Sunday discussion - "NASA: What's the point?" (Page 2)

I've been waiting for someone else to mention this.  NASA is far from being the only player in the space industry.  Most satellites these days (including NASA satellites) are launched atop rockets built by private companies.  The most recent NASA satellite (Kepler) just went up on a Delta II built by United Launch Alliance (Boeing + Lockheed Martin).  Space X won the contract to be the supplier for the ISS after the space shuttle retires.  Orbital Sciences is another player (although their recent launch of a NASA satellite was a failure).  There are also plenty of non-NASA satellites up there - the Iridium constellation comes to mind as a non-govt example.  Also, numerous DOD satellites.

How did I disprove my point in any way? Celera was far more successful than the HGP. This means that they did more with 300 million than HGP did with 3 billion.

Of course I know that the government purchases equipment from private companies, if you didn't notice, I am in the Air Force. But a private company could easily do what NASA does, if taxpayers did not have to fund an overbudgeted, under-producing organization such as NASA. 

If we use the HGP to Celera as a comparison here, imagine what a private company could do for space exploration on an even lower budget? Here is a good article from the CATO institute, a libertarian think tank: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960

You are right, private industry would not do what NASA has done, is doing, or will do. This is more because in a true free market, companies would not be wasting resources. In a true free market, if a company is using resources inefficiently, it will go bankrupt. This is another reason why I believe Libertarianism is also an environmentalist movement in itself, because if companies are wasteful, they fail. No government bailouts. The car companies that are getting bailed out, GM and what have you, are wasting steel and other valuable resources by being allowed to keep making crappy products. In a free market, another company would have bought the good assets from GM, and would have used them in a productive manner. This is relevant to NASA because if space were privatized, only the companies that could do things efficiently would be around. There would be very few wasted resources, and much more could be done with much less.

But, of course, there is the whole profit thing. If there was no profit in finding water on Mars, very few private companies would fund such a project. So unless there were some rich space geeks willing to find this out for their own curiosity, we may never know. However, this is still no excuse, in my opinion, to use force to make free citizens pay for something that may be irrelevant. 

Not everyone has family to rely on; and sometimes family resources are not sufficient to meet the needs of the family.  I would assume you do not have severely medically ill members of your family with chronic conditions that require full time care and support (anything from severe cerebral palsy through Alzheimers).  Meds, docs, caregivers are all expensive.  You complain that American schools are failing, but that is not universally true.  But people can't always vote with their pocketbook.  Otherwise people living in places where the schools are poor (monetarily and educationally) would move to richer areas with richer (again monetary and education) schools.  But where I live, for example, the school district is very good, well to do.  But housing is pricey, and the next school district to the east is very poor with almost no resources.  But you can afford to live there with next to nothing.

You compare the current situation to pre-WWII Germany.  The US was not really a lot better at that time.  Capitolism had been running rampant with little or no restrictions in the "Roaring 20's".  When things got overextended and the market crashed, there was serious talk of becoming a socialist nation.  The government regulations that got put into place actually SAVED capitolism bu modifying from the "eat your young" mentalitity of untrammeled and unregulated capitolism.  The current banking crisis is a good example of what happens when smart people become too convinced of their own cleverness with effectively no oversight.

Finally, if I read the middle section correctly, and do the math, you are 21? 22?  Granted being in the military helps people to grow up, but I held a lot of beliefs in my 20's that I later realized were quite wrong.  Including the belief that everyone who wanted to enter the military basically was a faschist whose only desire in life was to be able to hurt and control others at the point of a gun. I made my own foolish choices as a result of such misguided beliefs (including not pursuing a military scholarship for medical school - and now I am still paying it down nearly 20 years after graduating).  Hopefully you will keep your eyes and mind open to challenge not only the existing structures but also your own beliefs.

A good post, but you bring up the "Roaring 20's" without truly mentioning the cause. The culprit for the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve, which had a very loose monetary policy at the time, just like nowadays. The cause of the overextension and malinvestment was the "easy money" policies of the Fed. If there was no Federal Reserve trying to manipulate the economy by keeping interest rates artificially low, then the bubble that burst causing the Great Depression would not have existed, and the same standard applies to the economy today. The government regulations put into place during the Great Depression actually prolonged it to last much further than it did.

Ever hear about the depression of the early 20's? Well, it only lasted a year, because the government did not do anything. That is what needs to happen nowadays. People blame the "free market" and "capitalism" for the economy now, but they are ignorant to the fact that we have not had a true free market in this country in about 100 years. There is to much government regulation and too much manipulation by the Federal Reserve.

You bring up families not having enough money or what not to take care of each other. Fine, that is a good point, but what about private charities, churches, and communities? There is a secretary down here that just got like 3 weeks of treatment for cancer, and could not afford the leave she had to take (civilian). Just about everyone leaped on the opportunity to help her out by cooking meals, donating funds, and babysitting. There is no reason and no authority for government to force private citizens to provide charity, no matter the circumstances. If I want to be charitable, I will donate my money and my time.

A reason why charity is considered to be "lacking" in this country is because government decided to force people to be charitable through taxes. This puts people in the mindset that they do not have a responsibility to their neighbor because they are paying taxes and the government will take care of them. 

As far as schools go, I am a big supporter of vouchers and private education. Parents should be allowed to choose which school their kids go to, and they can vote by who gets their voucher. I went to Detroit Public Schools, so don't think I am spoiled by any means. 

By the way, I am only 20; but I am far from being a close minded ignorant believer in utopia. I used to be a hardcore Republican/Christian that believed gays should not exist and that government should regulate all morality and we should kill every member of Islam. I went to church every Sunday and Wednesday and knew the Airman's Creed backwards. Then I learned about Ron Paul, and what true Liberty means. I am sorry to disappoint, but I will always believe that Freedom will triumph over governmental force; and that the Constitution, the law of land that I swore to protect and defend, is something worth obeying. My mother had cervical cancer, Arnold-Chiari disease, and is dealing with osteoporosis currently. She still works her tail off taking care of my two brothers and herself, as a single parent. If she could not, you better believe that me and my oldest brother in the Army would step up financially to help her out, even though we both are under the poverty line in our pay.

Here is a summary from this site about causes of the Great Depression.  BTW, take note of how many are similar to now, and how government affects or does not:

1. Stock market crash

2. Bank Failures.  Banks of the time were uninsured (no FDIC in the constitution either), so people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks were unwilling to lend money - hence the flow of cash stopped.  Currently the government is trying to get banks to lend money (admittedly with little success in the way the bailout is going)

3. Reducing consumer spending.  Uncertain times, loss of jobs, repossessions.  Inventory backs up, demand falls, companies go under, with more job loss. At its peak, unemployment was around 25% (much worse than now).

4. Tariffs and protectionism. Ultimately reduced trade as other countries similarly entered protectionist policies.  Europe is currently splintered on this in the EU. 

5. Drought (think "Grapes of Wrath". Obviously beyond anyone's control, but the timing couldn't have been worse for farming families (more common then than now).

Here's the Wikipedia description of causes summarized:

 Keynesian theory = in a downturn, businesses expect lower sales so they produce less.

Monetary theory (Milton Friedman) = Fed did not make enough money available, people hoarded money and the economy contracted (if anything, this is the exact opposite of your statement that the policy was too loose)

Gold Standard = linked economies together like a row of dominos.  Countries that abandoned the gold standard sooner recovered sooner

Neoclassical theory = declining productivity and the "cartelization" of industry suppressing labor

Austrian economist school = supports your contention that credit was too easy in the 20's and that the fed waited too long to tighten it.

Overproduction/Underconsumption = over built capacity by industry. Solution was to increase use of capacity by use of large state and federal funding projects (basically what happened with WWII)

Debt Deflation =  also similar to your theory (but more on the back of the consumer).  Ben Bernanke believes this to be the case.  Basically once people try to pay down the debt en masse, everything becomes devalued as the market gets flooded.

Structural weakness of banks = leads to bank failure

Post war deflation = inflation was seen as much worse, so countries tried to cut down on circulating money.  Ultimately, though, it erodes the value of commodities (actual stuff) and inflates the value of debt and loans, which helped fuel the stock market bubble and crash

Breakdown of international trade = tariffs again

In addition, the government of Hoover believed in laissez faire policies, and rather than interfering in the market, or deficit spending (admittedly still controversial in some circles), promoted volunteerism and a trickle down approach.

I had a hard time finding evidence that the policies of the Fed are seen universally as a cause. If anything, prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, we had several meltdowns and nearly a total collapse in 1907. 

My point is that things are not nearly so black and white as you seem to be making them out to be.  Given that serious economists are still debating the causes 80 years later, I would exercise caution in demonizing any single cause or agent.

THIS type of "me first" mentality is EXACTLY why you should RUN, not walk to your First Sgt's office, show him this thread and ask, respectfully, that you be relieved of your military commitment.   The private sector (AIG, BluCross GM) needs people like you.  I can only pray that your obvious disdain for your current employer doesn't effect the safety of airmen who are depending upon you to be a professional.

Right, which is why NASA should focus on space exploration as it relates to national security. All other space flight (space tourism for example) should be done by private companies.

In the military, of course, there is no freedom of the individual.

Only if they are not gay.

We could have the "Is the Military bad?" debate, and I'm sure there would be some compelling arguments.  But if you haven't personally served, then you have no frame of reference.   It's a volunteer military-if you don't want to live by the their rules, don't enlist.  But don't lecture and chant about "individual freedoms" without at least acknowledging the sacrifices that have been made to provide those freedoms.   Just sayin.....

Yet another example where the private sector does so much better than the government.

Cause Blackwater is awesome.

I wasn't aware that you serve with Sra_Rugenstein and know him enough to take personal shots on his work ethic.

Personally, I think the military is the only department in our government that actually does a very good job its task. It blows things up better than any other military in the world.

I'm gonna reserve judgement until I see how that NK missle launch plays out.

No worries, Hillary has it all under control.  

Not sure if NASA's waste compares to the military as a percetage of total expenditures. I do think he military is better run than NASA based on results.

Again, I do think the military is the best, hands down, at blowing things up. NASA blows things up too, but that isn't their job.

Well said.  Until we figure out a way to get things into space for a fraction of today's cost, we need to cut way back on manned space.  Unfortunately, we spend so much supporting a costly and ineffective manned space station we cannot afford to spend the time and money on research that would make a station viable in the long run.

NASA is not waste.  They just spend lots of money on esoteric projects that most of the population can't see a point in.  The NSF does the same thing, but nobody knows who they are.  Progress at the bleeding edge of science costs a lot of money for seemingly small gains.  That's how it works.  How many millions and billions have we thrown at cancer, and how do those results compare?

I have a feeling if you privatized NASA, money would be handed out on the basis of 'what project has the greatest potential for profit', instead of 'what project has the greatest scientific potential'.  Those are two points that don't always line up.  It should be about the science, not the potential profit.

As someone currently seeking grant money from NASA, don't screw with it!

Wow, I missed out on a lot of good discussion. No one needs to worry about the safety of other Airmen I serve with just because of my political beliefs; trust me, my weather forecasts are always to the best of my abilities and I do not get a firewall 5 on my Enlisted Performance Reports just because I ace the USAF PT test. I would never put another American servicemember's life at risk because of my personal beliefs. I know I am part of a team, and sacrifices must be made. I also realize I am only 20, which is still fairly young, so my beliefs and perspective might change. I just live my life with the philosophy: Hope for the best, plan for the worst. So I am saving money in case of collapse, while working on my degree in Education if I am completely wrong. Nothing wrong with that at all. In the mean time, I'll stay healthy with triathlons so I don't die at 40 as a young heart attack victim.

Austrian economic theory is what I believe in, so yes, that was my point. Thanks for the list of the different schools of thought of Great Depression causes, it was informative.  Anyway, I am packing up my stuff so I won't check this discussion for a couple days, and I am gettin out of southern Mississippi, and back to Illinois!