And who gets to decide which projects are beneficial and which aren't? Anyway it doesn't matter. Unless we all become the borg, your idea will never be implemented. The good of the many does not necessarily outwiegh the good of the few or the one.
The Jungle is the story of what industry was like in the late 1800's and early 1900's, where people were as expendable and less valuable to the system than the cows they slaughtered. Nor was it the very early days of industilization. Industrialization began in America in the 1830's-1840's. The critrical things is that while the factory owners became extremely rich in those 60's years the factory workers actually became poorer. The economy grew but the more workers there were the more expendable they became. It didn't matter about how many jobs there were, there was always someone else willing to take it. So the industry worked its employees until the litteraly could not work anymore and then replaced them with a new worker. As to the philanthropy and the people whose expectations were too great, that is a direct critism of the Horatio Alger stories. Horatio Alger in the late 1800's wrote dozens of book about an immigrant or other poor person who has the american dream and starts out at the bottom and works his way to the top. These stories commonly began with a kid with great expectations and the stories were meant to teach that with hard wrok anything was possible. The Jungle was a disuasion of that. In the Jungle you have immigrants who are willing to and do work hard for the american dream only to be ground into the dirt by the system. In most of horatio alger's books (in fact, decades later an histroian would re-examine the work and conclude that in fact horatio algers themes were not supported even by his own stories) the kid works to the point were he cannot get ahead, he cannot save, he cannot spend less, and thus is stuck and it is at this point the kid runs into a rich philantropist by a stroke of luck (save his son, rescues his daughter) who suddenly propels him to the upper ranks, proving that only through astronimical luck can one reach sucess, not by hard work which was the theme. By the ealry 1900's, the american dream was recognized for what it was: the american myth. Upton Sinclair illustrates what would happen if that stroke of luck actually took place, the main character is given money by the philanthropists son only to have it swindled out off of him by a shopkeeper who gives him change for 1 dollar bill rather than the 100 he paid. Since the shopkeeper is a legitmate (or illegitmate) business man and the mian character is only a poor immigrant worker who do you think the cops believe? The shopkeeper situation shows that even if a poor man where to be given a reward - whether it be money or even capital to start a business-, he would only lose it to the already established. Hence, philanthropy is not a true escape from poverty.
"For every asshole out there is someone who is not, and the reality of suffering does not pass unnoticed. As there are more people and more businesses, things can only get better."
Actually, in an lazzie faire economy, the number of businesses decreases, not increases. The small business owner survives only by the vast amount of regulation the government already provides. There are numerous schemes used in the 1800's and the beginning of the 1900's that large busniess used to crush small competitors. Some would even go so far as to drop their prices to nothing for a short period of time so that their competitors would be destroyed and then when the competitor was out of business, raise the price to a far-higher-than-orginal level in order to make up for the loss and then some. As to the reality of suffering, most of the industrial barons had a simple solution:
1. Move your home so it was isolated from the poor. If you never came in contact with the poor, what's there to notice? You could easliy forget the poor sitting in your 30 room mansion next to a lake with your kids. And hey, you worked hard (or your parents worked hard) so shoudln't you deserve it even though most just got there not from hard work at all but blind luck.
2. Useless philantrhopy. Build a library for the education so they can rise throgh the ranks. Only problem is
Space is barren. Do you want to sterlize all the martian colonists we send in fifties years? With modern technology we can make any place habitable. These are human beings were talking about dude, not cattle. Maybe we should sterlize you for saying something so inhuman.
"Free trade is the long-term normalizer of the world. It levels the playing field so THE TRUTH and the FREE MARKET runs business"
The truth is it isn't a level playing field. India has no minimum wage, no labor laws, no standards. You can't compete against a country like indonesia that basically runs on near-slave labor. I am not an isolationist. I say keep trading but you have to level the playing field somehow. Free trade only works when everyone plays by the rules otherwise you are competeting against someone (like indonesia or the rest of the third world) who plays with an unfair advantage. The playing field is skewed by those who have no problem paying children only a dime a month to work 15 hours a day. As for the other isms, how does culturalism and racism figure in? I am not saying that are culture is any better than anyone elses (even though it is - if you don't think our culture is superior to one who has no child labor laws and no minimum wage and who treats its citizens like slaves, then your delusional.) And where did you get racism?
Free trade is not an old concept, it is a very new one. It started with NAFTA. Before then all the way back to the days of Rome, the econmies of the world worked on tariifs and trade control. And guess what? The system worked pretty well. Free trade has already devastated our manufacturing industry. It's now set to devastate our IT industry. How much destruction has to occur before you decide to take some type of measure to limit the damage?
Actually that 50% invested in the stock market is misleading. In actuality, 50% are invested but something like 80-90% of that is indirect investing. Insurance companies are the prime example. You are paying the insurance, but the inurance has all its assests put into stock. You don't get divedends or any of the other perks. The only perk is the stock value might go up meaning your insurance is now a little more valuable. Another example is retirement plans and companies that pay their employees in stock. You can't sell it, you don't get dividends, your just hoiping that it will at some point in the future be worth more. That is why the tax break was such a joke. Yeah, 50% of americans own shares in the stock market but only 10% of them would beenefit from any of the bonuses cause most are not directly invested. You want more accurate figures, watch "wall street".
I'm not worried. We all saw what Bread and Circus's do to a population. The world will eventually wake up and for ppl like Mr. Howell, it is going to really really suck.
The problem with that is, the steel worker just needed retraining. We have college educations. College educations take money, a whole lot of money. We need to get another skill set? I got news for you: we can't afford to go out and get a new skill set. I am a college student. I have yet to graduate. What am I supposed to do if I can't get a job? Get another skill set how? Where will the money come from? It doesn't cost much to train an non-college grad to do another job that does not require a college education. It doesn't work that way when it is skilled jobs. Thats why you see college grads fighting over meager jobs that don't require college degrees: they can't find a job anywhere and can't get a new skill set.
You seem to not mind that the jobs now considered low level are being farmed out. I got new for you, they are only low level cause all the jobs lower were already farmed out. This outsourcing is eating its way up the chain. First it was manufacturing and no one really worried casue they were only the low level jobs. They'll alll get jobs at Burger King! Now its the white collar jobs were losing. When they sold us on free trade, these were the jobs we werent supposed to lose! They were the ones that were going to absorb all the displaced. It might not be your job yet that is getting eaten, but just wait awhile. And when you complain, no one will listen. Why? Cause they already lost thier jobs a long time ago. It's like that poem: they'll eventually come for you and no one will be left to care. Its ironic, we bought free trade with our freedom. Welcome to the world of real corporate slavery.
"I suggest you *compete* instead of *whine*."
So me, with college bills, with a higher standard and thus a more expensive standard of living, am supposed to compete against a country with no minimum wage, no real labor laws of any kind? How? Those indian IT workers are making less than your average burger king employee ($10,000 a year is considered good there - here, you would have to go on welfare to survive at that level.)
As someone already noted, 100% free trade only is a good thing when all parties play on a level playing field. Right now that isn't the case and so tariffs are required here to level the playing field. Until we impose those tariffs, the quality of life for those who have to play in system that doesn't have those rules will only get worse just as those who do play by those rules will get worse as well trying to compete against them. Right now the average american manufactureing worker is competeing against a 10 year old indonesian girl who is making a dime a month. That is nearly slavery and in a couple of years (when there are incidently no american competitors left) it probably will become slavery. Zero tariffs has not eased up conditions in the third world, they just make them worse as bosses try to squeeze every last dollar out. Free trade was supposed to bring the quality of life in the world up and instead is bring it down as companies try to break even more rules to get the almighty dollar.
"Second, if companies can send jobs overseas, and move their capital around whither they will, so too should workers be able to chase the jobs. I'm sure many folks here would be more than happy to code while sitting on a beach in Goa."
The world does not work that way. Not every country in the world has the standard of living we do. The fact of the matter is you would not wind up on a beach (unless you were living in a cardboard box there.) First, we can't move freely all over the world. You first have to get a visa, and guess what? Countries like India aren't too happy to give them out. Just recently I was reading a story about a guy who lost his job to outsourcing and decided, okay, let's go to india and work there. Only problem was India would not give him a visa to work there cause (get this) they didn't want competition from non-indian workers in their IT industry. You just have to laugh. Secondly, most of those countries aren't very nice places to live. Sure, move to china. Have your basic human rights trampled on by the government. Get something that looks it was once food, get food poisoning. And good luck in getting a competent doctor when you come down with diptheria for the first, second, and third time. Not to mention the cost it takes to move to another country. I don't speak Chinese. How can I work in china? The fact of the matter is: employees can't follow the jobs. If you think they can, go to Brooklyn or the Bronx at around 9:30pm in mid summer and realize that that is about 10x better than most of the countries our jobs are going to. And don't then think you can drop wages to those levels here. You can't. First becuase of laws, second becuase no one is going to work a job that requires a college education for Burger King level wages.
On one hand, he doesn't care about the negative effect outsourcing has on other peoples jobs. But on the other when it comes to his job he is freaking. Reminds me of the old Twilights zone episode: the boss replaces all the workers with machines and doesn't care that all the factory employees are now on the streets. But then he is fired and replaced with a machine and now its suddenly horribly wrong.
It depends on what you want to tax. If a company is doing all its work in Mexico and then uploading to american servers, I would say tax it. But if you are just visiting some 12 yr olds webpage taht happens to reside in a server in europe, I would say no.
Back in the 1800's someone looked at the economic system and found that eack adult would only need to work 2-3 hours a day, five days a week to support our present system. The problem it turns out is the inbalance in the classes. The problem was not that dead beats were not working, the problem was the rich weren't working enough. So who makes up the difference? It turns out we do. In order for a person to do the necessary amount of work it takes to maintain a level of living such as Bill Gates has, a person would have to contribute an immposible amount of man hours. Someone has to make up the difference.
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/business/d961376a. htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_24/c3736054.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/077.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.st udy/
I found that an even more recent (2003) study that says south koreans work more hours but are not as productive.
"More like monitoring disease outbreaks. The money would be better spent on preventing diseases."
Tell me, what does the shuttle do to fix the ozone hole? What does it do to fix any of the problems it monitors? Nothing. Last time I checked the CDC did research on possible treatments and cures for the diseases it found. Last time I checked, the shuttle just took nice pictures of our problems.
"I thought that was what Eckart is trying to do. So healthcare is about being a slave to the pharmacies. Why don't we just put a giant Wallgreens logo on all the hospitals from now on? "
Actually, ask any doctor and they'll tell you that the healthcare system is a slave of the insurance companies. Other than, your statement is correct. The difference is our tax dollars don't pay for the health care system. Our tax dollars do pay for the satalites and the reasearch into them.
"3"
Well, last time I checked the CDC actually sends teams out to these remote locations to help the indengious populations deal with epidemics. Our government also sponsor programs in third world to educate people about health care. When was the last time an astronaut ever came to your school, let alone a third world classroom? The average third-worlder might know we landed on the moon, and that's it. You can broadcast crap from space all you want but if you don't have some device to pick up the broadcast, what is it going to matter. To say the space program is involved with any type of education is a joke. And as for health care, it can better be dealt with on the ground. The last time I checked, they weren't growing tomatos in 0-g in asia.
"Chea medicines"
Haven't been to a pharmacy lately, have you? The average third-worlder can't afford most medicine cause its so overpriced. But at least there are agaencies and corporations looking to find ways to make it cheap. They not only have ideas, they actually have experimented with new cheaper medicines. The space program has some vague ideas about efficient power systems that won't be ready for another 20-30 years. They have had these vague ideas for years and they have yet to do anything about them. Where are the super efficent solar panels they were supposed to be working on back in the eighties (that I was promised by Reading Rainbow.)
"6"
Ambulances driving at high speeds will always be relatively unsafe. But that doesn't mean the hospitals spend 500 million dollars on new saftey systems for them every year. There is a risk when riding in an ambulance and the rider, the paramedic, and the hospitals realize and accept this. They may spend a little on better saftey and maybe a lot for a significant increase in saftey, but it won't be overly exhorbarent(sic - obviously) amounts on minute increases. As unsafe as an ambulance, sitting on top of a controlled explosion is significantly more dangerous and it seems it has become NASA's main mission to spend half thier budget or more trying to make the thing 0.00000000001% more safe. This has a little to do with the fact that an ambulance costs a lot less tahn a shuttle and so a shuttle loss is more severe, but instead of investing in making the shuttle marginally more safe, they shoudl instead invest the money on developing less expensive craft.
The coorelation taht exists in the space program between these topics and topic 2 does not exist in the health care system. You are commenting on a nonexistant correlation between apples based on a obviosu correlation taht exists between oranges. In other words, your statements here don't make any sense in the context of the health care system where they do in the space program.
"9"
The health care system is working on creating vaccines to prevent future epidemics. Where are the multi stage rockets that are being built to devert asteroids? The health care system is working on what to do when disasters are emminent and how to prevent them. It seems the space program isn't.
"10"
Actually the health care system is exploring alternative forms of med
Slashdot Mirror
And who gets to decide which projects are beneficial and which aren't? Anyway it doesn't matter. Unless we all become the borg, your idea will never be implemented. The good of the many does not necessarily outwiegh the good of the few or the one.
Read the book.
The Jungle is the story of what industry was like in the late 1800's and early 1900's, where people were as expendable and less valuable to the system than the cows they slaughtered. Nor was it the very early days of industilization. Industrialization began in America in the 1830's-1840's. The critrical things is that while the factory owners became extremely rich in those 60's years the factory workers actually became poorer. The economy grew but the more workers there were the more expendable they became. It didn't matter about how many jobs there were, there was always someone else willing to take it. So the industry worked its employees until the litteraly could not work anymore and then replaced them with a new worker. As to the philanthropy and the people whose expectations were too great, that is a direct critism of the Horatio Alger stories. Horatio Alger in the late 1800's wrote dozens of book about an immigrant or other poor person who has the american dream and starts out at the bottom and works his way to the top. These stories commonly began with a kid with great expectations and the stories were meant to teach that with hard wrok anything was possible. The Jungle was a disuasion of that. In the Jungle you have immigrants who are willing to and do work hard for the american dream only to be ground into the dirt by the system. In most of horatio alger's books (in fact, decades later an histroian would re-examine the work and conclude that in fact horatio algers themes were not supported even by his own stories) the kid works to the point were he cannot get ahead, he cannot save, he cannot spend less, and thus is stuck and it is at this point the kid runs into a rich philantropist by a stroke of luck (save his son, rescues his daughter) who suddenly propels him to the upper ranks, proving that only through astronimical luck can one reach sucess, not by hard work which was the theme. By the ealry 1900's, the american dream was recognized for what it was: the american myth. Upton Sinclair illustrates what would happen if that stroke of luck actually took place, the main character is given money by the philanthropists son only to have it swindled out off of him by a shopkeeper who gives him change for 1 dollar bill rather than the 100 he paid. Since the shopkeeper is a legitmate (or illegitmate) business man and the mian character is only a poor immigrant worker who do you think the cops believe? The shopkeeper situation shows that even if a poor man where to be given a reward - whether it be money or even capital to start a business-, he would only lose it to the already established. Hence, philanthropy is not a true escape from poverty.
"For every asshole out there is someone who is not, and the reality of suffering does not pass unnoticed. As there are more people and more businesses, things can only get better."
Actually, in an lazzie faire economy, the number of businesses decreases, not increases. The small business owner survives only by the vast amount of regulation the government already provides. There are numerous schemes used in the 1800's and the beginning of the 1900's that large busniess used to crush small competitors. Some would even go so far as to drop their prices to nothing for a short period of time so that their competitors would be destroyed and then when the competitor was out of business, raise the price to a far-higher-than-orginal level in order to make up for the loss and then some. As to the reality of suffering, most of the industrial barons had a simple solution:
1. Move your home so it was isolated from the poor. If you never came in contact with the poor, what's there to notice? You could easliy forget the poor sitting in your 30 room mansion next to a lake with your kids. And hey, you worked hard (or your parents worked hard) so shoudln't you deserve it even though most just got there not from hard work at all but blind luck.
2. Useless philantrhopy. Build a library for the education so they can rise throgh the ranks. Only problem is
As I said, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair to see what the world was like with little government regulation.
Space is barren. Do you want to sterlize all the martian colonists we send in fifties years? With modern technology we can make any place habitable. These are human beings were talking about dude, not cattle. Maybe we should sterlize you for saying something so inhuman.
"They are infected with sickness of greed."
The Last of the Mohicans
Pure capitalism doesn't work. If you have any doubts about that, read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
"Free trade is the long-term normalizer of the world. It levels the playing field so THE TRUTH and the FREE MARKET runs business"
The truth is it isn't a level playing field. India has no minimum wage, no labor laws, no standards. You can't compete against a country like indonesia that basically runs on near-slave labor. I am not an isolationist. I say keep trading but you have to level the playing field somehow. Free trade only works when everyone plays by the rules otherwise you are competeting against someone (like indonesia or the rest of the third world) who plays with an unfair advantage. The playing field is skewed by those who have no problem paying children only a dime a month to work 15 hours a day. As for the other isms, how does culturalism and racism figure in? I am not saying that are culture is any better than anyone elses (even though it is - if you don't think our culture is superior to one who has no child labor laws and no minimum wage and who treats its citizens like slaves, then your delusional.) And where did you get racism?
Free trade is not an old concept, it is a very new one. It started with NAFTA. Before then all the way back to the days of Rome, the econmies of the world worked on tariifs and trade control. And guess what? The system worked pretty well. Free trade has already devastated our manufacturing industry. It's now set to devastate our IT industry. How much destruction has to occur before you decide to take some type of measure to limit the damage?
Actually that 50% invested in the stock market is misleading. In actuality, 50% are invested but something like 80-90% of that is indirect investing. Insurance companies are the prime example. You are paying the insurance, but the inurance has all its assests put into stock. You don't get divedends or any of the other perks. The only perk is the stock value might go up meaning your insurance is now a little more valuable. Another example is retirement plans and companies that pay their employees in stock. You can't sell it, you don't get dividends, your just hoiping that it will at some point in the future be worth more. That is why the tax break was such a joke. Yeah, 50% of americans own shares in the stock market but only 10% of them would beenefit from any of the bonuses cause most are not directly invested. You want more accurate figures, watch "wall street".
I'm not worried. We all saw what Bread and Circus's do to a population. The world will eventually wake up and for ppl like Mr. Howell, it is going to really really suck.
It was really about money, why has Hp fired 1000's workers, replaced them with indian workers, and then went out and bought 2 $60 million dollar jets to replace their 1999 ones?
The problem with that is, the steel worker just needed retraining. We have college educations. College educations take money, a whole lot of money. We need to get another skill set? I got news for you: we can't afford to go out and get a new skill set. I am a college student. I have yet to graduate. What am I supposed to do if I can't get a job? Get another skill set how? Where will the money come from? It doesn't cost much to train an non-college grad to do another job that does not require a college education. It doesn't work that way when it is skilled jobs. Thats why you see college grads fighting over meager jobs that don't require college degrees: they can't find a job anywhere and can't get a new skill set.
You seem to not mind that the jobs now considered low level are being farmed out. I got new for you, they are only low level cause all the jobs lower were already farmed out. This outsourcing is eating its way up the chain. First it was manufacturing and no one really worried casue they were only the low level jobs. They'll alll get jobs at Burger King! Now its the white collar jobs were losing. When they sold us on free trade, these were the jobs we werent supposed to lose! They were the ones that were going to absorb all the displaced. It might not be your job yet that is getting eaten, but just wait awhile. And when you complain, no one will listen. Why? Cause they already lost thier jobs a long time ago. It's like that poem: they'll eventually come for you and no one will be left to care. Its ironic, we bought free trade with our freedom. Welcome to the world of real corporate slavery.
"I suggest you *compete* instead of *whine*."
So me, with college bills, with a higher standard and thus a more expensive standard of living, am supposed to compete against a country with no minimum wage, no real labor laws of any kind? How? Those indian IT workers are making less than your average burger king employee ($10,000 a year is considered good there - here, you would have to go on welfare to survive at that level.)
As someone already noted, 100% free trade only is a good thing when all parties play on a level playing field. Right now that isn't the case and so tariffs are required here to level the playing field. Until we impose those tariffs, the quality of life for those who have to play in system that doesn't have those rules will only get worse just as those who do play by those rules will get worse as well trying to compete against them. Right now the average american manufactureing worker is competeing against a 10 year old indonesian girl who is making a dime a month. That is nearly slavery and in a couple of years (when there are incidently no american competitors left) it probably will become slavery. Zero tariffs has not eased up conditions in the third world, they just make them worse as bosses try to squeeze every last dollar out. Free trade was supposed to bring the quality of life in the world up and instead is bring it down as companies try to break even more rules to get the almighty dollar.
"Second, if companies can send jobs overseas, and move their capital around whither they will, so too should workers be able to chase the jobs. I'm sure many folks here would be more than happy to code while sitting on a beach in Goa."
The world does not work that way. Not every country in the world has the standard of living we do. The fact of the matter is you would not wind up on a beach (unless you were living in a cardboard box there.) First, we can't move freely all over the world. You first have to get a visa, and guess what? Countries like India aren't too happy to give them out. Just recently I was reading a story about a guy who lost his job to outsourcing and decided, okay, let's go to india and work there. Only problem was India would not give him a visa to work there cause (get this) they didn't want competition from non-indian workers in their IT industry. You just have to laugh. Secondly, most of those countries aren't very nice places to live. Sure, move to china. Have your basic human rights trampled on by the government. Get something that looks it was once food, get food poisoning. And good luck in getting a competent doctor when you come down with diptheria for the first, second, and third time. Not to mention the cost it takes to move to another country. I don't speak Chinese. How can I work in china? The fact of the matter is: employees can't follow the jobs. If you think they can, go to Brooklyn or the Bronx at around 9:30pm in mid summer and realize that that is about 10x better than most of the countries our jobs are going to. And don't then think you can drop wages to those levels here. You can't. First becuase of laws, second becuase no one is going to work a job that requires a college education for Burger King level wages.
"john ashcroft is a tool of the devil"
I thought John Ashcroft was the devil!
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
On one hand, he doesn't care about the negative effect outsourcing has on other peoples jobs. But on the other when it comes to his job he is freaking. Reminds me of the old Twilights zone episode: the boss replaces all the workers with machines and doesn't care that all the factory employees are now on the streets. But then he is fired and replaced with a machine and now its suddenly horribly wrong.
Plus the always rising cost of college education and the loans that we have to pay off.
It depends on what you want to tax. If a company is doing all its work in Mexico and then uploading to american servers, I would say tax it. But if you are just visiting some 12 yr olds webpage taht happens to reside in a server in europe, I would say no.
Back in the 1800's someone looked at the economic system and found that eack adult would only need to work 2-3 hours a day, five days a week to support our present system. The problem it turns out is the inbalance in the classes. The problem was not that dead beats were not working, the problem was the rich weren't working enough. So who makes up the difference? It turns out we do. In order for a person to do the necessary amount of work it takes to maintain a level of living such as Bill Gates has, a person would have to contribute an immposible amount of man hours. Someone has to make up the difference.
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/09/business/d961376a. htm 4 /c3736054.htm t udy/
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/077.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.s
I found that an even more recent (2003) study that says south koreans work more hours but are not as productive.
Lets set up tariffs. They want to farm there work offshore, lets make it so expensive to do so that they will lose money outsourcing.
Actually, last study showed Americans work harder (or more) than anyone else on earth.
"More like monitoring disease outbreaks. The money would be better spent on preventing diseases."
Tell me, what does the shuttle do to fix the ozone hole? What does it do to fix any of the problems it monitors? Nothing. Last time I checked the CDC did research on possible treatments and cures for the diseases it found. Last time I checked, the shuttle just took nice pictures of our problems.
"I thought that was what Eckart is trying to do. So healthcare is about being a slave to the pharmacies. Why don't we just put a giant Wallgreens logo on all the hospitals from now on? "
Actually, ask any doctor and they'll tell you that the healthcare system is a slave of the insurance companies. Other than, your statement is correct. The difference is our tax dollars don't pay for the health care system. Our tax dollars do pay for the satalites and the reasearch into them.
"3"
Well, last time I checked the CDC actually sends teams out to these remote locations to help the indengious populations deal with epidemics. Our government also sponsor programs in third world to educate people about health care. When was the last time an astronaut ever came to your school, let alone a third world classroom? The average third-worlder might know we landed on the moon, and that's it. You can broadcast crap from space all you want but if you don't have some device to pick up the broadcast, what is it going to matter. To say the space program is involved with any type of education is a joke. And as for health care, it can better be dealt with on the ground. The last time I checked, they weren't growing tomatos in 0-g in asia.
"Chea medicines"
Haven't been to a pharmacy lately, have you? The average third-worlder can't afford most medicine cause its so overpriced. But at least there are agaencies and corporations looking to find ways to make it cheap. They not only have ideas, they actually have experimented with new cheaper medicines. The space program has some vague ideas about efficient power systems that won't be ready for another 20-30 years. They have had these vague ideas for years and they have yet to do anything about them. Where are the super efficent solar panels they were supposed to be working on back in the eighties (that I was promised by Reading Rainbow.)
"6"
Ambulances driving at high speeds will always be relatively unsafe. But that doesn't mean the hospitals spend 500 million dollars on new saftey systems for them every year. There is a risk when riding in an ambulance and the rider, the paramedic, and the hospitals realize and accept this. They may spend a little on better saftey and maybe a lot for a significant increase in saftey, but it won't be overly exhorbarent(sic - obviously) amounts on minute increases. As unsafe as an ambulance, sitting on top of a controlled explosion is significantly more dangerous and it seems it has become NASA's main mission to spend half thier budget or more trying to make the thing 0.00000000001% more safe. This has a little to do with the fact that an ambulance costs a lot less tahn a shuttle and so a shuttle loss is more severe, but instead of investing in making the shuttle marginally more safe, they shoudl instead invest the money on developing less expensive craft.
The coorelation taht exists in the space program between these topics and topic 2 does not exist in the health care system. You are commenting on a nonexistant correlation between apples based on a obviosu correlation taht exists between oranges. In other words, your statements here don't make any sense in the context of the health care system where they do in the space program.
"9"
The health care system is working on creating vaccines to prevent future epidemics. Where are the multi stage rockets that are being built to devert asteroids? The health care system is working on what to do when disasters are emminent and how to prevent them. It seems the space program isn't.
"10"
Actually the health care system is exploring alternative forms of med