|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 17, 2009 0:35:53 GMT -4
Managed to pick up a hardcover copy of DARK MOON in excellent condition, ex-library, but paid more than it was worth... $3.50. ;-) You exchanged something of value (in this case, money, regardless of the amount) for it... therefore you paid more than it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 23, 2011 12:07:29 GMT -4
I've always been confused by one point of yours--you always say that space exploration doesn't create jobs. The first-order effect is no net job creation. Interesting question. Prior to the 1960s, no one had ever sent a rocket to the moon. How did they know the rocket would fly according to Newton's laws, and not some other system of physics? Studies of the effects of taxation policy, spending policy, and the like would fill libraries. Their are, of course, differences from the way one studies something like physics (in particular, it's usually a lot tougher to run a controlled experiment), but some of the basics are more or less the same - watch the world, collect data, analyse it, construct models, make predictions based on those models, evaluate the predictions, revise as appropriate, etc. There are different schools of economics out there, and they disagree on some things. They agree on a lot. It is immediately obvious that there are people whose livelihoods are driven by space exploration. There are people directly employed in various programmes, and there are people who indirectly benefit. This is beyond dispute. What is also beyond dispute to everyone but people at science web sites is that the money for all this doesn't fall from heaven. It comes either from taxation, or from borrowing. Taxation reduces the amount of money in people's pockets for private spending or investment, and borrowing has a similar effect - money borrowed to fund these things is not available for spending other things, or for investment. It is completely intellectually dishonest to point to the people employed in space programmes and say, "Look, jobs!" while ignoring the effect of the taxation or borrowing that came along with the funding. Every lobbyist knows this trick, and although people often talk about stupid politicians, I don't know that there are many who swallow it. Let's have casinos, people will spend money in them and create jobs! Well, what were the people spending their money on before? I mean, have you looked at how many jobs there were before versus how many jobs there were after? I am certainly familiar with broad employment trends over time in your country, but what would that tell you? Do you expect that the number of jobs would have remained constant if there had been no space programme? If the number of child molesters now is higher than in the 1940s (I don't know whether it actually is), ought we to conclude that that was caused by the space programme? It's obviously possible to have different numbers of available jobs in the economy, right? Yes, it is, and the factors that determine these numbers have been studied very extensively. The first-order effect is that spending on something creates jobs in that sector; taxation (or borrowing) to support the spending destroys jobs in other sectors. The two main schools of economic thought differ somewhat about the effectiveness of spending programmes on job creation during times of recession, but the one that advocates spending during recessions to stimulate the economy is not about achieving a permanently higher level of output; it's about smoothing over economic cycles. Space exploration is a terrible candidate for stimulus spending; it usually requires long-term committment before it achieves any results. You wouldn't get much out of a space programmes that are funded when entering a recession, and cancelled within months or even a couple of years (for a really bad recession) as the economy recovers. Not true, you're shifting the burden of proof. It's up to the critics to show that what they want to spend the money on is more beneficial than spending it on space exploration. Rubbish, I'm not shifting anything. My statement, quoted by you, says that if you want to make a certain type of claim, then here is the level of evidence needed to support it. Your response says it is up to others to prove the person making the claim is wrong. If you think there are default claims that are special, and exempt from evidentiary requirements, that's up to you. I don't. Bob B. B. - picking this one up after a long time away, but reading your posts, I agree with much of what you say. I may have some comments later, but not right now.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 23, 2011 12:48:00 GMT -4
Thread necromancy alert -- 16 months or so.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 23, 2011 12:54:32 GMT -4
Thread necromancy alert -- 16 months or so. Fred Worse than that, the posts he's responding too are nearly 3 years old, so when he says he may have some comments later you have to wonder which decade that will be...
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 23, 2011 13:16:22 GMT -4
Go easy on Retrograde... he's 110 years old.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 23, 2011 22:14:10 GMT -4
Go easy on Retrograde... he's 110 years old. And is coming back from a hiatus of almost three years to pick up a conversation? Where is that smiley for confused.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Apr 24, 2011 0:38:34 GMT -4
:-\
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 25, 2011 7:48:37 GMT -4
He still makes arguments worthy of response. I would argue that there are numerous side benefits from space exploration that justify the expense: stimulating scientific and technological development, and above all stimulating young people to learn about science and math and take up careers in technical fields.
These are intangible effects, but I think they're they most valuable of all.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 25, 2011 10:43:06 GMT -4
What is also beyond dispute to everyone but people at science web sites is that the money for all this doesn't fall from heaven. It comes either from taxation, or from borrowing. Taxation reduces the amount of money in people's pockets for private spending or investment, and borrowing has a similar effect - money borrowed to fund these things is not available for spending other things, or for investment. It is completely intellectually dishonest to point to the people employed in space programmes and say, "Look, jobs!" while ignoring the effect of the taxation or borrowing that came along with the funding. I agree that funding a project through taxation or borrowing, or by shifting funding from one project to another, is only going to move jobs from one sector to another with little net change. For instance, raising taxes to increase funding to, say, the postal service isn't going to help the economy one bit. Yes, the postal service may higher some new employees; however these will come at the sacrifice of jobs in the private sector due to higher taxes on employers and consumers. However, funding something like space exploration is different than funding a basic service like the postal service. The postal service isn't an innovator. Something like space exploration leads to the development of new technologies that can be exploited by the private sector. An entrepreneur can take a new technology, find a commercial use for it, and start a business to supply a new demand. I believe these new businesses can create jobs. Not all those hired by the new business can necessarily be considered new jobs. As consumers buy the new product, they will have less to spend on other existing products. This may result in a shift of jobs from existing industries to the new industry. However, I believe new industries do result in a net increase in jobs. A new business can hire new employees entering the workplace due to growing population, or hire the previously unemployed. More employees in the workplace mean more incomes and more consumption to fuel both the new and existing industries. So I guess the question is what use of our tax dollars is most likely to spur innovation, spin-off new industries, and increase economic growth? During NASA's heyday I believe there was a great amount of innovation and economic growth that came out of the space program. I think it is likely less today. There could very well be other sectors into which our money could go that would do more for the economy than space exploration, but I don't know enough to say what they could be. It is up to those who advocate shifting NASA funding elsewhere to make the case that the change is a net positive.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 26, 2011 16:35:08 GMT -4
During NASA's heyday I believe there was a great amount of innovation and economic growth that came out of the space program. I think it is likely less today. I agree, though this can be extremely difficult to quantify. In his famous Rice speech, JFK referred to "new alloys, some of which have not yet been invented". Certainly many new alloys did come out of Apollo, but they were hardly the sum total of Apollo spinoffs. But what about the microprocessor? Even if he could have seen into the future and seen our present-day computer and computer networking industries, would anyone have believed it in 1962? At least there had already been enough progress in metallurgy and what it enabled that most people could understand the value of new metal alloys. Reading his speech, it's obvious that for him Apollo was all about spinoffs. (And beating the Russians, of course.) Even if the moon were made of solid gold or platinum, Apollo would not have made it worth mining. Had it been, private industry would have done it; there would have been no need for an Apollo program. Apollo's benefits were almost entirely intangible, and private companies don't pursue intangible benefits unless governments sponsor them. Apollo inspired people. It wasn't possible to go to the moon with existing technology, which was precisely the point: a lot of new technology got invented. Case in point: the microprocessor. That one innovation is easily worth far more than everything we've ever put into NASA. But should NASA deserve credit for it? The microprocessor is so obviously useful that it seems like it would certainly have happened anyway. But I think the case can be made that NASA helped it along and caused it to happen much sooner than it would have otherwise by creating a need that couldn't be met any other way. The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer made with integrated circuits. It had to be; Apollo simply wasn't possible without an onboard digital autopilot, and even a rudimentary onboard computer wasn't possible without integrated circuits. The manufacturer of the Apollo AGC ICs was Fairchild Semiconductor. In the late 1960s several of their executives went on to form a somewhat better known company: Intel. They introduced the 4004, the first arguable microprocessor, in 1971. The 4040, 8008 and 8080 soon followed. The 8080 launched the first "personal" computer industry in the mid-late 1970s, a time when IBM still completely ignored the field. Only in 1981 did they clear out the pool by jumping in with their 5150 - the first "IBM PC". How much longer would it have taken for the microprocessor to happen without Apollo? After all, Apollo development had peaked much earlier, in the mid 1960s. But NASA had taken something like half of Fairchild's entire IC production when viable commercial applications were still years away; ICs were simply far too expensive for everyone but the government -- then. But as word spread, people saw their potential. They began to think of ways to make better ICs more cheaply so they could find more applications. It's too bad that we couldn't vastly cost-reduce and commercialize everything that Apollo developed. Rocket engines are about the same now as then. But what commercialized was more than enough to make the whole program worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 27, 2011 10:14:45 GMT -4
Well, I'm not an expert like many people on this board, but here's a layperson's suggestion - they actually sent unmanned rockets to the moon first. See nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html. Beyond that, why exactly would they expect that physics on the moon would work in some weird, Carrollian way, where apples fall upwards, and sounds have smells? What is it about the moon that would make anyone suspect that the laws of physics on earth would not apply there?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Apr 27, 2011 13:37:52 GMT -4
Did everything just taste purple for a second?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 28, 2011 15:56:25 GMT -4
It's too bad that we couldn't vastly cost-reduce and commercialize everything that Apollo developed. Rocket engines are about the same now as then. But what commercialized was more than enough to make the whole program worthwhile. Well if you ask Elon Musk nicely, and provide some development cash, he will be happy to oblige.
|
|