Mod parent up. Especially the two outlined points.
1. Capitalism is the only true amoral economic system. All others are immoral. Note that our (US) current system is not true capitalism and all (yes all) the recent problems are due to too much regulation rather than not enough. Also note that it is not necessarily true that a truly value-adding space program wouldn't be created by business. Note finally that the current space program is not value-added.
2. People just don't seem to get that you violate my rights by taking my hard earned funds and applying them to your favorite project -- no matter how admirable your project (in your opinion) may be.
It's not that the work isn't worth anything, it's that it costs too much when done by the govt. By your definition, if I spend $10M to build a hammer, I got a great deal -- after all, look! We got a hammer!
What evidence do you have that "it's not bad?" As savuporo said, show me the results it has delivered that even approach $50-100B.
Furthermore, how is the US military budget a comparison? The US military has a completely different mission. Perhaps you thought the US military is wasteful and thus justifies ISS waste -- it doesn't -- two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps you just wanted to demonstrate scale -- $50B buys a fuckload of Big Macs. In the end, your second paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
Another thing: going into space isn't that hard -- or at least it isn't harder than a lot of things we do regularly. I am so tired of this rocket science myth. Open heart surgery is hard too. The difference is that there is value in open heart surgery so we do it a lot -- so we have learned how to manange the complexity and risks. Show me the value of spaceflight and it will cease being so "hard."
Great. So who is going to be in charge of deciding what degrees are worthy of your proposed "fiscal incentives?" No doubt some government agency.
I'll stick with the current system: the free market.
I don't know why central planning is in such vogue these days. Sure, people will point to the financial crisis -- but that was caused by government involvement not the free market... Do we really need another lesson in the bankruptcy of central planning?
NASA is not an "industry" and it certainly does not put "a lot of money back into the US economy."
"those that are looking for jobs now will most likely go into private industry where their innovations and ideas will become the property of their employer and be lost to public enterprise."
Yeah, that would be terrible if someone left government employment for the private sector...
Again, common ground. I think "regulation" often means drastically different things to different people. I believe I am very pre-free market, but I certainly believe in transparency for example. Transparency requires an SEC-like regulator -- but I wouldn't call transparency "regulation."
To your point, players in any market should be exposed to the up- and down-sides to every decision. Socializing the losses makes no more sense than socializing the gains.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5374
Mod parent up. Especially the two outlined points.
1. Capitalism is the only true amoral economic system. All others are immoral. Note that our (US) current system is not true capitalism and all (yes all) the recent problems are due to too much regulation rather than not enough. Also note that it is not necessarily true that a truly value-adding space program wouldn't be created by business. Note finally that the current space program is not value-added.
2. People just don't seem to get that you violate my rights by taking my hard earned funds and applying them to your favorite project -- no matter how admirable your project (in your opinion) may be.
Please. You simply repeat the fallacy.
Yay. Statist research at any cost.
It's not that the work isn't worth anything, it's that it costs too much when done by the govt. By your definition, if I spend $10M to build a hammer, I got a great deal -- after all, look! We got a hammer!
"The anime "Gundam 00" had a pretty cool implementation of space solar power."
No, they didn't. It's called fiction.
Hechee me.
"Governments seems to work quite efficiently in a lot of other countries around the world."
Name one.
...like I need someone to tell me where a South American country is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28039226?pg=7#Tech_JerkGadgets
Funny how the US still has, by any reasonable measure, the largest, healthiest economy in the world.
What evidence do you have that "it's not bad?" As savuporo said, show me the results it has delivered that even approach $50-100B.
Furthermore, how is the US military budget a comparison? The US military has a completely different mission. Perhaps you thought the US military is wasteful and thus justifies ISS waste -- it doesn't -- two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps you just wanted to demonstrate scale -- $50B buys a fuckload of Big Macs. In the end, your second paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
Another thing: going into space isn't that hard -- or at least it isn't harder than a lot of things we do regularly. I am so tired of this rocket science myth. Open heart surgery is hard too. The difference is that there is value in open heart surgery so we do it a lot -- so we have learned how to manange the complexity and risks. Show me the value of spaceflight and it will cease being so "hard."
I didn't realize there was an "outside the US."
When will you be applying for statehood? I'm not sure we can fit another star on the flag.
Great. So who is going to be in charge of deciding what degrees are worthy of your proposed "fiscal incentives?" No doubt some government agency.
I'll stick with the current system: the free market.
I don't know why central planning is in such vogue these days. Sure, people will point to the financial crisis -- but that was caused by government involvement not the free market... Do we really need another lesson in the bankruptcy of central planning?
Point completely missed...
But hey, if you'd rather get all those things in East Germany, knock yourself out.
You need to understand the definition of adding _value_. All those things are valuable - yes. But don't neglect to subtract the cost.
Private industry can provide everything you mentioned at lower cost -- and therefore at greater value.
"The space shuttle program is an enormous success."
By what metric? Certainly none that it was sold on.
Good idea comrade!
You are correct -- you can count on the government to do even more stuff that has no value and generates no income.
Hogwash.
NASA is not an "industry" and it certainly does not put "a lot of money back into the US economy."
"those that are looking for jobs now will most likely go into private industry where their innovations and ideas will become the property of their employer and be lost to public enterprise."
Yeah, that would be terrible if someone left government employment for the private sector...
This happens all the time in the private sector -- you know, that part of the economy that actually creates value.
Enough with the state run crap. Take your plans for 5-10 years of white collar welfare and go fertilize a tree.
Iron my shirt.
Why should you or the government have any say in who sits on a corporate board? If you are a stockholder and don't like the board -- sell.
The government decides to forgive some people's mortgage debt but not others -- how is that not picking winners and losers?
Speculation is critical to price determination. Connecting its legality to the actual delivery of product is just plain ignorant.
Oh, and making naked short selling illegal just increases friction in the markets and screws up price determination.
Again, common ground. I think "regulation" often means drastically different things to different people. I believe I am very pre-free market, but I certainly believe in transparency for example. Transparency requires an SEC-like regulator -- but I wouldn't call transparency "regulation."
To your point, players in any market should be exposed to the up- and down-sides to every decision. Socializing the losses makes no more sense than socializing the gains.
Simple question then: do you think speculation is good or bad for the market?
Believe me, Bush and Paulson are anything but free-market, small government proponents.