Reactions to NASA moon mission aspirations

[montebianco]

It doesn't displace anything.

It most certainly does. More below.

According to Jay Barbree of NBC news every dollar on Apollo turned into seven.

Not familiar with Mr. Barbree. Is the economic analysis he did available anywhere? In the absence of any detailed analysis, it rather sounds like he heard about multiplier effects, and applied them to the spending on the Apollo program. Did he also apply his multiplier to the taxes levied to fund the program? Or did he forget that part?

I'd say that is a pretty good return.

I prefer real returns to fictional returns, and I think policy should be based on facts, not woo-woo economic theories.

As to your apparent claims that anyone who has even an extremely basic knowledge of economics must be a Libertarian, opposed to space exploration, and a "retard", do you have evidence for any of these claims?

Let's find out who the "retard" is...

[montebianco]

I couldn't have said it much better myself.

I could.

Anyone of the people claiming government spending on space exploration somehow creates more jobs than other government spending, or private spending, care to back up this claim? So far, all I've gotten is repetition of the claim and childish name-calling.

[Doodler]

It most certainly does. More below.



Not familiar with Mr. Barbree. Is the economic analysis he did available anywhere? In the absence of any detailed analysis, it rather sounds like he heard about multiplier effects, and applied them to the spending on the Apollo program. Did he also apply his multiplier to the taxes levied to fund the program? Or did he forget that part?



I prefer real returns to fictional returns, and I think policy should be based on facts, not woo-woo economic theories.

As to your apparent claims that anyone who has even an extremely basic knowledge of economics must be a Libertarian, opposed to space exploration, and a "retard", do you have evidence for any of these claims?

Let's find out who the "retard" is...

Incoming information, you might wanna duck, this will hurt a little.

The lunar exploration project will spur high tech development, and I cannot calculate how much return there will be on that investment of 1.4 billion, but the Apollo project spurred the scientific, technical, economic military and other development of the 1960s, produced over 3000 new technologies of all types with applications useful in everyday life, and was not only responsible for America's leading position in science and technology, but it produced enormous political and economic change.

It is estimated that for every dollar invested there was an economic return of 4-5 dollars. We learned a lot about the Moon, the Earth, the Sun that is impossible to calculate in dollar terms. From ancient times to the present China has had the legend of Chang E, and you could say that going to the Moon started with China, but to today we have still not left the Earth. The lunar exploration project will have an incalculably valuable effect on the ethnic spirit and motivation (of the Chinese people) and I ask you, how much is that worth?"

From: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/...09&wit_id=4269

[montebianco]

Incoming information, you might wanna duck, this will hurt a little.

You said that already. And how many jobs were destroyed by the taxation to support the program? Were those included in the analysis? (Hint - the answer is not "yes.") Or if you prefer to argue that the alternative would have been spending on some other government program, then how many jobs were lost as a result of that spending which would otherwise have happened?

Information doesn't hurt, unless you're backing a woo-woo theory. I've asked these questions several times. Why don't you answer? Are they inconvenient?

As for the rest of your earlier post, you appear to be suggesting I'm a Libertarian. Do you care to post any evidence to that point? I know Republicans who can see the fallacy in the job creation argument, Democrats who can also, Greens, yes, Libertarians, hey, even some Marxists who understand this fallacy.

Do you believe I am opposed to space exploration? You seem to be saying this in your earlier post. If so, care to support that claim?

If you are unable to support any of the claims you seem to me making, I have a thing or two to say about the appropriateness of you calling anyone a "retard."

Edit - my post was written under the incorrect assumption that it was Doodler who had also written an earlier post, which was in fact written by someone else. My apologies to Doodler. The only part of the post that should still stand is the first paragraph, minus the first sentence, but at BaBB people got in trouble for ex-post revisionism, so I don't want to change it.

[Doodler]

Ehm, who did I refer to as retarded?

[montebianco]

Ehm, who did I refer to as retarded?

My apologies, I mistook you for someone else. Most of what I said above was referring to publiusr.

As for what you did say, though, saying "this will hurt a little," it doesn't hurt me at all. Does this analysis take into account the effects of the taxation to support the program, or the reduction in spending on other programs? These types of analyses frequently count only the benefits and ignore the costs. Are there benefits to the space program? Certainly, although different people may differ on their value. The job creation claim is simply false though. Sure, there are more people employed building rockets and things like this, but the money to pay for this came from somewhere. It came from the taxpayers. If it weren't spent on space exploration, it could have been spent by the government on something else, or it could have been left in the pockets of the taxpayers. When the government spends money on things other than space exploration, does that create jobs? When taxpayers spend money on whatever it is they want to spend money on, does that create jobs?

A study that examines the effects of spending on space without considering the effects of the taxation used to fund it (or, if you prefer, cuts in other government programs) is counting benefits without counting costs.

Previously, I was told that there is no displacement of private spending. If so, then I'd like to know where the money for space exploration comes from.

[CJSF]

I guess I don't understand how the "increased taxation" destroyed jobs. What increased taxation? What jobs were destroyed? How?

CJSF

[Joff]

thinking about phrase which for simplicity is "Every dollar spent on Apollo generated five dollars"

Of course there was some displacement to fund the space program, monte, that's why it talks about "every dollar spent on Apollo...". If that dollar hadn't been spent then, right, it wouldn't have been raised in taxes or (more likely) it would have been spent elsewhere (maybe a subsidy for the Colorado Deep Sea Fishermen).

The point about the second half of that phrase "... generated five dollars" is that spending the money directly, either privately, or (heaven forfend) another government program, would have put only one dollar into the economy. The space program put five in, maybe not absolutely immediately but soon enough that it out-performed the expected impact of the one dollar that would otherwise have circulated. Basically, the US got a little richer a little quicker.

Of course, it does not follow that NASA should simply spend like crazy on the space program. It needs financial discipline, real goals, focus and results. But if ever the people and the government are persuaded that this is one area where the right mistake is to spend a little too much, prepare to enjoy the fruits.

[montebianco]

I guess I don't understand how the "increased taxation" destroyed jobs. What increased taxation? What jobs were destroyed? How?

CJSF

The space exploration program must be paid for. Relative to a scenario in which space exploration is not undertaken, the government can (a) increase taxes to pay for it, (b) borrow money to pay for it (which just means choosing one of the other alternatives in the future), or (c) reduce some other expenditure to pay for it.

People have been arguing that space exploration programs create jobs. Well, certainly, there are people building rockets, conducting various forms of research, and all of the other activities involved in conducting a space exploration program. True enough, that these people would not have these jobs were the space program not undertaken. But, which ever alternative is chosen to finance the mission, there are people who have jobs in the no-space exploration scenario, who do not have jobs in the space exploration scenario. If the government pays for the program by increasing taxes, then taxpayers have less money in their pockets. What do they spend their money on? Well, all kinds of things, but they will have to reduce their spending (something of an oversimplifcation there, they could also reduce their savings, but that also has employment implications) on these things to pay their higher taxes. This will have the effect of lowering employment associated with the production of consumer goods or provision of consumer services. If the government pays for the program by cutting spending on other programs, well, then jobs that would have been created by spending in that other program will now not be created. If the government funds the program by borrowing, that money comes from the public also (to keep it simple, I'll assume a one-country world, but nothing much changes with the addition of other countries), but in the form of a loan rather than as taxes. Either way, the public must reduce its spending to come up with the money to loan to the government, or reduce their savings/investments in other things. Either one has employment implications. If spending is reduced, that one is covered above. If savings is reduced, then there is less money available for investment in things like factories, buildings, inventories, etc., so there will be fewer people employed in production of these things.

Now, this is all a gross oversimplification, but the point is, it's not cricket to talk about the job creation implications of government spending without considering the job creation implications of alternate uses of the same money. About the closest you can come to arguing that government spending creates jobs is to adopt Keynesian economics. This flavor of economics is not universally accepted, but let's not worry about that. But public understanding of Keynesian economics is often not quite correct. Keynes advocating government deficit spending during time of recession, to be followed by government surpluses during times of growth. His idea was for government spending to be adjusted to smooth over economic cycles, not for it to be raise output permanently. Every dollar of deficit spending on a Keynesian binge must be repaid later, as Keynes himself understood very well. If you buy into this flavor of economics, you could advocate government spending as a way of smoothing over economic cycles, but even then, there's nothing particularly special about space exploration; you could build roads, bridges, schools, whatever, it would all have the same employment effect.

So far, what I've seen here are a couple of claims (one from someone at a news network, the other from what looked like testimony to the US senate) that every dollar spent on space exploration results in X number of additional dollars of output, where X is some number like 3 or 7. Studies produced like this are used routinely, and consider what is often known as a multiplier effect (government workers spend their salaries, the people producing whatever product the government workers then spend the money on themselves spend the money they earn, etc.) The problem is they only apply to the multiplier to one side of the program. The dollars spent on the space program multiply, but the dollars raised through taxation (or by cuts in other programs) apparently weren't multiplying. Why should spending on space exploration have a multiplier effect but spending on other government programs or by private individuals not have a multiplier effect? The only reason I can think of is that the person making the argument is trying to prove in the space program.

The economic effect of space exploration must be considered against alternatives. The alternative to spending $104 billion on space exploration is spending $104 billion on other government programs, or leaving $104 billion in the hands of taxpayers, who will spend some of it and make the rest available for investment. No matter what, that money will create jobs; if the government spends it on space exploration, there will be people building rockets and things like this, if the government spends it on education, there will be people building schools and teaching in them, if the government leaves it in the hands of taxpayers, there will be people providing whatever goods and services those taxpayers want to buy with this money. If you think money spent on space exploration provides more benefits than private expenditure of the same amount of money (or than government expenditure of the money on something else), then you will most likely be in favor of space exploration. If you think the benefits are less than what would come from an alternate use of the money, then you won't be in favor of space exploration. But the job creation claims are just a rationalization; why should spending on space exploration create more jobs than other public or private spending? At best, a Keynesian economist could argue that deficit spending on space exploration would be, on net, job creating at a time of unemployment, but that same Keynesian economist would also know that (a) any other form of government spending would have the same job creating effects, and (b) the deficit will come back to bite you at a later time.

Someone here appears to be arguing that understanding of basic economics implies libertarianism, which is demonstrably false, and that understanding of basic economics also implies opposition to space programs, which is also demonstrably false. The same person also had something to say about "retards" (Doodler - my apologies again for my misidentification of you as the other of that comment), but I'm still waiting for a demonstration of the various claims that spending on space exploration is good for the economy because it creates huge numbers of new jobs. Most of the posts have simply been repetition of the claim.

[montebianco]

The point about the second half of that phrase "... generated five dollars" is that spending the money directly, either privately, or (heaven forfend) another government program, would have put only one dollar into the economy. The space program put five in, maybe not absolutely immediately but soon enough that it out-performed the expected impact of the one dollar that would otherwise have circulated. Basically, the US got a little richer a little quicker.

Why is that? Why does spending on something else put one dollar into the economy, whereas spending on space exploration puts five in?

To your credit, this is the first time anyone here even seems willing to acknowledge that the money spent on space exploration comes from somewhere. But why a 1:1 ratio for everything else, but a 5:1 ratio for space exploration. So far, all I've seen are a few second-hand quotes. The only reasoning I can think of is the multiplier effect I cited in my last post, and why should one apply multipliers to the space program but not to other spending?

Of course, it does not follow that NASA should simply spend like crazy on the space program. It needs financial discipline, real goals, focus and results. But if ever the people and the government are persuaded that this is one area where the right mistake is to spend a little too much, prepare to enjoy the fruits.

If you think the benefits of space exploration exceed the benefits from alternative uses of the money, then by all means, support space exploration. But I would love to see an economic analysis from someone here that supports the varying claims that space exploration is good for the economy because it creates jobs. So far, all we've got are a few quotes that repeat the claim.

[publiusr]

And Michold and KSC--there no jobs there right?

I guess Lou Dobbs isn't employing anyone at SPACE NEWS or space.com either?

We spend more money on gambling than we do on space. What is the impact of that? Jobs that have no purpose except to get folks hooked-jobs which do not give us weathersats, exploration--or anything else--so I'd say that a tax from that vice is in fact better spent on our best and brightest.

If it were up to you sir, we would have no space program to start with. I've heard your kind before.

Lets look at the libertarians favorite aviation hero Lindy--who was not first to cross the Atlantic. He did not revolutionize air travel to the extent that the dash-80 did- that resulted from an Air Force Gov't project.

All you do sir, is look the other way when evidence so obviously proves you wrong, and look the other way like it doesn't exist. If you don't trust MSNBCs Mr. Barbree--why don't you talk to the man yourself, or read TO REACH THE HIGH FRONTIER? But you would just pigeon-hole the authors as parochial space advocates and dismiss them out of hand as well--just like the moon-hoax believers.

Suffice it to say that as a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money go to space than to getting a few thousand more kids killed in Iraq.

Chew upon this. The rocketry program has been one of the few things the Soviets have been able to privatize, where their war efforts in Afghanistan and their social programs bankrupted them, thus proving the worth of their space program--which now dominates the world launch market along with Europe, and soon China and India.

American launches have taken a big hit precisely because of people like you

Now tell me how many Dennis Tito types have lined up to ride in B-52s?

If you want to go after waste, go after JSF:
http://www.xprizenews.org/index.php?p=1059

[Joff]

why a 1:1 ratio for everything else, but a 5:1 ratio for space exploration

Yeeees... it shouldn't be, as I kind of alluded to, but let me be a little clearer.
To be honest I don't know how the 4 or 5-dollar value was worked out either. However my interpretation is that, because people are targetted at these really tough problems, the solutions that they come out with are more valuable (create more wealth/improve living standards more) than if the same people had merely been working in the general economy. Assuming that the money would otherwise have been spent privately, I could see the correct "everything-else" multiplier being the economic growth rate over the same period, which might be in the area of 1.8 to 2.5; say 2 for convenience (less if the government spends it). So that isn't as spectacular a gearing as claimed, perhaps, but it's still pretty damned respectable.

[fossilnut2]

All these figures thrown around are unsubstantiated guestimates.

Claiming to know the specific direct economic benefit of Apollo or any other Space spending is one step removed from mumbo jumbo.

I see the real benefit of Apollo and other space spending to be the reinforcement and expansion of a societal scientific infrastructure. An infrastructure that designs rocket engines, McDonald's food wrappers, heart valves, hair dye and everything else that is part of modern technology. Can this all be given an economic number? A dollar value? No. Anybody who could measure such an impact taking into account all the variables would sit on the side of god and could claim the intitials J.C.

It's also possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. There is no law of economics that insists that money spent on space technology can't also be efficient and good value for the dollar spent. A half billion spent on a Mars rover can also be expected to bring in a ton of scientific return. There's no reason why billions spent, despite the positive economic impact on society, has to result in almost no scientific return (the Shuttle and ISS). Demanding excellence is the best way to guarantee more dollars for space.

[Yorkshireman]

My rant here is probably better suited to this thread...

[Gillianren]

I'll be the second to admit that I don't know huge amounts about economics (montebianco clearly being the first!), but it seems to me that, if the unemployment rate goes down, it means that there are net jobs. yes? I mean, jobs aren't like energy, neither created nor destroyed.

besides, it is my personal experience that government jobs pay better than a lot of private sector jobs, which would mean that those people who have them are able to spend more money, which I thought helped the economy.

further, one piece of economic data I do happen to hold says that the tax rate for the highest income bracket in the Eisenhower administration was 90%. I would suggest that it would then be difficult for Kennedy et. al. to have raised taxes to have paid for Apollo; clearly, the money came from reducing other government spending--shifting the money around. now, this may well mean (I'm not an expert on the subject) that other government jobs were lost in order to pay for Apollo jobs. in which case, no net jobs. but I don't, I further admit, have unemployment statistics to back up this claim, and I'm pretty sure that's an overly-simplified way of looking at it anyway.

[montebianco]

Hi Gillianren,

I'll be the second to admit that I don't know huge amounts about economics (montebianco clearly being the first!),

Can I ask if this is worded exactly the way you meant to? I will refrain from commenting until I am sure I am interpreting your comment correctly.

but it seems to me that, if the unemployment rate goes down, it means that there are net jobs. yes? I mean, jobs aren't like energy, neither created nor destroyed.

Certainly, there is no conservation of jobs principle. The unemployment rate, as it is usually defined, is a funny thing. It is the number of people who are trying to find jobs but can't find them, divided by the number of people who want jobs (i.e., those who are trying to find one, and those who already have one). So, it is theoretically possible for the unemployment rate to go down in really bad economic times, because some people without jobs get discouraged and stop looking. Since they're not looking, they don't get counted as unemployed.

There are a lot of people claiming that, for various reasons, official government unemployment figures in the US in the last two decades have seriously understated actual unemployment. In my opinion, some such arguments are basically political sniping, but others have some merit.

besides, it is my personal experience that government jobs pay better than a lot of private sector jobs, which would mean that those people who have them are able to spend more money, which I thought helped the economy.

Both sides of the transaction must be considerd. If the government pays someone US$100,000, that person can go out and buy all kinds of nice stuff, so we could argue that jobs are being created there. But where did the government get this money? It had to raise it through taxes. If the government left that money in the hands of the taxpayers, they would spend it on the things that they want, which also creates jobs. Unless there is some reason to think that the spending of the government employee creates more jobs than the spending of the taxpayers (had the money been left with them), then the net job creation effect is zero. If the government employee spends the money differently than the taxpayers would have, then there is a movement of workers from one sector of the economy (producing whatever the taxpayers would have purchased) to another sector (producing what the government employee purchases). But this is not net job creation; it is movement of jobs.

further, one piece of economic data I do happen to hold says that the tax rate for the highest income bracket in the Eisenhower administration was 90%. I would suggest that it would then be difficult for Kennedy et. al. to have raised taxes to have paid for Apollo; clearly, the money came from reducing other government spending--shifting the money around.

I don't know the answer, although I could probably find out if you like. Kennedy (and his congress/senate) actually lowered the highest tax rates. However, not many people were actually paying the highest tax rate at that time, and there were a lot of loopholes. At least in the 1970s, only 40% of capital gains in the US were taxed; I don't know if this was in force in the 1960s. I believe the government's share of national income (including federal, state, and local) is near a record high in the US (which is still well below the average level in western Europe), but I would need to check to be sure.

now, this may well mean (I'm not an expert on the subject) that other government jobs were lost in order to pay for Apollo jobs. in which case, no net jobs. but I don't, I further admit, have unemployment statistics to back up this claim, and I'm pretty sure that's an overly-simplified way of looking at it anyway.

If the premise is correct (that other government spending was cut in order to pay for Apollo), then I would say this analysis is correct, the change meant movement of jobs from whatever the government was spending on before to Apollo. If the program was paid for through additional taxation, then it resulted in movement of jobs from production of consumer goods/services, to production of rockets, lunar modules, other space stuff, etc.

All of the above is somewhat oversimplified in that the public does not necessarily spend all of its money on consumption, there is also investment. But considering investment would rather complicate the analysis without really affecting the outcome...

[montebianco]

Publiusr, if you continue to spread lies about me I will complain to the moderators.

I will respond to the mature adults in this thread. I didn't come here to argue with woo-woos.

[montebianco]

There is no law of economics that insists that money spent on space technology can't also be efficient and good value for the dollar spent.

Certianly there is not. I want to point out one thing though - "money spent on space technology is an efficient and good value for the dollar spent" is a completely different claim than "money spent on space technology creates jobs." The person who is posting repeated childish ad hominen attacks against me seems completely incapable of recognizing the difference between these two arguments. The first is necessarily subjective; the second one is not, and is in fact false, provided you account not only for the spending but the taxation needed to support that spending.

[montebianco]

Yeeees... it shouldn't be, as I kind of alluded to, but let me be a little clearer.
To be honest I don't know how the 4 or 5-dollar value was worked out either. However my interpretation is that, because people are targetted at these really tough problems, the solutions that they come out with are more valuable (create more wealth/improve living standards more) than if the same people had merely been working in the general economy. Assuming that the money would otherwise have been spent privately, I could see the correct "everything-else" multiplier being the economic growth rate over the same period, which might be in the area of 1.8 to 2.5; say 2 for convenience (less if the government spends it). So that isn't as spectacular a gearing as claimed, perhaps, but it's still pretty damned respectable.

First, no one here has posted any economic analysis to support any such multiplier. I have found several such studies, although I don't really feel it is my responsibility to come up with the arguments to be used by the people who disagree with me. But, they generally take one of two tacks:

(a) Simply apply a multiplier to the dollars spent on space exploration. Well, that would prove in anything, as long as the multiplier is greater than one. Such studies often completely ignore the taxation side of the coin.

(b) Count up the number of people employed in a whole bunch of different technology sectors, and claim that these jobs were created because of space exploration. This argument assumes (i) the relevant technologies would not have been developed without space exploration, (ii) the people in these industries would be sitting around unemployed if the relevant technologies had not been developed.

Regarding the two subpoints in (b), for (i), these studies are usually produced by advocacy groups or by NASA itself, and therefore tend to be rather aggressive about attributing technologies to space exploration. Regarding (ii), this part of the analysis is simply wrong. If the relevant technologies had not been developed, the money being spent to buy the products produced with those technologies would not be packed onto barges, shipped out to the ocean, and dumped. It would be spent on something else. Now, it is safe to assume that the people like the products developed with the help of space technology better than the products they have displaced; if they didn't, they'd just keep on buying the old products. But we should not simply count the value of the space-technology products now produced as the economic impact of space technology; we should count the difference in value of the new products versus the old products (and that difference is necessarily subjective).

A point worth mentioning now (I've already said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here) is that certain people here are misrepresenting what I said. The original claim was that space exploration creates jobs; I've pointed out (over and over and over and over) that this is not correct, and apart from some name-calling and rumors of the existence of an economic impact report that says otherwise, no one has presented any evidence to the contrary. That is completely different from saying there are or are not benefits to space exploration, or that those benefits are or are not worth the cost. Publiusr, likes to jeer about how other people are "retards," but it is he who appears to have trouble grasping this fairly simple point. He also seems to think that ignorance of economics is a prerequisite for support of space exploration and also for any political philosophy except libertarianism. Both of these are demonstrably false; to take just one example, I know an economist who held reasonably high level advisory positions during the Clinton administration, who is a strong supporter of space exploration, who openly jeers at libertarians, but who would fall down laughing if I tried to tell him that space exploration creates jobs. (He would also fall down laughing if I told him I was wasting time arguing with people such as publiusr, which is one of the reasons I will identify neither him nor myself.)

If people want to argue about whether space exploration is worth the cost, they should go right ahead, but I won't join them; this is a matter of opinion, and I don't see any more point to arguing about that than arguing about what is the best type of music. But this is a different thing than claiming that the space program creates jobs. That is an objectively verifiable statement, and, despite the jeerings of publiusr, it has nothing to do with political philosophy or support or opposition to the space prgram. I say it is false; if anyone wants to prove me wrong, I look forward to seeing their evidence. But as I have said, over and over and over and over, they should consider the impact not only of spending on space exploration, but also of the taxation needed to support that spending.

[montebianco]

My rant here is probably better suited to this thread...

I don't know if you are addressing me or not, but I think there are enough rants here already.

If you are responding to me, my point is that spending on space exploration does not result in net job creation. I would suggest anyone who wants to argue with me should address this point, not a misrepresentation of this point.

If you are responding to someone else, carry on

[Gillianren]

what I meant is that you've already pointed out that it's fairly apparent that I don't know much about economics. I studied it a little in high school, but that was ten years ago.

I will say that not all jobs are created equal. in Washington in the last few years, we've had serious unemployment problems, to the point that a lot of people are doing jobs for which they're hugely overqualified. in fact, my mother holds a degree in laser electro-optics, but she's a case worker for the County of Los Angeles. I don't know if she'd be making more working in her actual field, but a lot of my classmates from college would be, were the jobs available.

granted, none of my classmates from college would be in aerospace. but a lot of other people who are flipping burgers in Washington would be.

[Yorkshireman]

I don't know if you are addressing me or not, but I think there are enough rants here already.

If you are responding to me, my point is that spending on space exploration does not result in net job creation. I would suggest anyone who wants to argue with me should address this point, not a misrepresentation of this point.

If you are responding to someone else, carry on

I hoped it was clear from the context that I ws responding to Stick's opening post on this thread, and more specifically talking about some of the ill-informed posts on the BBC survey that this thread was originally about. But to clarify, I am not arguing with you. I have never made the job creation argument - I don't believe it myself.

Please lighten up a little and stop accusing everyone who contributes to this thread as misrepresenting your specific argument, when we are not necessarily mentioning it.

[montebianco]

I hoped it was clear from the context that I ws responding to Stick's opening post on this thread, and more specifically talking about some of the ill-informed posts on the BBC survey that this thread was originally about. But to clarify, I am not arguing with you. I have never made the job creation argument - I don't believe it myself.

Please lighten up a little and stop accusing everyone who contributes to this thread as misrepresenting your specific argument, when we are not necessarily mentioning it.

Yorkshireman,

I am very sorry you were offended by my post. It came at a particular time in the thread when someone was in fact misrepresenting my position, and making personal and false statements about me. I wasn't sure what your intentions were, but through the use of conditional wording, emoticons, etc., I tried to cover both possibilities, and to make my post inoffensive even if in fact you were responding to me. I am sorry this purpose was not realized, and offer my apologies. Whether or not you accept them, I will try hard to avoid recurrence of such an incident in the future.

Montebianco

[montebianco]

what I meant is that you've already pointed out that it's fairly apparent that I don't know much about economics. I studied it a little in high school, but that was ten years ago.

OK, I parsed your statement a little differently. I wasn't trying to do the above, but if I did, I hope at least I didn't do so forcefully.

I will say that not all jobs are created equal. in Washington in the last few years, we've had serious unemployment problems, to the point that a lot of people are doing jobs for which they're hugely overqualified. in fact, my mother holds a degree in laser electro-optics, but she's a case worker for the County of Los Angeles. I don't know if she'd be making more working in her actual field, but a lot of my classmates from college would be, were the jobs available.

I don't really know how the job situation is in Washington, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. The US economy has been growing at a decent clip since the last recession, and employment is always one of the last things to pick up after a recession. What has been unusual about this recovery, though, is the sluggishnesh of job growth for a very long time after the recession...

Just in case it isn't clear, all I'm trying to point out through my comments in this thread is that, if job creation is cited as an advantage of a policy, it is only fair to count not only jobs created by the spending, but also jobs destroyed by additional taxation or other cuts in government spending. I survived one political debate where I used to live about casino gambling; job creation was the oft-cited advantage of legalization thereof. Although there certainly will be jobs in the casino, the casino customers were spending their money somewhere before; since they are now spending it in the casino instead, their are job losses wherever they used to spend it.

If anyone other than Yorkshireman is feeling stung by me, I am very sorry. I have consider ill-will towards the person who, in response to a simple comment about a factual matter, is misrepresenting my comments, casting political aspersions, and otherwise making false statements about me. That gets me good and mad, and if I have taken out other innocent bystanders with my reaction, I hope you will accept my apologies.

[CalabashCorolla]

Just curious, but where do you get this garbage? You aren't a United States citizen (unless your location listed as the UK is not true, but I believe you've confirmed it as correct before) so you probably have very little idea as to what the US public wants.

There is no "clamour" to cut NASA funding at all. Is there a "clamour" about how poorly the federal government handling the Katrina disaster? Yes. Is there "clamour" about how our money is being spent on Iraq while our own people suffer in the devestated Gulf Coast? Oh yes. You may be "clamouring" for NASA funding to be cut, but last I looked, you aren't a citizen of the United States. YOUR OPINION is not relavent to how MY country and government spends MY (and my fellow taxpayers) money. Please stop pretending that it is and definitely stop stating your opinion as fact and falsely presenting your opinion as the prevailing one of the public opinion of the United States.

Whoa, hold on, now. I do recall hearing NASA listed among the programs that are currently subject to budget cuts in order to pay for Katrina reconstruction...and since the other programs under such consideration include prescription drug plans, Medicare, etc., I'm sure the public would be a tad miffed if it came down to, "we cut Medicare but let NASA keep all their money." Of course, the answer may truly lie in Congress cutting out pet pork projects, like the $250 million bridge in Alaska that would serve 50 people, or the Sisyphian I-73/74 project in North Carolina that currently goes from a semi-large city (Greensboro) to the middle of nowhere, and if extended, still wouldn't go anywhere remotely useful.

There have always been various factions, both in the U.S. AND elsewhere in the world, who think that space exploration is a waste of precious money that could be better spent on the starving masses (I tend to disagree, as it takes changes in society itself, not just money, to help starving masses). I'm sure citizens of some of the lesser-involved members of the ESA routinely question why their tax dollars go towards putting up British and German payloads on French rockets. And I'm sure that there are a lot of such people in the U.S.

Now, the person who started this thread may not reside in the U.S., but that is no reason to lambast him for sharing his opinion. Hell, I have various opinions about what other countries should do with their tax money all the time, and I am usually not shy about sharing them. Like if I said that the U.K. needed to reduce its import tariffs on Ireland so that Brits wouldn't have to take the Eurotrain to France to buy cheap Guiness beer. But if that is as far as I go - simply sharing my opinion - then what harm is done?

[Glom]

I agree with publius. Remove all the protestors to work on the Bering Strait Bridge or the Tokyo MegaCity Pyramid. You can throw in all the Stop Cassini... erm... people as well. In fact, everyone I don't like.

[BlackStar]

Who wants to bet that none of us will be around before they go back to the moon?

I bet a zillion dollars.

[Yorkshireman]

You're on.

[Grey]

Who wants to bet that none of us will be around before they go back to the moon?

I bet a zillion dollars.

Hey, I'll take the other side of that bet! I can't lose. If I'm still around, there's still some chance that we might make it back to the moon before I die, so I haven't lost the bet yet. But if we do manage to make it, then you owe me a zillion dollars.

[publiusr]

Publiusr, if you continue to spread lies about me I will complain to the moderators.



I will respond to the mature adults in this thread. I didn't come here to argue with woo-woos.

Your accusation is itself a lie, as if the term woo-woo to describe me isn't ad hom'. Hiding behind moderators isn't mature--face me like a grown up.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that NASA acts as drain and then question NASA jobs. Let me give you a for instance. The Hubble pictures, Apollo, etc. cost you a few dollars at most. I don't think the bubble-gum makers or the Beer brewers are going to go bankrupt. But if NASA funds were to dry up thanks to anti-space spending types--there would be jobs lost. The space program thus is caused harm more than it could cause harm.

You cannot say NASA causes a drain--then question its worth as a jobs maker. If anything, I'd say that it is private industry that is exploiting NASA/NOAA/taxpayer money:
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne...eather_421.htm

Or do you really believe that AccuWeather would exist without NASA/GOES weathersats?

I want to point out one thing though - "money spent on space technology is an efficient and good value for the dollar spent" is a completely different claim than "money spent on space technology creates jobs." The person who is posting repeated "childish ad hominen attacks" against me seems completely incapable of recognizing the difference (?) between these two arguments.

#1 It's spelled ad-hominem.

#2 There is no 'difference'--job creation is quite real--or is that Saturn/ET plant in Michold an optical illusion?
Please...

It was no ad-hominem 'attack' to remind folks that there are those who make the lives of space advocates miserable by questioning benefits that are so obvious as to be beyond question. If pointing out that fact makes me a "woo-woo" in your eyes, sir--so be it.