Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS](and SCIENCE) NASA Plans Lunar Outpost

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 12/5/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > On 12/5/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Jonathan King wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I would say that you are wrong about manned space flight and wars in
> >> >> Asia only because such wars kill many thousands of good people and
> >> >> manned space flights will only kill a few dozen people.
> >> >
> >> > You are *so* wrong. In both cases, the answer to the question of how
> >> > many people needlessly die is hundreds of thousands or millions. Money
> >> > can be spent usefully to save lives and improve the world.
> >>
> >> And that will happen when?  After you say a magic word and snap your
> >> fingers?  Seriously -- tell me your plan for making this happen.
> >
> > I don't know when it will happen, but I know that a truly lousy first
> > step is to squander the cash on manned space travel. In other words, I
> > don't know exactly how to save the world, but I know now to make doing
> > that harder, and I think that's a useful first step.
>
> It's not so much that you *know* it but that it is your opinion,
> unsupported by any convincing evidence.  I'm not saying that you are
> wrong, just that you don't really know that you are right.

Having work to do, I will close thusly.

1) You cannot spend your way out of the problem you suggest is there.
To the extent that spending on something else is cut, you can be sure
it will be cut where it does not affect revenues of the industrial
complex. They will take the money you give them, but they will work to
make sure than any offsetting reductions are taken from somewhere
else.

The only way I see to fix this is very radical. It might even happen
if we end up in dire enough economic straits. I have posted before
that the best idea I have had on the subject of getting rid of
corporate influence is the exotic-sounding combination of:

a) disallowing all non-individual spending for politicial reasons
(except for the designated political campaign of a candidate, which
will be forced to do disclose the provider of every dollar they
receive.
b) canning the corporate income tax.
c) passing the constitutional amendment that undoes the precedent of
corporations having the rights of US citizens.

Clearly, it's a long shot, but you might just get there if the
situation here gets really bad. Within six months, I expect we will be
in a fairly serious recession. Factory orders are way down, the real
estate market is really starting to tank, and the debt loads of
individuals have gotten to the point where the slightest hint of a
downturn will be self-reinforcing. I think there is a 50% chance that
the combined (including off-budget) deficit for FY 2008 will approach
$US 1 trillion. Really, I'm seeing data that suggests that the
situation will be completely brutal.

2) You should not, on principle, spend money that you know is a
complete waste. It puts you in a bad position both morally and
rhetorically. This is particularly true when you are going to make the
bogus argument that somehow it all benefits science. In the 2008
election and after, I think voters are going to be so mad that
anything and anybody who they see as being responsible for the
worsening financial situation is going down in flames.

jking

ps--As you can see, I have gotten over my case of optimism. :-)

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion