where flaws are handled when they first occur, it is prone to problems emerging from more complex configurations, the errors themselves more often due to complex interactions. Vibration problems, such as the current Ares booster 'pogo-stick' problem, are a common example of such emergent behavior.

One of NASA's greatest inventions during the early manned space program was systems analysis software, intended to examine a large system as it was built to determine where problems might and/or did occur. But even now, with far greater computational capability, the complexity of potential interactions due to starting with a large system that has been altered in numerous small ways from its original design puts the Ares designs beyond predictability. That will continue to occur as long as the design philosophy is maintained. If this fact, and the fact that such problems could emerge only under certain conditions -- say at max Q, pushing a heavy load with a smaller, lighter load on the top (ie. an Orion) -- isn't at the forefront of those minds trying to decide whether to scrap it and start over, it should be.

Had the shuttle component and system design philosophy been based on extensibility and adaptability (such as with SpaceX's Falcon 1 -> Falcon 9 design), Ares might have a better chance. But the core design of Ares 1 is the SRB, which was designed over 35 years ago for one purpose -- to be strapped on the side of the shuttle to help with its initial lift phase. It did that job well, with its only major failure having been a NASA decision going counter to a Thiokol recommendation. Now we have Thiokol recommending and NASA deciding the same things.

Robert Truax designed vehicles using surplus components. He designed so many, with so much acclaim for his designs, that there was a TV show based on it (Salvage 1, with Andy Griffith, ABC, 1979). But Truax was salvaging components to use in their intended fashion, not entire systems being adapted to entirely new designs.

One has to wonder at the basis for decision making when an agency first builds from scratch, then declines designs reusing some of the parts, but later chooses to rebuild existing designs. The probability is great that the decision is not technical but rather administrative. When the decisions were technical we got "Not on my watch." and Apollo 13 got home. When the decisions became administrative we got "My God Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April?" and the Challenger didn't come home. This is the sort of fuzzy, intuitive, gut-feeling stuff that gets trashed in serious discussions about such major projects as a space vehicle. But the people that trash that kind of thinking aren't going to fly these things. A pilot that doesn't have a personal example of an intuitive, gut-feeling decision that was right hasn't been flying long, and the older the pilot they more likely that following such a gut feeling

race to the bottom

[falconwolf]

No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:

* Minimum wage

Minimum wages reduces demand for employees. I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.

Progressive income taxes

Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Taxing capital gains as income

If worked right I support this, if not I don't. The devil is in the details. Otherwise I do not support income taxes. What I, and you, work to earn should not be taxed.

Strong unions for collective bargaining

Strong collective bargaining yes, strong unions though is a big no no. If I do not want to be a member of a union or have union dues taken from my paycheck I should not have to live with either one yet still have my job. In other words no closed shops, which some unions push for. Twenty two states have right to work laws, which I support, that are supposed to prevent this.

Laws against unlawful termination

What? Laws make things unlawful, if there are no laws it not illegal.

Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws

Thus reducing demand for employees, see above. Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions. Look at China and India for examples. Because of relatively free trade, though there still is government interference, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to the recession both nations saw booming middle and upper classes rise up. Real wages in both nations increased. They both went from relative backwater economies to being major economic powerhouses. In competition with each other they now offer other nations assistance.

Now I'm not saying there should be no laws or regulations, the less there is the better, but the ones there are need to be smarter and if necessary reformed or eliminated.

These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?

Oh but do they? If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily? I don't think so. A few years ago there were riots by the youth when government proposed making it easier for employers to fire employees. I know I would not want to hire someone if I can't fire them because they cost me more than they make for me. It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able to easily fire a bad employee as well as get rid of them when they aren't needed.

And starting my own business is something I want to do. My sister already did, with friends of hers she started an accounting firm which now employees others.

Falcon

Re:race to the bottom

[gnuman99]

Yes, you can go to France and employ people easily provided you do not break any French laws, like not paying them enough. France has laws yet employers still discriminate based on things like your last name. For examples, if it doesn't sound French, you will not get a job.

Anyway, I don't know WTF you are talking about. You can go to France and start a business just like you can start a business in US.

Income taxes, and taxes in general are there to reduce monetary supply. Gov't, though the Fed, increase monetary supply. To make things balance and so *your* money retain value, there are taxes. Without taxes, USD would get railroaded.

Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Utter bullshit. It is called disposable income. If you earn $20k/year you will spend that money for local stuff because you have to live. If you earn $300k/year, you will not spend all of the money on necessities of life! You can afford to subsidize services that the $20k/year person uses.

And it is utter BULLSHIT to say that $20k/year works 15 times less than a $300k/year employee. By that definition, wouldn't the bankers earning $20m/year work 1000x times more than teh $20k/year concrete worker?

Your salary is not an absolute gauge of your input labor! The $20k/year concrete worker or a farmer that manager to just stay afloat may be working 1000x more than a $2 million a year trust funder, yet you would rather support that trust funder and kick the farmer and the concrete worker in the ass because they are not working enough for their services (ie. paying less taxes then services they get). Sorry mate. Rich people don't really care how much taxes they pay. Only the "I want to be rich too but I am not so I will blame government for it" people care.

Re:race to the bottom

[falconwolf]

Anyway, I don't know WTF you are talking about. You can go to France and start a business just like you can start a business in US.

I might be able to start a business in France, but I can not easily fire an employee there whereas i can in the US. If I did live in France, because I could not easily fire an employee I am not likely to start a business there. I will not risk my money, tyme, and effort if I can go bankrupt trying to fire an employee.

Income taxes, and taxes in general are there to reduce monetary supply.

Bull Shit!!! Taxes are there to pay politicians, bureaucrats, and government contractors.

If you earn $300k/year, you will not spend all of the money on necessities of life!

No but I can do what I want with it. If I wanted to I could donate money to the Shriners Hospitals for Children, who treat children for free. Or St. Jude Children's Research Hospital which also treats children for free. I could invest money in businesses creating jobs. Or I could spend money on things creating more jobs. And as employment rises so does pay.

Your salary is not an absolute gauge of your input labor! The $20k/year concrete worker or a farmer that manager to just stay afloat may be working 1000x more than a $2 million a year trust funder

I never, ever said it was. What I said was that more pay people get to keep creates an incentive to work. There is no incentive for me to work if you're going to take my money. I might as well only work enough to be able to pay my living expenses. Heck I can do that out in the middle of the forest. I grew up being able to go into the woods camping. I was able to gather food, hunt, and fish. And if I have to be someone else's slave, with is what involuntarily paying taxes is, to live in the modern world I might as well live a primitive life. Why do anything more? Because you dictate?

Oh and as far as that concrete worker, I used to be one. As a college student I worked for a concrete and masonry business. It had nothing to do with my major, Computer Engineering, but it was the best paying job I had. And physically the hardest but I loved it. Unfortunately I found it hard and was only able to take night classes once I started working for the company. The night classes didn't have the choices the day schedules did.

After working for the concrete contractor for 3 years I was laid off, after that I started working through a day labor pool. Though not well paying it allowed me to work when I wanted money and made it easier to take classes. This worked out until I was hit in an accident which left me with a disability.

Falcon

Re:race to the bottom

[quenda]

Minimum wages reduces demand for employees.

Wages reduce demand for employees. By that logic we should abolish wages and have full employment.

Or you may recognise that there are some trade-offs here.

Re:race to the bottom

[evilviper]

I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.

That's great circular reasoning there. Wages go up, which lowers wages...

Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make?

First, because you've clearly benefited GREATLY from the society in which you live, and all the government programs in place to provide you with those educated and healthy employees.

Second, because you'll still be making much more money, there will just be another percent or two taken off to pay for government programs which benefit you, as well as everyone else.

That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

No, it's the tragedy of the commons in reverse. We ALL pay into the pool, and we all benefit from the services provided. What you pay in taxes isn't going into the pocket of some other CEO. It's going to protect you, help you, help your employees, and help you to continue making a profit.

Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions.

Completely disproven by all of human history... Proper government regulation has vastly improved employee pay and labor conditions in most countries in the 3rd world, immediately, directly and undeniably

Look at China and India for examples.

BAD government regulation, keeping people in poverty, is a bad thing. When conditions are bad enough, there's nowhere to go but up.

If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily?

Who said that making it easier to start a business is better for the economy? We would certainly be better without the millions of fly-by-night companies that are out and out scams? If you have a reason to start a business, you can bear a little regulation to get it going... It won't be a blip on the radar compared to the harder parts of starting a company...

It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able [...] get rid of them when they aren't needed.

Why should individual employees always bear the brunt of a bad economy, or your own poor planning? How can you claim it's in society's interests that the business owner NOT have to bear the ups and downs instead?

Re:race to the bottom

[falconwolf]

First, because you've clearly benefited GREATLY from the society in which you live, and all the government programs in place to provide you with those educated and healthy employees.

Oh, I have? Where's your proof?

Second, because you'll still be making much more money, there will just be another percent or two taken off to pay for government programs which benefit you, as well as everyone else.

Not if as a percentage taxes go up as income goes up. As I said earlier if I'm going to be heavily taxed I might as well do the minimum I need to live. And to me that means moving into the forest where I can fish, hunt, and gather my own food. I don't need or want anything from you, can you say the same? Or do you need to force me to live in your fantasy world?

Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions.

Completely disproven by all of human history...

Bullshit!!! Because there has never been a free market freemarkets have not been disproved. Actually most of human history has been feudal where peons, serfs, and slaves worked for the nobility and slave owners. Hell even Marx said as much.

If you have a reason to start a business, you can bear a little regulation to get it going... It won't be a blip on the radar compared to the harder parts of starting a company...

You're mixing things up here. As you say starting a business is hard, and regulations make it harder. Of course large and established businesses like them because it reduces their competition. They have the resources to make sure they stay within regulations but someone who wants to start their own business may not unless they are already wealthy.

Why should individual employees always bear the brunt of a bad economy, or your own poor planning? How can you claim it's in society's interests that the business owner NOT have to bear the ups and downs instead?

You said before starting a business is hard, yet you want to make it harder. As I have repeatedly stated I would not take a risk in hiring someone if I could not fire them without going out of business. You and those like you would prefer businesses to be driven out of business before they can fire someone. If you want something like that, Cuba is 90 miles from Florida. When you ask why employers shouldn't bear ups and downs, you mustn't realize they in fact do bare the risks. They bare the risk of going out of business. Now I ask you is it better to allow a business who employee 10 people to fire or lay off 1 person or go out of business putting the owner as well as all ten employees out of work?

Falcon

Re:race to the bottom

[evilviper]

Oh, I have? Where's your proof?

The fact that you're posting to /. rather than in the hospital, fighting smallpox.

Because there has never been a free market freemarkets have not been disproved.

There have been innumerable nearly-free markets, and even today, in nearly-lawless countries like Somalia, there is nothing to stop the market from being free. Immigrate and enjoy!

They have the resources to make sure they stay within regulations but someone who wants to start their own business may not unless they are already wealthy.

Natural market forces, like economies of scale, do VASTLY MORE to restrict small players from entering the market than any regulations you can name. In fact it's the government PREVENTING those established players from becomming monopolies that even allows the possibility of a 3rd party entering the game.

Now I ask you is it better to allow a business who employee 10 people to fire or lay off 1 person or go out of business putting the owner as well as all ten employees out of work?

I can't imagine any scenario in which a business owner can pay 9 employees, but the 10th will bankrupt the company.

Re:race to the bottom

[falconwolf]

Oh, I have? Where's your proof?

The fact that you're posting to /. rather than in the hospital, fighting smallpox.

That's the sum of your proof? That's no proof, at most it's evidence. Let's see... First, while the US government, specifically the military developed the internet it was not the first widely or generally used computer network. Throughout the 1970s people used bulletin board systems or BBSes that were setup and run by people doing it for themselves. Fidonet was developed to link the various BBSes up together in 1984, it was as the internet is now a network of networks. A year before the commercial Quantum Computer Services network, now called AOL, was founded. AOL eventually acquired CompuServe, which I used to be a member of, and which was started in 1969 as the Compu-Serv Network, Inc subsidiary of an insurance company. Starting in 1985 General Electric ran the GEnie network. There were other services like these also. It was just a matter of tyme before a network of networks as big as the internet was developed.

Next the Smallpox vaccine was Edward Jenner, an English scientist who did not work for government.

There have been innumerable nearly-free markets, and even today, in nearly-lawless countries like Somalia, there is nothing to stop the market from being free. Immigrate and enjoy!

As you say, Somalia is law-less. Therefore a free market does not exist there. What you and every other freemarket opponent do not or refuse to acknowledge is that free markets require voluntary exchanges. Nobody holds a firearm to another's head, threatens, or robs them. I can hear you saying next that laws are anti-freemarkets, that public law enforcement is needed to uphold those laws or some such. You're partially right but not one free market advocate I know of opposes these. Many proponents will actually tell you that that is a legitimate function of government. As is contract law enforcement.

Natural market forces, like economies of scale, do VASTLY MORE to restrict small players from entering the market than any regulations you can name.

BS. If natural market forces did as you say, I would not be a member of 2 of the dozens of co-ops in the upper midwest. Within the greater Minneapolis, St Paul, Twin Cities area there are more than a dozen. One of those co-ops I'm a member of has just one location, it's a few blocks away from me and in weather like today I can walk there in about 5 minutes. The other co-op has 3 stores now though when I joined it there was only one. With some members driving some distances to get to the store they asked that another store be opened close to them, so one was. The other store was a separate co-op that wanted to be acquired by mine, so it was put to a vote of member-owners and we approved. While those co-ops I'm a member of and others are member owned some are worker owned.

Also even co-ops can be big businesses, Horizon Organic is a nationwide co-op owned by farmers. In Spain some businesses are big worker owned co-ops. The Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in northern Spain, the Basque region, "employ more than 100,000 worker/owners and in 2007 generated revenues of more than $24 billion."

In fact it's the government PREVENTING those established players from becomming monop

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[QuoteMstr]

I also noticed the circular linguistic absurdity, and meant to list laws against unjust termination. But by the time I noticed the error, I'd already posted.

As for the substance of your reply: government's duty under our social contract is to ensure the utilitarian welfare of all. (It's not to maximize liberty: anarchy is the liberty-maximizing form of government, and it tends not to work.) If restricting your liberty in the very benign form of taxation ends up causing a greater benefit as a whole to society, then it is worth it.

To that, you might make the natural leap to saying that we might as well murder people to benefit the whole, if the utilitarian calculus works out. However, I would retort that the benefit of guaranteeing fundamental rights far outstrips whatever might be gained, in human terms, by violating them. Avoidance of taxation is not one of these rights. It's perfectly legitimate for government to tax you in order to benefit society as a whole. Yes, the government can reach into your pocket, but it can also reach into everyone else's pocket, in order to effect things that benefit everyone.

Now that we have the legitimacy issue out of the way, we can talk about whether a certain level of taxation is good policy. Highly progressive income taxes serve to prevent extreme concentrations of wealth in society, which in turn distort the political system and lead to inefficient crony capitalism and oligarchy. By avoiding these beginnings, we avoid their ends. Progressive taxation is a far better option than the alternative method of avoiding wealth concentration, a maximum wage. Also, progressive taxation can be justified by observing that as one earns more, each dollar is less useful. Therefore, taking a greater percentage of a higher income actually exacts the same amount of utility from that income.

On a related note, some Scandinavian countries have begun to issue fines for traffic violations and such not as fixed dollar figures, but as percentages of the violator's income. That's an excellent idea: it makes the cost of a violation a cost in utility. Is running a red light any less bad if you're rich?

As for your ad absurdio minimum wage example: the government could do that, sure. But it'd be bad policy because it'd have disastrous economic effects. That doesn't a reasonable minimum wage a bad thing at all. A minimum wage ensures that businesses cannot use cheap labor for production, but that labor-saving machinery must be used instead. That's a good thing, because it encourages technological development and moves a society forward.

As for capital gains: reinvent the wealth in the business instead of letting it appreciate as capital will both stimulate economic activity and avoid the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is a price for sitting on wealth. It's something we should discourage.

I'm not proposing "socialism" in the way you think I am. I'm proposing that we make a market economy that works better through forcing all the participants to play fair.

Re:Not this libertarian garbage again.

[falconwolf]

Someday, you'll be hurt by the policies you advocate. Will you be such an ardent advocate of the rich then?

I am not rich now, but I want to start my own business. And I don't want government telling me how much I have to pay employees or that I have to provide health insurance, or anything else. The only thing government should have to do with it is to uphold contracts and prosecute me if I harm others.

And I already am harmed by policies you advocate, as are you whether you acknowledge it or not.

Falcon

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[tftp]

government's duty under our social contract is to ensure the utilitarian welfare of all.

I'm not sure the government is aware of this. An impartial observer would say that the US government is steadily working to expand its control over US citizens and over foreign lands and foreign resources, with benefits channeled to select few corporations. I'm sure the government would have a good laugh at the notion of "social contract" of any sort. Most of government bureaucracy is not even elected.

It's perfectly legitimate for government to tax you in order to benefit society as a whole.

Troubles begin when your definition of "benefits" does not match their. How would you like a federal tax that is used for killing foreign dark-skinned people because ... [nobody remembers the cause any more.] How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it to bankers? How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it as free money to your lazy neighbor so that he can buy a better car? You are paying all of these taxes and many more, most of them are useless at best, but usually destructive. That's the problem.

Also, progressive taxation can be justified by observing that as one earns more, each dollar is less useful.

Even if we focus on personal income and personal taxes, how is it that each dollar is less useful? I can spend a $50K on a house and it keeps 5 laborers employed. Or I can spend $500K on a house, and it keeps 50 laborers employed. I think dollars just don't have the attribute of usefulness; each dollar is equally useful in the economy.

On top of that, all the progressive taxation does is gives more of your money to the government, where it will be misused in millions of ways. They might build a mega-school where none are needed, or they can build a bridge to nowhere, or they can build an international airport in a fishing village, or they can just burn the cash up in some war. The money is taken out of your hands, this means you are denied the right to decide how to spend it. This reduces the desire to earn more; the opposite end of the spectrum is to earn nothing at all and live on social security or some illegal income.

some Scandinavian countries have begun to issue fines for traffic violations [...] as percentages of the violator's income

Yet another way found to deincentivize honest work. Work for cash only (as a pimp, for example,) run red lights all you want, and pay nothing. Great idea, just as most governments' ideas are.

The capital gains tax is a price for sitting on wealth. It's something we should discourage.

I feel a disconnect here. An example may be helpful. Your school needs repairs. The city issues a bond for $10M, which is an offer to potential creditors. I decide to help out and lend them $1M. A year later the city pays me back $1.1M when the bond matures. I have $100K of capital gain as a fee for the risk I took and for the use of my money (I couldn't hire more workers for my business, for example, when the money was lent.) How is it that this use of my money is not socially welcome? Am I some sort of villain for letting you use my money when you needed it?

I'm not proposing "socialism" in the way you think I am. I'm proposing that we make a market economy that works better through forcing all the participants to play fair.

And, with the right value of "fair", that is the definition of socialism.

space junk

[falconwolf]

Satellite retrieval is very impressive, but almost never used

Without a returnable space shuttle, what about all the space junk? As I see it one is needed to clean space so it does not become too dangerous to launch rockets, and people, into space.

Falcon

Re:space junk

[Bureaucromancer]

It just not so bad that theres any need for something as expensive as the shuttle yet. No immediate crisis for government action, and certainly no profitability for the private sector.

In any case, the really dangerous stuff is too small to just go out and grab; if you can grab it, you can also detect and avoid it. Add to that that in general it's easier to knock things out of orbit than haul them back (there really isn't that much salvage value in most of the stuff floating around (dead satellites might have SOME value, not a modern day missions worth, and most are in geosynchronous orbits anyway; you'd have an easier time getting the shuttle to the moon as to those orbits).

Re:space junk

[falconwolf]

It just not so bad that theres any need for something as expensive as the shuttle yet. No immediate crisis for government action, and certainly no profitability for the private sector.

No crisis? So there was no problem when China used a "ballistic missile to destroy one of its defunct weather satellites"? And the experts are all wrong? It was just a mirage when an American commercial satellite and a Russian retired satellite collided? " Close calls in orbit happen all the time--scientists estimate that launch vehicles and other objects come within striking distance of one other over 1000 times a day." That article says how the collision of the two satellites created a cloud of debris that spread around the world in a few hours. Further it says "The junk was in the orbital path of the Hubble Space Telescope and just 250 miles higher than the orbit of the International Space Station."

there really isn't that much salvage value in most of the stuff floating around

There isn't? The Pop Mechanics article above says that best possible space-junk solution: salvage isn't allowed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It prevents businesses from salvaging defunct crafts. I don't know if without the treaty it would be profitable now or not, but when one or more critical crafts collides with space junk people will think differently. Personally I think those who put the junk in space should be responsible for it, but because the US put a lot of it there I doubt that will happen. Nor do I think Russia or China will agree.

Falcon

Re:space junk

[Bureaucromancer]

And in 50 years of orbital flight, or 30ish of intensive flight, how many actual collisions have there been? We clearly are at the point it's a concern; what I said is there is no crisis. If we are going to talk economics, we are nowhere near the point that the cost of damage, or even potential damage, outweighs the very marginal benefit of junk collecting missions.

In terms of salvage, no, there really isn't much of value up there even if it were legal. Certainly nothing likely to offer $60+ million payoffs to cover a shuttle flight with any regularity. Even defunct spacecraft are mostly outdated electronics and a not particularly heavy chunk of aluminum.

You've also got to realize that nothing about the shuttle makes it a good platform for any kind of debris control. We would need something that actually is able to operate day in day out, reliably and at short notice. The shuttle does none. Further, it needs EVA ability at less than 6+ hours notice; the Shuttle crews have very long decompression periods to go EVA (ok, a shuttle with Russian suites could get around that). It's also a really damn delicate ship to haul around near debris on a regular basis, as Columbia demonstrated. All in all, I'd argue that some kind of orbital tug, serviced in space, is a much better platform for this sort of stuff when the time does come.

Re:space junk

[falconwolf]

You've also got to realize that nothing about the shuttle makes it a good platform for any kind of debris control.

I specifically said "returnable space shuttle" not "the space shuttle". If law allowed private businesses could design and build their own returnable space shuttles.

Falcon

Re:space junk

[Bureaucromancer]

The law does allow a vehicle to be built, just not used for salvage. In any case, a vehicle that could do salvage well enough to have any chance of a return would amount to a revolution in cost to orbit, and there are plenty of companies who are or have tried to do that.

We actually might even be pretty close to the technology to do it, but theres a real chicken and egg problem for investors (no demand for orbital flight, but no vehicles that allow the demand to develop), no incentive for the current big players to ruin their current market share (wipe out the conventional launch market overnight), and far too high an entry cost for somebody to build a spaceship in their basement or otherwise appear overnight.

Re:space junk

[falconwolf]

theres a real chicken and egg problem for investors (no demand for orbital flight, but no vehicles that allow the demand to develop)

Virgin Galactic, Russia. There is both demand and capability. If I recall right Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Canonical and Ubuntu, paid Russia $20 million to ride to the ISS. I wouldn't pay that much myself but there are some who will, I think Virgin is requiring a $100,000 deposit and has almost booked the first flight full.

far too high an entry cost for somebody to build a spaceship in their basement or otherwise appear overnight.

Sure there are low cost rockets ;-) As a member of a model rocketry club in one high school I went to we built, and launched, our own Estes and other model rockets.

What I found ironic was that the high school where the model rocketry club was was in MA but the high school I went to in FL didn't have such a club. There I was attending a school that was an hour's drive from the Cape yet students hadn't even heard of model rockets.

Falcon

Re:space junk

[Bureaucromancer]

Yes, yes, model rockets are very nice, but lets see you put one in orbit :)

Seriously though, yes, there is, as there has been for the better part of a couple decades, hope. Virgin Galactic will certainly fly, but I'll believe their orbital plans when I see a spacecraft. As for the Space Adventures stuff, its not game changing for the simple reason that the demand is so low at $20 million a ticket that the Soyuz system is entirely able to carry it.

What I really want to see is the manned version of Dragon. I'm taking the cost that SpaceX talks about with a grain of salt ATM, but it is certainly cheaper than other vehicles. Once Dragon flies I expect Bigelow will get some kind of manned platform up, and then we'll have to see what happens./p

Re:space junk

[falconwolf]

Yes, yes, model rockets are very nice, but lets see you put one in orbit :)

They're a stepping stone. Which is why I find it ironic a high school an hour's drive from where the Space Shuttle as well as a lot of rockets are launched didn't have a model rocketry club but a high school thousands of miles from the nearest launch facility did.

What I really want to see is the manned version of Dragon.

What Dragon? I hadn't heard of it before. Is it the SpaceX Dragon? I found that by searching wiki for space dragon and it was on the first page.

Oh, space salvage reminds me of Andy Griffith's late '70s TV series "Salvage". If you don't know it he stars as a junkyard owner who builds a space ship, if I recall right the capsule was a cement mixer, to salvage space junk.

Falcon

Re:who gives a fuck?

[falconwolf]

Sending people to do a machines job so others can live out Buck Rogers fantasies is an appropriate task for COMMERCIAL space outfits.

Building machines to do man's jobs take meaning away from men.

There must be a meeting of the ways between strictly unmanned flights and manned flights. Personally I'd let commercial businesses or other entities offer manned and unmanned space flights.

Learning about space is an appropriate use for robots,

Not all learning can be done remotely. Nor is that the only reason to go into space. So long as they pay their full costs I have no problem with Bigelow builds an inflatable hotel in earth orbit or Virgin Galactic offers to fare passengers to Hilton's moon hotel, or mine workers to the mining camps and bring back products.

Falcon

meaning of money

[falconwolf]

i would say that a lot of issues goes away ones one look at what money is supposed to represent...

Not really, at least not to me. To me money is meant to facilitate or make easier the exchange of goods and services.

Reminds me of a scene in the movie "Phenomenon" where John Travolta's character plays a garage owner and someone who drills wells comes into the garage to pick up his truck which was being repaired but says he doesn't have the money to pay for it. Travolta saying he needs solar panels he was given as a birthday present installed on his roof. The driller asks what's that got to do with his truck and Travolta says the installer needs a well drilled so if he drills the well the installer will install the panels and he'll fix the truck in return.

In these exchanges all three were voluntary, fixing the truck, drilling the well, and installing the panels. When government takes money people work to earn that is not voluntary. Related to that but applicable to today, today I heard a report on CNN about how because of the recession more people planted gardens this year than have in years. I wasn't impressed but the report said that 19% of those who planted gardens this year this year was the first year they planted a garden. What some are doing is exchanging produce, what one person doesn't grow someone else does and they trade what they have for what they want.

Unfortunately we haven't gotten as much rain this year and it's been cooler than previous years, I don't know if that's why but my garden didn't do so well this year. My garden did much better last year, I grew enough to eat one or two meals every day for about 3 months, but this year I had lettuce for salads and sandwiches but not what tomatoes I got have been small. So I haven't been able to share much, only about 1/4 what I shared last year. Of course I got some acorn squash, onions, and radishes I didn't grow last year. But my corn and carrots didn't sprout.

Falcon

Re:meaning of money

[hitmark]

yes, but where do money originate. that is, who define the total amount?

thing is, if a branch of government is what puts money out there, potentially under the label of funding some government effort or other, the what is tax?

Re:meaning of money

[falconwolf]

yes, but where do money originate. that is, who define the total amount?

Those who use, pay with or are paid with, the money. At least in freer markets. Of course because the Chinese government sets the exchange rate it's not compleatly free. Exchange rates are one measure of how the value of money is defined. Another way it is defined is when you, I, and others go out and do work for others or buy something from others.

thing is, if a branch of government is what puts money out there, potentially under the label of funding some government effort or other, the what is tax?

I do not know what you mean by this, can you clarify? For instance what does "put money out there" mean? Print and release money? Spend money? Or what? And what does "the what is tax?" mean?

Falcon

Oh BTW back to China. Though the government sets the official exchange rate, for those with the wherewithal and gumption it's relatively easy to start a private business.

Re:meaning of money

[hitmark]

http://www.monetary.org/index.html

Re:"Man-Rated"

[Migraineman]

I haven't looked at it in a while, but the payload integrator's manual for the Taurus launch vehicle specifies a thrust-axis acceleration of 14G plus a random-vibration acceleration of about 4G. For us ugly-bags-of-mostly-water, exposure to a launch environment such as this will kill us pretty quick. The acoustic environment is pretty harsh as well.

The "man rating" isn't so much about safety records as it is about having a launch design profile that won't kill human passengers.

Modular-Vs-Bigass

[Tablizer]

Do we really need to build a huge launcher which will fly maybe once a year if we can launch the same payload on four or five flights of a smaller launcher which will see the cost-benefits of mass production?

I never understand that one either. I've not seen anything that needs one-big-launch. Anything we've seen so far can be connected in orbit, perhaps at the ISS, to make it larger/longer: The Lego/modular approach more or less. Sure, there's overhead for re-connecting parts, but is it really more than the savings of economy-of-scale of smaller rockets?
       

Re:who gives a fuck?

[hibiki_r]

It's not about danger, but about cost. A friend of mine, now working for NASA, did his Masters thesis on the logistics of a Mars mission. His estimates not only required major delays as preliminary, unmanned missions had to be done well in advance to generate fuel and oxygen for the stay, but just the cost of designing, building and launching a vessel to get to Mars without getting the astronauts irradiated would be huge. You could have over a thousand little rovers running around in mars for the price of sending two humans for a stay of very few weeks. With such a difference in scale, does it even matter if the rovers are more limited?

401K accounts and their ilk are cruel.

[falconwolf]

BS! Pension plans are about planning for the future.

life is not about finance

Life is about personal responsibility. And it's each individuals responsibility to plan their own future. If that means they have to pay someone else to do the planning for them or learn to plan themselves then it's their responsibility. Heck I don't know what's so hard about that for most people. In jr high we were required to take a civics class. In it though only an intro we had to learn about investing, and this was a public school in a relatively poor area. One of the things the teacher had us do was pretend we had $25,000 to invest any way we wanted. Daily we'd decide what we wanted to buy and sell, sell X stocks and buy Y bonds or Z commodity. The following day we'd look in the newspaper's business section to look up the prices of what we bought and sold. We did that about 4 weeks after which I wanted to be an investor and trader. Today with the net it's so much easier.

If someone happens to retire during a bear market, then through no fault of his own, his standard of living is much reduced versus someone who has the good fortune to retire into a bull market.

Except it's the investor's own responsibility to adjust their investment strategies. As young and new investors people can afford to take risks investing in growth and maybe aggressive growth stocks. But as they age their investments should shift. By the tyme investors are about to retire their portfolio should be mostly if not only value stocks and bonds that generate income. Even in today's recession there are still businesses making money. BP with one exception has increased dividends every year since 1993. Altria, formerly Philip Morris, is a cash machine. BMS, Bristol Myers Squibb Co., which closed at $22 today, declared dividends of $0.31 for the quarter ending 30 June 2009. That was the same as paid out the past three quarters. Annually that's $1.24 a share, at today's closing price the rate of return is 5%. During a recession that's nothing to sneeze at.

Old-fashioned pensions are much better for normal people

Except those plans are Defined benefit pension plan and government has to pick up the tab if the company goes out of business. It was because of these plans that Detroit found itself in it's problems. Chrysler, Ford, and GM agreed to these types of plans with the unions but they were not able to service the debt.

And since pension payouts are guaranteed, this organization has every incentive to properly manage the account.

See above. Actually because they are guaranteed, by the government there isn't an incentive to properly manage the accounts. Let tax payers pick up the tab when business fails.

Falcon

Re:401K accounts and their ilk are cruel.

[QuoteMstr]

Life is about personal responsibility

Do you milk your own cows? Thresh your own grain? Forge your own steel? Gather herbs for your own medicine?

Thought so. Your key problem is that you consider it a greater sin to help someone else than to see someone fail. I don't think that's right. In an industrialized world, nobody who's put 30 years into working for a company should be a pauper for the rest of his life if he happens to retire into a bear market. That's cruel.

As for management issues --- the answer is regulation. And yes, sometimes the government picks up the tab. That's life. Is it the fault of the pensioner that his company went bankrupt?

Re:401K accounts and their ilk are cruel.

[falconwolf]

Do you milk your own cows? Thresh your own grain? Forge your own steel? Gather herbs for your own medicine?

I voluntarily trade, trade, trade, and grow my own. Just today I willingly handed over $10 for supplies. And I'm getting ready to can tomatoes I grew in my garden. I plan on making sauce and salsa with the tomatoes. I also have both acorn and zucchini squash I plan to cook and can. For seasoning I'll use the garlic and onions I grew. Unfortunately because my basil didn't grow much I'll have to buy some. I'll also buy oregano and maybe some other herbs and spices. I'm not sure what I'll do with my rhubarb, being late in the year they're probably woody. I however shared some with the families on either side of me as well as shared lettuce and mustard greens with one of them. And I still have to pick more tomatoes, squash, and my radishes.

None of this involves government.

In an industrialized world, nobody who's put 30 years into working for a company should be a pauper for the rest of his life if he happens to retire into a bear market. That's cruel.

You obviously did not read what I said an=bout investing, so I conclude you are trolling and I will not give more responses.

Falcon

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[QuoteMstr]

I've addressed most of your post elsewhere, so let me focus on the new arguments.

An impartial observer would say that the US government is steadily working to expand its control over US citizens and over foreign lands and foreign resources, with benefits channeled to select few corporations.

Don't confuse the model with the implementation. I described how government is supposed to work. We can agree that for the past decade or so, we've had an especially corrupt, dysfunctional government. That dysfunction, however, is not shared by governments in all places and times. Good government is possible.

You are paying all of these taxes and many more, most of them are useless at best, but usually destructive. That's the problem...., all the progressive taxation does is gives more of your money to the government, where it will be misused in millions of ways

You seem to take it as a self-evidence axiom in the world that government is malicious, corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual. I reject this axiom because it is patently false. Without the underlying assumption that giving more money to the government is always a bad thing, your argument falls apart.

Even if we focus on personal income and personal taxes, how is it that each dollar is less useful? I can spend a $50K on a house and it keeps 5 laborers employed. Or I can spend $500K on a house, and it keeps 50 laborers employed. I think dollars just don't have the attribute of usefulness; each dollar is equally useful in the economy.

Yes, the amount of stuff you can get increases linearly with your income. But how much satisfaction do you gain? Does having 50 laborers make you ten times happier than having five? Does having two yachts make you get out of bed any faster in the morning? Utility and satisfaction increase slowly with income when you are very wealthy.

Yet another way found to deincentivize honest work. Work for cash only (as a pimp, for example,) run red lights all you want, and pay nothing. Great idea, just as most governments' ideas are.

There are plenty of incentives to work even with a graduated fine system. The benefits of success should not include the ability to violate laws with impunity. A non-graduated fine means exactly that. I remember a case in New York City a while ago of some lawyers parking anywhere they'd like and just paying all the parking tickets because the fines meant nothing. That behavior is antisocial.

[with taxes, the government] might build a mega-school where none are needed, or they can build a bridge to nowhere, or they can build an international airport in a fishing village, or they can just burn the cash up in some war. The money is taken out of your hands, this means you are denied the right to decide how to spend it. This reduces the desire to earn more; the opposite end of the spectrum is to earn nothing at all and live on social security or some illegal income.

You have the ability to influence the budget through many different political channels, the most powerful of which is the ballot box. Through government spending, we can accomplish great things that would never have been done had individually individually allocated the same funds.

The money is taken out of your hands, this means you are denied the right to decide how to spend it. This reduces the desire to earn more; the opposite end of the spectrum is to earn nothing at all and live on social security or some illegal income.

And so we arrive at the meat of he issue. Are you seriously claiming that there's no incentive to work in a society with a safety net? There are quite a few advantages to wealth.

Or is it that you're more upset that it's possible to survive without working? Are your sensibilities offended by the idea of someone not being punished for idle

Re:Not this libertarian garbage again.

[QuoteMstr]

You're living in a fantasy world. But I don't blame you: it's the "American Dream" after all, the idea that you, too, can become one of the great and wealthy barons of industry if you only try hard enough. Ergo, anyone who isn't a baron didn't try hard enough, is morally faulty, and deserves the hard knocks he receives. It's Calvinism wrapped up in an American flag, and it's evil.

The reality is that you're not going to end up in the 0.01% of the population that actually benefits from the Laissez-Faire policies you advocate. There's no shame in that. You can lead a good, productive life without ascending the very apex of society, and you should try to make that life that better. Advocating these policies is like adding gilded miniature lamps to a dollhouse while your actual termite-rotted house is collapsing around you.

I agree with your comments,

[falconwolf]

but lighten up; it was a joke [ notice I used a :-) ].

I wish I could, but I find we're in hell of a mess now. Bush dropped the ball by turning his attention to the invasion of Iraq instead of making sure Afghanistan was stable. I don't know about you but I have a nephew who has served in Iraq twice and is being sent to Afghanistan as well.

Of course I can only blame him for Afghanistan, the Marines offered to pay him a $250,000 bonus for reenlisting and he took it. I didn't even know that until my brother-in-law told me later. Tell you what though, at my age I'd enlist if I was paid a bonus of $250,000. And I'm middle aged.

Falcon

The "protest" (and not riot) were not about firing

[aepervius]

The protest were about the period of time you are being "tried" by the firm giving you the job. Usually within the first 3 month you can be given the boot at any moment, this is the try-period. They wanted to expand that period to something insane like 24 month (or maybe it was 9 month I do not recall) for young people. So naturally they went on the street and protested. Did what we call a "manif" (manifestation/protest march). That is quite different from rioting (going in the street to steal and make damage). Although I do not exclude there is a minority of thugs which always take the occasion to riot, the intention of the crushing majority was only to protest agaisnt that law.

Re:Bad design, to start with.

[maxwell demon]

It's named after the god of bloodlust so why would you expect it to be safe?

Ares, spelled A-M-T-R-A-K

[garyebickford]

We'll know the (lack of) future of space exploration for sure, when the head of AMTRAK is transferred to NASA.

It's a classic strategy for getting rid of programs - structure the spending in such a way that nothing useful can be done, but huge amounts of money are spent in the process. Finally, after 10 or 20 years, the program is obsolete and no longer part of the popular psyche and can be cancelled completely.

Sadly, routing the space program onto a side track will also have the effect of removing about 1/2 of the market (my number) for high tech engineers in the US.

I'm sure all those smart engineering graduates will be thrilled that all that money that was 'wasted on rockets and useless scientific trivia' can now be spent on 'the poor' that they will become, instead of productive participants in the most vital initiative of modern human history. They can get together over beans and rice, and dream big dreams of the colonization of space. And colleges, no longer burdened with the need to maintain truly rigorous engineering curricula, can relax and provide more 'global studies' and 'conflict resolution' programs to help us 'understand each other'.

Then, in four or five hundred years, maybe the pioneers and explorers of the United States of Africa can congratulate themselves on the first orbital probe launched since the decadence and collapse of the "Euro-centric global cabal."

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[tftp]

Your extensive comment definitely deserves a reply.

I described how government is supposed to work.

Then you are not the first in a long line of thinkers who discuss how an ideal government in, say, Utopia should work. Unfortunately those theories have no effect on current affairs of existing governments. I'm talking specifically about real world governments - those that are corrupt, inefficient and have goals that could be described as nefarious.

You seem to take it as a self-evidence axiom in the world that government is malicious, corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual. I reject this axiom because it is patently false.

"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" - this was, is, and will be true. Claiming otherwise is just denying reality. How many governments were or are known that, even starting from a group of fine thinkers, didn't devolve into some sort of dictatorship? I think the French Revolution is a good example, or the Russian Revolution of 1917, though you can easily find many examples in the history of the USA also.

But how much satisfaction do you gain? Does having 50 laborers make you ten times happier than having five?

I should have been writing clearer: laborers are building the house, and a larger, costlier house requires larger construction crew. In any case, it's not important from the POV of economy how happy or satisfied an individual person is. I personally would be quite happy knowing that my money is well used and it feeds 50 families. But it's more important for the economy to just give those 5 (or 50) workers a job. Even if I don't need two yachts (or even one, as matter of fact, even if you give it to me for free) the construction and maintenance of those yachts will create jobs, and that is good. I definitely don't feel cheated when I pay a contractor to fix this or that at the house - they did a job that I could not, and I know that my money will be well spent.

You have the ability to influence the budget through many different political channels, the most powerful of which is the ballot box.

Pray tell where is (or was) that magical ballot box where I could cast my vote against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And against bailouts of banks. And against "cash for clunkers."

Are you seriously claiming that there's no incentive to work in a society with a safety net?

If the safety net entangles honest workers then there is no reason to work at all. Many people point out that the USA's social security programs, as they are set up, only make sure that poor people remain poor. In Sweden, for example, the security net was so extensive that taxes on those who dared to work exceeded 100% - and people refused to work for anything but cash. You couldn't get any service there at that time unless you pay cash.

Or is it that you're more upset that it's possible to survive without working? Are your sensibilities offended by the idea of someone not being punished for idleness by starving in the street? That's not a just punishment in a civilized nation.

I only want to reiterate - ability to survive without working leads to formation of ghettos where nobody works because only fools work. This is simple human psychology, and if you deny that then you are in the same boat as Lenin and Stalin who talked about "reshaping a human" into something that can live under communism. They had to talk about it because obviously no modern man [in sufficient quantities, outside of geeks w/o life] would work if he doesn't have to.

Sure, there is a need for a safety net, but a better design of that net is required. The intent should be not to pay you for not working, but to give you a job that will pay your bills. Humans must always work, or else their minds get lazy and people start expecting free stuff from the government (and that means from taxpayers.)

Just as it's better to acquit ten guilty men than to convict one wrongly, it's better to support ten

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[QuoteMstr]

Utopia should work.

Of course it's a Utopia, but if we can't describe the ideal, how are we supposed to be develop policy that approximates it?

Unfortunately those theories have no effect on current affairs of existing governments. I'm talking specifically about real world governments - those that are corrupt, inefficient and have goals that could be described as nefarious.

=Governments don't have goals any more than species do. Individuals within them have goals, and if we structure government such that it's in the best interest of each actor to work for the common good, we construct a government that works for the common good. Sure, governments can turn malicious, but you can stab someone with a salad fork too.

How many governments were or are known that, even starting from a group of fine thinkers, didn't devolve into some sort of dictatorship?

Societies are unstable systems. Civilizations rise and fall, and if history is any guide, that fact is inevitable. The inevitability of the fall, however, isn't a reason to forgo good government while it lasts, and I don't think we can forestall the fall by limiting government. You're right in that revolutions tend to decay quickly, but Western democracies are unlikely to degenerate into tyranny any time soon.

As for your argument about power corrupting: that oft-repeated aphorism is certainly true. That's why separation of powers is the most important feature of any government. Benevolent dictatorships don't stay that way.

But it's more important for the economy to just give those 5 (or 50) workers a job.

Luxury goods are relatively inefficient ways to generate economic activity compared to broad-base activity: luxury goods have a lower multiplier effect and don't generate further economic activity. Building 50 Chevy Malibus will generate more economic activity than 1 Ferrari because the Chevy cars will be used by people to get to jobs, to make trips to stores, and so on, in ways that spur on further activity. Luxury goods, for the most part, just sit there. As for my original point about progressive taxation: because of the declining marginal value of money, a progressive tax actually results in a constant tax on utility. That's only fair.

Pray tell where is (or was) that magical ballot box where I could cast my vote against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And against bailouts of banks. And against "cash for clunkers."

One will appear at your local polling place next November.

I only want to reiterate - ability to survive without working leads to formation of ghettos where nobody works because only fools work.

Only if people are prevented from working by being denied the opportunity. Very few people accept the dole instead of a decent job by choice: not only is the resulting standard of living lower, but there's a social stigma attached. If your opportunities are so limited that you can't improve your standard of living through work (which is its own motivation), then there's an opportunity problem, not a welfare problem.

If the safety net entangles honest workers then there is no reason to work at all. Many people point out that the USA's social security programs, as they are set up, only make sure that poor people remain poor.

Considering that the poor pay little or no income tax, I don't see how they can be "entangled" in the safety net. Also, I already dealt with the motivation to work in the preceding paragraph.

In Sweden, for example, the security net was so extensive that taxes on those who dared to work exceeded 100% - and people refused to work for anything but cash. You couldn't get any service there at that time unless you pay cash.

Effective tax rates should nev

Re:Not this libertarian garbage again.

[falconwolf]

You're living in a fantasy world

And you want to force others to live in your fantasy world.

Falcon

Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion

[tftp]

Only a couple of comments:

One will appear at your local polling place next November.

It won't fix the past. Not only that, voting against a war-loving (D) and for a war-loving (R) is not very practical. 3rd parties are effectively eliminated from the political arena; even a strong candidate (Ron Paul, for one) can not get anywhere.

It is also worth mentioning that politicians are dispensable like paper cups. You don't like $A? Fine, kick him out and vote for $B, he is exactly like $A and receives his orders from the same source. Party does not matter, as we can see - D's are in power and the war rages on, as if there is something to fight for.

Considering that the poor pay little or no income tax, I don't see how they can be "entangled" in the safety net.

Poor phrasing on my part. People who contribute more (and earn more) may be hit with all kinds of progressive taxes which gradually reduce their desire to produce. For example, if you work 10 hours you earn $10/hr. But if you work another 10 hours you suddenly earn $5/hr - and though you do earn more in the end, you work much harder for each dollar. So a rational man would work just the bare minimum instead of working as much as he can, producing maximum wealth and making everyone richer. Progressive taxes tell people to sit on their hands instead of working.

In that case of Sweden that I mentioned not a single tax was above 100% - they were all small, but when they combined - for different people differently - the total tax was confiscatory. I work with a few Swedes, by the way, and they tell me that Sweden's prosperity is not as clear as you think it is. A lot of capital ran away from Sweden a couple decades ago, and it's not coming back. Just this spring, IIRC, Volvo was threatening the government that they will take their ball and leave if the government doesn't back down on some labor laws that apparently exceeded the boundaries of reasonable.

Re:who gives a fuck?

[hofmny]

I just got done watching Mars mission documentary on discovery. It's pretty great. All countries around the globe are spending money to develop different areas (although NASA is really paying the most). I think the current plan is to send Astronauts for an extended stay, more than a year, because they have to wait for Earth to orbit the Sun an come back in alignment again. Building a ship in space needs to be done, and will be a great exercise. Not to mention it will have the first artificial gravity (by rotation). Why does the cost to build a ship have to be huge? I know if will be a lot, but the Russian's are doing it a lot cheaper. As for radiation protection, some ideas are using electromagnetic shields, similar to the Van Allan belts).
This ship can be used on future missions and the food, water, fuel, and buildings set ahead of the astronauts can be used again for future missions -- as we build permanent Mars base.

So that's the plan. Thousands of rovers.. yeah, that's cool, but they are still limited. They don't have the brains, dexterity, or power of a human being. And I am not one of those people that envision humans sitting in their arm chair while robots explore the universe. Sure you could send a robot to Antarctica, but we don't -- we send human's, because it's in our nature (not robots) to explore. It's dangerous, but we do it anyway. The fun is getting out there, into the stars, and we need to take the first steps. Money is nothing, it technically doesn't even exist (except to the tax payers, sigh), but a creature evolving on Earth and being smart enough to leave its mother planet and travel to another one, on a semi permanent fashion, it the next stage of human evolution.

Re:The "protest" (and not riot) were not about fir

[falconwolf]

Did what we call a "manif" (manifestation/protest march). That is quite different from rioting (going in the street to steal and make damage).

There weren't any deaths, burned cars, or other violence?

Although I do not exclude there is a minority of thugs which always take the occasion to riot, the intention of the crushing majority was only to protest agaisnt that law.

The rioters may of been a minority but there were some protesters who supported them and some rioters supported protesters. Perhaps I could have phrased what I wanted to say better though, so I'll try again. The government in France wanted to boost youth employment, even today France has a high unemployment rate for youth. But the youth protested against making it easier for businesses to fire bad employees who are youth, as if a job was an entitlement not something earned. If you want more employment of youth you want to make it easier to fire those youth who are poor workers. Even today Youth unemployment is high in almost all of Europe.

Falcon