PK:

“If your answer is “no” to any of these questions, please elaborate and explain to me what I am misunderstanding here.”

What you keep missing is what I keep pointing out. Let me take an example.

Let’s say we got rid of government schools. Does that mean that all of the teachers and administrators would be out of a job? No! Because there are still the kids out there who need to be educated. But since private schools spend their money MUCH more efficiently than do government schools, with generally superior quality, it is very likely the case that there will be MORE jobs. There would likely be smaller class sizes, meaning a greater teacher-to-student ratio, meaning more jobs.

So that would mean that, instead of creating jobs, by running government schools they actually DESTROYED jobs.

It’s really the Broken Window Fallacy all over again. You’d be one of the ones insisting that a new job was created for a glazier, ignoring the tailor’s lost business.

I mean, really, this is BASIC economics here.

Skepterist:

“Its not “they” its “we,” and we are spending our own money. We as taxpayers are providing the means necessary to protect and serve the public for the greater good.”

Long-discredited Socialist nonsense. The decision to spend the money is taken out of the hands of the people who actually worked to make the money. The Congresscritters, the bureaucrats, etc. are the ones making the spending decisions, and those INDIVIDUALS are therefore people who are spending other people’s money. Collectives don’t make decisions. Only individuals do.

“If there is no supply or demand for any of those simple examples, then I don’t know what supply and demand is.”

You don’t know what supply and demand is. The entire basis of supply and demand is based on suppliers having a choice as to how much to supply at each price level, and consumers having a choice as to how much to spend at each price level. That’s how equilibrium is achieved. That is NOT present with government monopolies. Your tax money is taken by force, and you don’t have the choice to go with a competitor.

“That is a gross generalization. There is plenty of accountability, it just takes involvement of the people whom the politicians serve.”

Like I said, at best we can vote a general up-and-down vote on everything. And even then, we’re often not given any better choice.

Example: 70% of Americans want to end the Iraq war, and voted to put the Democrats back in power in Congress to do it. Since then, the Democrats have been every bit as supportive of the war and the powers that Bush wants as the Republicans.

“Aren’t the taxpayers the customers here?”

No, because their money is taken by force.

“The federal government creates millions of jobs, for millions of people.”

Yeah, so did the kid who broke the shop window.

The SkepticWiki entry on the Broken Window Fallacy:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Broken_Window_Fallacy

PK:

“However, you say that private companies can do things much more efficient than the government. The “much” part is definitely not true. I know people who work for Philips and Unilever, and those organisations are every bit as inefficient as, say, a university or a hospital.”

I don’t know the particular one you’re talking about, but understand there’s a difference between a private company and a corporation. Corporations are inventions of government. They’re companies that have a special status bestowed on them by government, and they often receive subsidies or tax “incentives” and this reduces the free market incentives to be efficient.

The prime examples are your local power, phone, and cable providers. Since they’re granted monopoly status outright, they do a lot of things very badly.

The airlines might be another example. Their service sucks, and their prices are cheap. I contend that this is in large part due to the government bailing them out every 10 years or so. Without that, their prices might have to rise, but then they’d also have an incentive to improve their service. Look at the smaller airlines, and how well they’re run since they have to compete with the big guys.

Also, efficiency is a relative thing. There’s no such thing as 100% efficiency.

And thanks for the heads-up about the upgrade.

Skepterist:

You’ve got a lot of gall to call me offensive and then use phrases like “It must be nice to live in your world.” And for your information, I DON’T do nothing. I’m very much an activist who has run for local office twice, supported candidates and lobbying organizations, done a fair bit of lobbying myself, I write columns for a local newspaper, I produce Bogosity, I do lots of stuff for no charge, above running my own business and being a single father to two kids, including one with autism.

And that’s the only part of your post worth even a response. You demand an exact count of things you know there is no exact count for and changes all the time, and you refuse to consider rational, logical arguments.

And then you get all sanctimonious and saying that I don’t do anything, when if you’d bothered to even so much as Google me (I post under my real name, unlike you), you’d see that is far from the case.

The real reason to go back? Revisit the Apollo landing sites and prove to all those mental midgets out there that we really did go there 38 years ago…

The words “you” and “idiots” are your exact words. Now, if you did not mean that paragraph to be offensive, then I think you need to restate it.

But you bring up another question I would like to ask of you: What “real jobs” are being lost? And by whom? In what way does the government (including NASA) compromise jobs?

I probably should just give up, since you don’t seem to want to consider any person’s opinion that differs from your own, but I’ll try one more time…

In your previous post you said, “1) They’re not spending their own money.” That is a very skewed view, and it is wrong. Its not “they” its “we,” and we are spending our own money. We as taxpayers are providing the means necessary to protect and serve the public for the greater good. I cannot personally afford to hire a police officer to roam the streets in my neighborhood, and my neighbors cannot afford to pay all the school teachers’ salaries to educate their children. And no one of us can afford to build a highway from California to Florida. Therefore, the taxes are paid willingly, not stolen, for the betterment of the community and the nation. If you are unhappy about paying your taxes, then perhaps you would be happier living in another state, or another country.

“2) There’s no supply and demand. There’s no competition for government,” Baloney. Have you ever been a school teacher? Have you ever been to an understaffed emergency room? Have you ever needed to call the fire department? If there is no supply or demand for any of those simple examples, then I don’t know what supply and demand is.

“3) There’s no accountability.” That is a gross generalization. There is plenty of accountability, it just takes involvement of the people whom the politicians serve. If we the people would actually pay attention to what our government is doing, at the local, state and federal levels, there would be better control of spending. If less than 20% of registered voters actually take the time to vote (and that’s only in really big elections) then no wonder some people think there’s no accountability. Indeed, who’s fault is it that some people don’t know what the hell is going on?

“4) There’s not even a customer base to speak of.” I’m not sure what you mean by this. Aren’t the taxpayers the customers here? Doesn’t the government provide services to the public? Aren’t we the public?

Have you ever served on a city council position? Have you ever been a police officer or a school teacher, or a garbage collector? Those are REAL JOBS, performed by REAL PEOPLE. They get paychecks, just like everyone else. I think perhaps you need to put down your Economics book and pick up a Government text.

Instead of questioning your comments, I’m just going to say you are wrong. The federal government creates millions of jobs, for millions of people. Those people may be direct employees of the government, or work for contract manufacturers, or are simply privately owned companies that provide the supporting goods and/or services. But they are indeed actual jobs.

Since I can’t afford to go to the moon by myself, I am more than happy to support both my government AND the private companies who can afford to make it happen.

And I can say that without calling you names.

… puts you in league with the creationists and the moon hoax idiots…

this is tantamount to calling the person you addressed an idiot. But let’s let that pass, and get on with more interesting matters.

You assert a lot about economics, but that is not the same as a rational argument. So rather than referring me to your previous posts (which, incidentally, I have read; I’m just not convinced by your assertions), could you answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that schools, hospitals, police, etc., are products (i.e. services) demanded in our economy?

2. Does the government provide these products/services?

3. If you answered “yes” to both 1 and 2, does this not fulfill your conditions to have at least the ability to create jobs (I’ll quote you again: “To create a job, you actually have to produce a product demanded in the economy.”)

If your answer is “no” to any of these questions, please elaborate and explain to me what I am misunderstanding here.

Reread your last sentence. I made FOUR SEPARATE POSTS debunking exactly what you said in that sentence. It is that exact thing I was talking about!

Oh, and the only people I called “idiots” were the moon hoax people, who aren’t here at the moment.

Is it REALLY to much to ask for people to READ a post before they go mouthing off about it?

If you haven’t noticed, politicians tend to get booted out if they screw up the economy and are rewarded if they handle the economy well. That is the ultimate incentive.

You also said: “To create a job, you actually have to produce a product demanded in the economy.”

You mean like education, police services, fire fighters, public transport, the military, hospitals, etc.?

“The entire cost of anything is labor.”

NOT so. The three components of the production function are capital, labor, and natural resources. Drbuzz0 was wrong when he said that NASA is losing capital into space; what he should have said was they’re losing natural resources into space, which is every bit as much a part of the production function as capital and labor.

Also, I think you’re misunderstanding the underlying concept of economics. It’s not that individual people can work with perfect information, it’s that people as a whole work with greater information and wisdom than any individual could, as confirmed over and over again by the jelly-bean experiment.

I have NEVER heard an economist say there are zero transportation costs, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Of course, I don’t listen to political economists who harp on about the Trickle Down Theory like it’s the savior of all mankind…

1) They’re not spending their own money. It’s money taken by force, and so there’s no incentive to economize, to make sure you’re getting value for your buck.

2) There’s no supply and demand. There’s no competition for government, and so few of the forces that drive prices to equilibrium are present. As a result, there’s no equilibrium wage the job can pay (the government can, in large part, pay whatever they feel like), and there’s no expected output of value from the job.

3) There’s no accountability. Bureaucrats screw up all the time, and are rarely fired. Congress obviously isn’t under any incentive to spent frugally and make sure value is returned, and thus have little desire to avoid waste.

4) There’s not even a customer base to speak of. Customers have a voice in what companies do since companies depend on customers for their continued profits. Government doesn’t. And don’t go telling me the vote is our voice–we get one vote each for one Congressman and two Senators, but that’s an across-the-board vote for all of government. We don’t have anywhere near the granularity toward our government than we do with companies in the real world. Also, we’re so very rarely given a real choice in our candidates, other than Stupid Drunken Sailor Democrat and Stupid Drunken Sailor Republican.

There are others, but what it all boils down to is that your contention that the space program–or ANY government program–creates jobs is specious at best. The above reasons and more mean that the money, taken from individuals by force, is spent without any regards for efficiency. The individuals spending or investing their money in the private sector are going to do it efficiently, hoping to get a return, buying the things of value that they want and investing where they think it’ll get them the best return. Without the government taking their money to “create” those “jobs,” there would be as a result an even greater number of real jobs created by that money.

It is ridiculous, it is stupid, it is pathetically bogus to say that the government is creating jobs, and to continue to insist on it despite my numerous corrections, without you even apparently TRYING to consider the loss of real jobs that it comprises, IMO puts you in league with the creationists and the moon hoax idiots.

Yes, exactly. Virgin Galactic, SeaLaunch Platform, the New Mexico Spaceport (which, although is a state funded endeavor, still uses private companies to run and facilitate the site), etc. are good examples of the private sector moving into space. I am all for that.

I did take an economics class (many years ago) but that was before working in industry for more than 12 years. My point was that government is one of the biggest consumers of product, AND the biggest employer in the US.

According to Federal Jobs Net, “The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation’s civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.”

Let’s take an example of School Teachers. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2006, 25-2031 Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Vocational Education:
Industry: Elementary and Secondary Schools/ Employment: 1,019,930
State: California/ Employment: 116,090

So, please excuse my ignorance and enlighten me as to how the “government CANNOT create jobs,” as you say. The million or so Elementary School teachers would disagree with you. Maybe we’re using different definitions of “create jobs.”

“The private sector is not prohibited from working in or providing any of these needed services. If the private sector COULD make money doing it, I believe they certainly WOULD be doing it.”

They ARE. See Virgin Galactic. See the SeaLaunch Platform. The private sector is doing a LOT of work on things like this. But they’ve had to work around government restrictions on things like launches, which is why SpaceShipOne had to be launched from the top of a jet (White Knight) and why the SeaLaunch Platform needs to go into international waters.

Until now, the government has had a virtual monopoly on space.

As for your point “C,” you still refuse to see the economic point, so all I can tell you at this point is go take an economics class. The government CANNOT create jobs, CANNOT increase productivity, CANNOT stimulate the economy, or anything of the sort. In fact, that’s one of the 12 basic principles of economics.

It also shows your ignorance that you mention computers, as they’re probably the least regulated industry of all of them.

The polar moon telescope in the dark: “You can be in the middle of one of the big [craters] and both walls are below the horizons”
… at which point it is no longer permenently dark.

“Human powered flight is actually possible on the Moon.”
How, if there is no atmosphere?

Apart from doing “big science”, space exploration should be left to the private sector. It is quite possible that scientists will come up with materials that allow building spacecraft which are moderately cheap to operate, and hence make space tourism economically viable. Virgin is already dipping its toe in the water, and if technology permits it this will surely take off.

As for colonizing other Earth-like planets (the only viable long-term option), due to the distances involved (and cetain laws of physics) this will be a one-way ticket for the explorers. There will be no trade routes simply because the trade takes too long. The only reason to migrate to another world would be if Earth was facing a catastrophe. Assuming we’ll survive global warming this won’t happen until a few billion years, when the sun will die. Hardly the time scale to worry about, give that our species will by then likely have evolved into several subspecies.

Upon further ruminations Yes you are right.

Based on ISP then LEO is indeed “half way to anywhere”

Shaun

Sorry I’ve been drinking ( HIC )!!!

That seriously depends on the ISP of the engine.

“Oh and give me a break about the whole “mining the moon to build spacecraft” thing. You really think you can more easily build a whole mining operation, a smelting plant, a fabrication plant, transportation systems, factories, assembly facilities, launch pads, fuel storage tanks, fuel production plants, power plants to power it all, housing, storage, waste management and all the other crap for a mining and rocket building/launching complex on the moon?”

I say, YES! Absolutely! in 50 or 100 or 200 years, WITHOUT A DOUBT! All it takes is the same ingenuity, the same determination, and the same human… guts… that have moved the human race to its current place on Earth. Do you think 600 years ago people thought it was crazy to try to sail a ship around the world? Do you think that 100 years ago people thought it was crazy to fly an aircraft around the world? Absolutely. I think that while the majority of the population are content to live strictly in the world in which they are born and raised, there are a fair number of determined individuals (and groups, hopefully) that are willing to take the risks to become something unimaginably significant.

@ Shane,

I think we had a simple misunderstanding.

A) I never did or intended to defend more government spending in any way or fashion. While I do personally think that NASA could seriously benefit from a substantial increase in funding (like many other programs, such as Education or Fire/Police/Emergency departments) I think that any such increase should come by the reduction of unsubstantiated, unconstitutional, and otherwise frivolous spending, by our government, at all levels.

B) The private sector is not prohibited from working in or providing any of these needed services. If the private sector COULD make money doing it, I believe they certainly WOULD be doing it.

C) I respectfully disagree about your claim that the government does not “create” jobs. Many of the departments in my state are Constitutionally bound to provide services (such as Police, Fire, EMS, and Education) and 100% of those jobs are indeed created by government. At the Federal level, there are 1,000′s of jobs that are required, such as the National Guard, or the US Military, that could in no way be handled solely by commercial enterprises. How many school teachers have you ever met? How many police officers have you ever seen?

And again, even if the function is not handled exclusively or directly by a government agency, the work is sub-contracted to hundreds, if not thousands, of supporting companies, like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Dell, HP, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, AMD, etc. etc. ETC. Do you think that the computer companies that built the parts in your computer you are using right now do not support the US military, or any government agency whatsoever? Believe it or not, the state and federal governments of this country are directly and significantly involved in the economic and technological growth of this country. For better or for worse…

B-)

Shaun

You seem to fail to grasp the fact, that unless we are “out there”

Risking money and lives.

No-one will care if we ever tried.

This planet has a limited lifespan, it is our job to propogate our race.

And the main thrust of books like “a step farther out” is to make us go “holy crap” look, just look what we could do if we only tried.

I weep for every Astronaut, but as Enzo ferrari said “one man lost in pusuit of automotive development is a small price to pay”

I would add that it is a large price to pay but, every man and woman who has ever set foot on a spacecraft or test vehicle knew excactly what they were doing.

They did it for all us.

And, yes, we do need to be “out there”

Shaun

You are one cool dude.

Seriously, you should read these books.

Because I beleive that the term “half way to anywhere”" might actually belong to Heinlein.

But, Niven is still the best ever.

Shaun

No problem. Happens to me constantly.

BTW, as long as we’re discussing books on the subject, don’t forget Harry Stine’s “Halfway to Anywhere” referring to LEO from an energy standpoint. The energy to get from the Earth’s surface to LEO is more than half of that needed to leave the solar system, so once you’re there, you are literally “halfway” or more. It’s just that the second half takes a lot longer

- Jack

The helium-3 thing is 100% pure idiotic and I’ve written extensively about it here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=180

The reason we have not built a space elevator and may never build one is that the technical challenges are so massive they are at least decades away. We can barely make nanotubes and we sure cannot make thousands of miles of them. Plus it may not even be possible due to the drift of geostationary bodies due to lunar gravity.

It’s a horrible staging area to go to the rest of the solar system. Sure it might be easier to go to a lunar base and then to mars, but it;s easier to go to mars than to first build a massive lunar base with all the necessary infrastructure and then go to mars.

This “eggs in one basket” thing about how humans should leave earth to insure safety is nearly as bogus. Would you rather stake your life on earth surviving or on the puney life-support systems we have now and will have for decades?

Oh and give me a break about the whole “mining the moon to build spacecraft” thing. You really think you can more easily build a whole mining operation, a smelting plant, a fabrication plant, transportation systems, factories, assembly facilities, launch pads, fuel storage tanks, fuel production plants, power plants to power it all, housing, storage, waste management and all the other crap for a mining and rocket building/launching complex on the moon?

Christ. That’s ridiculous. You’re better off building them hear then sending all the smelting/welding/etching/fabing/milling/rolling/refining/lathing/molding/extruding/drilling/blasting/carting/lifting/scrapping/painting/bonding/storing/cutting equipment to the moon. OR WORSE: Building it there.

Lets get real. This crap is pretty far off.

And you know what it is all dependant on? Uh uh… a better way of getting into space? Yeah, that’s right. And additionally, if you can do that you get benefits way before we build a whole damn civilization on the moon just to extract the titanium.

And seriously, SteveR… do you think Women and Afircan Americans are so damn self-doubting that they cannot accept their equality until we spend a half trillion dollars to send them to the moon just so they can say they went there and accomplished nothing?

What’s next? A half trillion to send every damn occupation and nationality to the moon just to make it more diverse and fair? Jesus, don’t get me wrong.. diversity is great… but do we need to spend so much goddamned money to send a poet to the moon?

Then what? Send them to the deepest depths of the ocean? and to the poles? And all that… just “cuz they need diversity”

BaldApe:

“NASA is certainly better than the siphoning of wealth to the top that industry has been doing for the last 30 years.”

Ah see here’s your problem. First, corporations and industry pay taxes on money. Nasa takes tax payer money and spends it. And industry provides jobs. And even if you think the wealthy get too much, what do they do with their money? They either invest it, which is good for everyone, or they spend it on goods ad services. Plus they pay taxes, so the cash circulates.

But Nasa has actually found the ultimate way of destroying capital. They literally launch it out of the earth’s gravitational field, thus assuring it’s gone forever.

1) So we can fly – human powered flight is actually possible on the Moon!

2) To get the first woman (then first poet, first African-American, girts Australian and so forth ..) on the Moon

3) To get a whole new understanding of ourselves and our place in the cosmos -aperspective of what wecan do ecologically ie. “Biosphere II” II & more ..

I’d suggest reading some Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Ben Bova for morwe reasons …

“— How about a large telescope in one of the nearly permanently dark craters?

Near the pole, right? Which limits it to half the sky. No, wait, less than half, because you built your telescope AT THE BOTTOM OF A FREAKING CRATER! ”

SCR (me) : Actually given the size of the craters that’s NOT a problem. You can be in the middle of one of the big ones and both walls are below the horizons …

QueitDesperatartion also wrote :

“Space telescopes are THE way to go. Look at the return we got from just Hubble.”

Well having a Lunar telescope at a lunar colony with real live astronomers there to look after it has its advantages too.

I say we do *both* – another HST and a Lunar telescope!

I apologize for not reading all of the previous posts, I am pressed for time, but, If you ever, and I mean EVAH! want a good reason to return to aggressive manned exploration of near space….

I refer you to a book from the mid-seventies by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle called ” A step farther out “.

Here we are 30Yrs later and much of the technology they discuss has not only not been developed but was viable even then.

I would also reference a paper I believe to have been co-authored by Niven called ” How to get into space (and get rich doing so)”

P.S. Hi jack haggerty, sorry for dropping the thread about wave energy but I got distracted.

Shaun

“Do you know how many people in this country either work directly for the government (city, state, federal) or for companies that directly sub-contract and support government jobs?”

And do you know how many jobs there would be in the private sector if the government weren’t taxing people to “create” these “jobs”? And these would be jobs for goods and services that people actually demand in the economy, so there’s a multiplier effect.

Justify government spending all you want, but DON’T use the bogosity of “it creates jobs!” to do it. It’s complete economic ignorance. Don’t you DARE call me uninformed when you don’t even have the basic knowledge of economics to understand that.

BaldApe:

“NASA is certainly better than the siphoning of wealth to the top that industry has been doing for the last 30 years.”

Well, that’s corporatism. That destroys jobs, too.

This seems to be a common problem: space geeks don’t understand economics. The very next modules to be lifted up to the ISS should be a hotel and casino.