Setting Our Sights Lower

First, read this so you understand the context of my next rant. Go ahead, I'll wait... http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/life-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it/

Okay, so you had your own reaction to what you read: you shook your head in dismay, nodded in agreement, or shrugged and wondered, "So what?"

For those of you who didn't take the time to read the linked article, here's the author's general thesis:

Earth is getting too overpopulated, we're running out of resources, life is going to become a lot harder, and the concept of economic growth is outdated, unhelpful, and unlikely to continue. As a result, we might as well get used to it, make a virtue of necessity, and learn to live within our means because the future is not going to get any better. We need to share the wealth so that non-Western nations receive an equitable share of the world's wealth. Instead, we should establish a world that involves more local economies and that is less dependent upon international travel. We shouldn't focus so much on new technologies to save us and should learn to "do without" certain luxuries or technologies.

Did anyone just have a flashback to the 1970s? Are we in yet another era of doom and gloom and limited vision?

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
--John F. Kennedy

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."
--William J. B. Clinton

...and I haven't even quoted the Republicans yet.

The point is, America is a nation founded on a fundamental optimism that says if you give people freedom and a fighting chance, they'll find solutions to their own problems, with or despite the government's intervention. However, the author appears to have already pronounced sentence on the future: we're doomed, we'll never make it, the people are too stupid to solve their own problems, they can only be ruled for their own good and protection, based on a vision shared by the enlightened.

The problem is that "degrowth" is antithetical to the American experiment because of the implications of the author's ideas:

• Who decides what's equitable? Not the people, obviously.
• Who decides what we can "do without?" The diversity of our economy and technologies ensures that nearly anything and everything can be given a fighting chance to succeed, given enough hard work by the inventor. Who's to say what we can or should do without? And who is this author to say that we should dream smaller?
• How would they enforce this "de-growth?" It brings up an interesting notion: do governments worldwide become enforcers of de-modernization of the world? Would they send in armed troops with magnets to destroy unwanted knowledge and explosives to destroy unneeded inventions like cyclotrons, nuclear reactors, CAT scans, or rocket ships?
• Will Those Who Decide still have access to luxuries and world travel? Here's a hint: yes. I recall talking with Les Johnson about the anti-technology forces in our civilization. "They want to send us back to the caves," he said. I don't think so. They want to send us back to the manors and serfdom, where the majority remain ignorant and ruled while the wealthy elite continues to enjoy a high standard of living. The problem is, it won't happen that way; not by a long shot. Read on.
• What happens if individuals or nations opt to stay pro-growth? We're seeing a variation of this with the Kyoto Protocol, which is supposed to curb greenhouse gases. America has the technology to become high-tech without petroleum eventually, I suppose, but China and India are not there yet and are unlikely to comply with Kyoto anyway. So say they stick with the large nation-state approaches to technology and economics. What happens to the hundreds of thousands of small nation-states elsewhere in the world? If human history is any guide, they will either reunite into coalitions and nations as well or get swallowed up one by one.

Decentralization and descoping of the world economy only works if everyone does it. Odds are, everyone won't, unless some external force requires all of them to act simultaneously.

More to the point, as a space and technology advocate I want to live in a future of abundance. I believe we can access the energy and materials of space, combined with nanotechnology and other clean high technology here on Earth to ensure a future where everyone has access to the goods of civilization. Degrowth is not the way to do it. Degrowth assumes a zero-sum game, where we'll never find additional resources, and therefore the only way to have any choices is to be one of those who decides how the pie is divided. That is a recipe for world conflict on a scale we haven't seen in 70 years, and it would include a lot more nuclear weapons.

No matter how politely or benignly worded, a philosophy of low expectations implies a political order where those expectations would be enforced, lest someone question the underlying assumptions. I'm more in line with entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, who want humanity to expand the scope of technology of civilization. Regardless of past errors or current problems, we certainly have enough pride and ambition to believe a better future is possible, don't we?

Jeez, I hope so.

Trip Report: NewSpace 2012

[Okay, I'm late with this, but the information won't go away just because I'm a week or two late reporting it. Major caveat: These opinions are my own, and do not reflect those of NASA, my employer, or any other organization.]

The NewSpace Conference began as the annual gathering of citizen advocates of the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), but also has become a place where investors, entrepreneurs, and technologists go looking to start businesses. How does this differ from the International Space Development Conference (ISDC), which I've attended numerous times and chaired last year? As Inigo Montoya might say, "Allow me to 'splain."

Politically, SFF is the major libertarian space organization, so the conference very much focuses on free-market approaches to space development. The National Space Society, which hosts ISDC, is more of a middle-of-the-road, Democrat/Republican organization. NSS isn't entirely focused on private sector development of space; they also support government (meaning NASA) driven activities. NSS is more of a "big tent," interested in multiple technologies and approaches to space. This difference in philosophy is likewise reflected in the formats of the two conferences. With so many diverse interests involved, the ISDC is often broken into multiple tracks and, as a result, multiple rooms. With NewSpace, the conference has essentially one focus, and its sessions are held in one room. Not saying one's better than the other, just observing a difference.

And, to repeat, NewSpace is all about using the free market to get human beings to settle the solar system. In recent years, that message is getting a larger audience. One SFF member told me that attendance has grown from around 75 to 450 in only a few years.

Philosophy
Given the free-market focus, one might presume that the audience is treated to a long series of Ayn Rand lectures. In fact, I can't recall Rand's name being invoked once, or any other philosopher for that matter. Individuals espoused philosophies, but they were their own or existing philosophies expressed their own way. Free-market principles have gone native.

Economic Development
NewSpace 2012 is held in Silicon Valley, the community of high-tech companies inhabiting the southern end of San Francisco Bay. Since the 1970s, the area has been an incubator for bright engineering ideas, from silicon chip-based integrated circuits to personal computers and mass-produced software (you might have heard of Steve Jobs). The area is also known for its aggressive venture capital market--the investors go where the money is, and the money is very much in technology. Today it is home to Apple, Google, Intel, and other high-tech giants, not to mention NASA Ames Research Center.

In the last ten years, some folks who got rich developing software, hardware, or web applications have put their money into space. What's happening now is that others are starting to get into the game, and the Space Frontier Foundation is making efforts to help that along by leading a space business plan competition, which awards prizes to space-based or space-related businesses. The rules can be found here, but the biggest draw for the 55 competitors was that the first-place winner received $100,000 and the second-place winner won $10,000. Much of the Friday session was taken up by the presentations and Q&A by the judges. The winners were announced at the gala on Friday.

Again, the SFF's focus on free-market solutions to space allows it to concentrate on this type of competition.

Working Out the Roles of Government and the Private Sector
Given all the rugged individualism and focus on the private sector, it might surprise you (as it did me) how many government officials attended NewSpace, especially from NASA. This is because the Obama administration has continued the Bush administration's policy of encouraging private companies to launch cargo and crew members to the International Space Station. Not only that, the Federal Aviation Administration has had a keen interest in expanding the licensing of commercial launches as well as suborbital launches to the edge of space. (Lest you think the libertarians are warming to government, I heard at least one person say that the government's primary interest in supporting all this activity is to grow the tax base and avoid the high cost of NASA.)

The businessfolk in the room were interested in government performing the following roles:

• Sharer of new technologies: Nearly all of the basic research and development for space technology was developed by military officers or government civil servants (Werhner von Braun was Director of Marshall Space Flight Center, not a contractor). NASA and its predecessor organization NACA have done a lot of the original R&D, discovered basic principles of a science or technology, and then once they proved them out, made it available to the American public or the private sector to exploit for mass production. This practice goes back nearly 100 years, as NACA was formed in 1915. NASA is still doing research, and the session given by James Reuther, Acting Director of the agency's "game-changing" technology program was well attended.
• Purchaser of products and services: Aside from basic R&D, government doesn't produce a whole lot. Farms, construction materials, cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, processed foods, computers, and millions of other small products are built by individuals or companies in the private sector. It's even written into many government procurement laws that if an equivalent product or service already exists to perform a certain task and that product or service costs less than what the government could do it for, the agency in question has to purchase the private product/service first. Such is the logic behind the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and its follow-ons CCDev and CCICap. More on that later.
• Early adopter of new technologies: Sometimes NASA, Department of Defense (DoD), or other government agencies will mandate that new technologies be incorporated into test programs. This provides economic development and "pushes the envelope" of what current technologies can do. Government might win by getting something cool at a low cost, the company wins by having a guaranteed buyer. There was quite a bit of talk about "public-private partnerships" as well.
• Builder of infrastructure: There are things government can do more effectively or willingly than the private sector simply because there's no profit in it. Airports come to mind, along with seaports or (once upon a time) power systems, canals, or air traffic control systems. Another form of "infrastructure" would be legal regimes, regulations, and standardized "rules of the road" for conducting business. For example, NASA and the FAA reached an agreement on how commercial space-launch services would be certified for passenger safety. Businesses prefer consistency in the rule of law so that they know what it will cost to comply with government regulations. The NASA/FAA agreement was welcome, but many in the audience were concerned that the specific rules for passenger safety had not yet been nailed down. Stay tuned.

What was refreshing was to hear the rational debates that were being held about the proper role(s) of government in the private sector.

Where the Technology's Going
It's hard to overlook the rockets--we don't get to space without them--or the people who are building them: Elon Musk, David Masten, John Carmack, etc. However, rockets are expensive, especially if you want to build them so that they carry enough mass into space to do something useful and so that they don't explode. So if you're smart, you don't get into the rocket-building business. As I said, it's expensive. It's also complex--rocket science, after all--and requires a lot of industrial capability that is not easy to build or acquire. However, that is not what the people competing in the Space Business Plan Competition were doing. They were looking for ways to play in space for considerably fewer dollars.

For example, the presentations I watched focused on nano-scale materials to increase germ resistance on surfaces inside space habitats; a "smart propellant" for satellite thrusters that would only activate when a current is passed through it; and a crowd-sourced "cube sat" (satellites 10 centimeters to a side), which was a project Science Cheerleader and I supported.

In each of these cases, the competitors were not aiming to build a big, friggin' rocket, space station, or anything like that. Their goal was to specialize in some tiny part of the market that had the potential for massive growth. Materials are everywhere. Cube sats are becoming more common as "Moore's Law" continues to double the number of transistors per computer every 18 months. The aim, as with everything in Silicon Valley, is to develop the "killer app," that one really cool and useful technology that suddenly everyone must have. Consider Facebook, or YouTube for example.

Throughout the "NewSpace" sector, entrepreneurs are hoping to recreate this industry in the Silicon Valley image so that, eventually, more and more private citizens have access to space. This is still not as easy as some would prefer. The rocket equation is a lot more resistant to technological advances than Moore's Law because most computers are not trying to accelerate to Mach 25 before entering an environment with high radiation, no gravity, and no air. Still, the true believers are hopeful, as am I, that some genius will produce that killer app or apps that enables rockets to be as common as laptop computers. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but I can hope.

Space Launch System
I'm going to keep my remarks short on this, but at one point, I was faced with a PowerPoint slide that read, "SLS Delenda Est: The Senate Launch System [sic] must be destroyed." Obviously I've got some hard work ahead of me in my day job.

The Big Picture/Vision
As I noted earlier, the Space Frontier Foundation is interested primarily in free individuals settling throughout the solar system under a regime of personal freedoms and laissez-faire capitalism. Other individuals speaking in the "visionary" sessions focused on the future we're likely to face with ever-advancing computers, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and robotics--the Singularity, or something approaching it. As Arthur C. Clarke once put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." At the rate technology is advancing, all I can say is prepare to be astounded.

Listening to the talk at the conference, the future would seem to belong to the smart, the rich, and the tech-savvy--the smart people's 1 percent, if you will. That's great if you fit into one of those categories. The question I asked during the last session was and is: "What do you do with those who are none of the above?" I didn't get a satisfactory answer from anybody on the panel. Perhaps they didn't see my intent, but there are folks out there who are unknowingly or willfully uneducated--whose jobs will increasingly be replaced by ever-smarter machines. What's to become of them? The number of niches being filled by advanced technology will continue to increase. If you can't afford all the cool toys or your culture or religion forbids them, how do you coexist with "magic?" I have no answers, either, but that's a conversation that needs to be had as we continue our quest to send people to live beyond Earth.

Summary
NewSpace was enjoyable because I had a lot of friends there and because there were a lot of interesting things going on. There's a real future being made in the entrepreneurial sector of space. How it all unfolds, only time will tell.

Book Review: Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

Thomas Sowell is one of the bright intellectual lights of the conservative movement. His specialty is capitalist economics. What Sowell chose to do in Basic Economics is provide a great public service to people like me who skated through a semester of Economics 101 bored and were overwhelmed by charts. There are no charts or graphs in this book. There are few numbers. Instead, there is a logical explanation for how the economy flows.

What makes Sowell's work important is that he does not just address basics like scarcity, supply and demand, and prices, but also how all of these concepts are affected and often distorted by political decisions. This is an important lesson because Econ 101 usually covers only "pure" economics, meaning a description of how markets are supposed to work if no one interferes with with them. However, our government interferes with our economy with increasing frequency, and Sowell does his level best to demonstrate the usually negative consequences of that interference.

Here are some of the basic precepts of free-market economics that Sowell translates for the uneducated reader:

• Economics is the study of how society copes with scarce resources that can have alternative uses.
• Prices, expressed in terms of money, are the result of multitudes of decisions made by free individuals.
• Consumers try to buy as many goods as they can at a lower price until the supply drops and the prices rise.
• Producers of goods and services (in free-market economies--though Sowell covers socialist, communist, and barter economies as well) divert their energies where they can get the most money.
• Multiple producers enter a market where prices are rising. However, they cannot overcharge or they will be underbid by their competitors. Eventually, as more and more suppliers enter a market, prices fall.
• Government interference in a market can take many forms, including rent, price, and wage controls. While these policies are promulgated to benefit some special interest group (often "the poor"), they often lead to worse conditions for the poor. This happens because suppliers cannot make a great deal of profit where prices or rents are fixed. So what they do, as in the the case of rent control, is let the property fall into decay in an effort to get the low-paying renters out so they can turn the property into something that will make more of a profit, like a commercial site or luxury housing, thereby reducing the stock of available low-income housing.

Sowell provides multiple examples of how government interference makes the economy worse or how the intentions of certain policies create the opposite result because politicians do not consider what sorts of incentives (or disincentives) occur when the policies are established. If there is one primary lesson Sowell has for his readers, it is that informed voters should be more careful about paying attention to the quantifiable effects and results of government interference in the marketplace rather than accept emotion-based calls to "do something!" And he informs the reader with his relentless logic page after page, covering the full range of economic issues, from prices to wages to banking to insurance, government finance, international trade, and "non-economic values," (those being the arguments people use to push for government action that costs a lot of money but that MUST be done because some things are just too important to leave to the marketplace).

There are some issues, I must confess, where Sowell didn't answer my questions as fully as I would have liked. One of those non-economic values, for instance, is national defense, which he dismisses with the argument that too many industries are protected in the name of national defense because they are fallaciously perceived as "necessary" to defend the country. Just because some industries are unnecessarily protected does not mean that all of them are. And if we reach a point where we find ourselves at war with multiple sole-suppliers of war materials (as Japan did prior to World War Two), what options will we have except to restart such industries from scratch or take such industries from others?

Another place where Sowell falls down in the field of protectionism is in offering alternatives or recommendations for what to do about low-skill (but often high-wage) assembly line workers in the U.S. who lose their jobs to cheaper, lower-wage workers overseas. He sees the overall benefit to the economy coming through lower prices and higher standards of living for the majority. He also makes the point that protectionist tariffs or regulations might protect jobs in, say, the domestic steel industry, but said jobs end up increasing the prices of many items made from steel across the economy, thereby raising the cost to the economy of jobs saved. What Sowell leaves out is that people in assembly-line or low-skill jobs have fewer educational or job-retraining opportunities, are less able (or inclined) to move, and might be less retrainable in general. What is to be done about them if they are unable to find employment but unable to move to where jobs are better?

We are a compassionate society, which is one of the reasons that politicians and media types are able to portray battles between labor and management or Americans vs. foreigners as opportunities to "do good" or "take action," even when such actions prove disastrous in the long run.

Again, I buy most of Sowell's arguments. However, there are times when free trade results in long-term, permanent blight or unemployment or lost hope. Consider the nation's "rust belt" as one example. It is not just a matter of economics vs. politics. There are also cultural, educational, and human ability issues that need to be addressed. It might be worth an email to Dr. Sowell just to see how he responds. That said, Basic Economics is a sound book, well written and easy to understand. If it runs a little on the long side, it is still time well spent because you really will come away with a better appreciation of the benefits and pitfalls of what used to be called the "free market."

Potpourri LXXIX

Cirque du Soleil's founder is looking forward to his trip to the International Space Station. It would be interesting to see if, after returning from his trip, he decides to create a space-themed show.

From Lin:

• The pernicious effects of "instant wealth" through history.
• Farmers in India are reviving an old fertility custom to increase the chances for rain.
• A new word, which I love: "presstitutes," i.e. members of the media willing to sell themselves in support of the Obama Administration.
• Additional links regarding healthcare:
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164033&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/24/uninsured-a-look-at-the-fifty-million/
  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7164074&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/index.html
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=16755&R=162641932E
• Also, an editorial on progressive taxation. This offers food for thought: it might make sense in the short term to "tax the heck out of the rich" to pay for government programs now, but what if you tax these folks so much that they no longer ARE rich? Where do you get the money then? There's a certain magical thinking involved with progressive taxation, and it amounts to the belief that the rich will always be there to soak and that they'll always continue to do the things that make them rich. However, if you keep taxing them, they won't be as rich, or they might leave the country, or they might cease to work as hard because the effort isn't worth the payoff anymore. Food for thought as we continue to mortgage our future. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, which I'm a little bit more than halfway through--it teaches the reader a lot about the repercussions of using political "solutions" to fix economic problems.
• Michio Kaku talked on FoxNews about Mars missions.

From Cliff, a music video on Glenn Beck's show featuring some clips of political figures.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE):

• Government and climate change.
• White Knight Two to fly at the Oshkosh Air Venture.

From my NASA PAO feed, a story about an Earth science program being run out of Edwards AFB.

Buzz Aldrin stated that there's a monolith on Phobos. Saaaaayyyyy what?

Keith Cowing is playing nice with the new NASA Administrator...so far. All it will take is for Gen. Bolden to make one decision Keith doesn't like, and the seal clubbing will begin.

New from Hu: Fans of Starship Troopers will appreciate this. Special Forces troops are getting "Land Warrior" high-tech battle gear.

This editorial irritated me because the writer presumes to take the voice of reason on the space program, but she gets several things wrongs and mischaracterizes other aspects of space. Frustrating.

From Rich: a great speech about asking the right questions, about religion and its role in democracy and capitalism, and about scouting. Yes, all of these things are related.

And lastly, from Dan the PAO Man, some thoughts by T. S. Eliot...written before the Internet:

Opening Stanza from Choruses from "The Rock"

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,
The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

Book Review: NewSpace Nation

Here's a clever way to get your political tract out to the public: put it on Kindle and charge a few bucks. I say clever only to the extent that I allowed myself to be persuaded to buy it (Kindle really IS bad for impulse book buyers).

So what do you get for your $4.99 (more than I paid for the complete works of Aristotle, Plato, or the King James Bible, by the way)? Basically, you are treated to a part-philosophical (libertarian), part-economic tract that discusses the basics and virtues of "New Space" companies--that is, smaller entrepreneurial firms formed in the last 10-15 years that are not making the bulk of their money through government contracts.

This unique economic niche includes groups like the Rocket Racing League (and the companies producing their racers and engines), Zero-G Corporation, and Virgin Galactic (which is hardly "small" in the financing sense, given Sir Richard Branson's deep pockets--a point Mr. Krukin hedges by noting that defining a "NewSpace" company is sometimes more art than science).

Each section cites the company web site and other details. Essentially what you've got here is a handy marketing brochure for the private space industry, albeit a brochure that you pay for.

For people unfamiliar with the libertarian point of view, the author Jeff Krukin describes the advantages of this new upstart segment of a 50-year-old industry as follows:

• Market segmentation
• Emphasis on private customers rather than cost-plus government contracts
• Free, expanding markets / economic development
• Job creation
• The simple focus on profit rather than maintaining political support, which is an annual battle for NASA
• New resources

Perhaps now is a good time for a tract like this, given the government's increasing desire to downplay capitalism in favor of government regulation of industries. Gosh knows I'm a big fan of capitalism, and miss it more every day. However, this text is a little overpriced, given its length--430 "locations" (pages) at the font size I use--and the much lower price for much longer products on the Kindle site. Still, it's a good thing to have, if only as a reference for keeping one's message short, punchy, and to the point. A- for message, C+ for execution and price/value.

Potpourri XXXVI

This one is pretty good, and sadly, mostly true: the shenanigans in the space business are akin to a soap opera. This might become a regular link on this page. I like this writer!

Whups...a metal cargo container was sucked into a 747 engine.

The AP is saying that the pilot of the plane that crashed in Buffalo was less experienced/competent, and that this was the result of the airline cutting costs by getting rid of senior, higher-paid pilots. Scott, who has some experience with the aviation business, tells me that this is, more or less, drastically untrue. I'll post any follow-ups as warranted. From a sheerly capitalistic point of view, airlines want the best pilots they can get because crashes are really, really bad for business. Fatal, if you will. A veteran pilot is higher paid, but less likely to make a rookie mistake. But just wait--the Obama administration will use this as an excuse to increase government control over the airline industry. If I were an airline exec and a government official came to me offering financial assistance, I'd run like hell the other way.

Capitalism Magazine is reprinting one of my favorite extended speeches from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. As a work of fiction, it's almost impossible; as a work of philosophy, it has a lot to say. This is a speech by one of Rand's capitalist heroes who's working to undermine a socialist system building in America. It's a moral defense of money and it's sad that such a thing even needs explaining today. Worth reading.

Tip o' the fedora to Martin for finding this: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/. It includes some production pics of work by Rick Sternbach, vehicle designer of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

This letter from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to Chris Scolese, the Acting NASA Administrator, explains the rationale for the new "blue ribbon" panel that is going to review NASA's human spaceflight program. What's interesting about this letter, and the reason I forwarded it to Darlene the Science Cheerleader, is that it specifically calls for the panel to accept inputs from the public on America's direction in space. There is supposed to be a web site for this, but I haven't seen anything yet. But still, BOLO (Disney acronym for "be on the lookout") for this great opportunity to let your government know what you think about our human spaceflight program. I hope, if you're a reader of this blog, that you support it, but if you're not, you should still make your opinion heard. I have no idea what will be done with public input, but the more they get, the more they'll have to respond to it or at least take it into account.

Humanity is Too Screwed Up to Inflict on the Rest of the Solar System

The first time I heard this argument, I was working at Disney, and I was utterly at a loss about how to respond. I'm still dumbfounded at the attitude, but then I'm also dumbfounded at people who think the United States was the worst nation in the history of the world, too. "For gosh sakes," I want to say, "If you hate life/America that much, leave it!"

More politely, I would say that I strongly disagree.

The source of this argument takes several forms:

• We've screwed up the Earth, so we'll only do the same to the Moon/Mars, etc. Have we polluted? Yes. But thanks in part to our own space program, the environmental movement got one of the best PR images ever: Earthrise over the limb of the Moon. Would the movement have gotten that big of a boost if Apollo 8 hadn't photographed that image? I leave that as an exercise for the reader. However, one can hardly argue with the political and environmental progress that the movement has had in the last 40 years. The Cuyahoga River no longer burns. You can fish in Lake Erie. I've even been told you can see Pittsburgh now and Los Angeles occasionally. Lead is gone from paint and gasoline. Cars are improving in efficiency and chemical emissions. We rail on about carbon dioxide as a pollutant, forgetting the sulfur dioxides and other nasty black stuff that used to come out of car tailpipes. We have safer nuclear reactors and smokestack scrubbers on coal-fired power plants. Are we perfect? Hardly. And China and India are not yet rich enough to afford the pollution-control technologies that we now take for granted and continue to improve. I cannot speak to the never-satisfied ethos of the environmental movement, but I cannot deny the improvements they've made in our world.
• Our culture is too screwed up to be allowed to expand. Take your perspective on this one--religious, intellectual, cultural, behavioral, social--and you can find plenty of reasons why particular activities we wouldn't want to see expand into space. But how much of that is the result of bad choices by individuals and how much of it is "the culture" as a whole? A culture is made up of individuals, with intelligences and abilities ranging up and down the Bell Curve. We have Stephen Hawking and Beverly Sills on one end, and the Octomom and Darwin Award winners on the other. Some of reader Allen's comments frankly disturbed me, but also made me think. Yes, there are people doing stupid things with their lives.
  
  When Columbus and Magellan sailed from Spain in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church was conducting the Inquisition while Isabella and Ferdinand were hounding Jews out of the country. Similar villainy could be found in Elizabethan England, which had its own festering religious quarrels but was also enjoying the plays of William Shakespeare. The difference between then and now is that there are more human beings in the world today and the tools of civilization, both benign and dangerous, are more widespread. So this means we need better education, better laws, better (idjitproof) technologies, or better people. I'd opt for the first three before screwing around with trying to make people "better." There are too many value judgments involved there.
• Capitalism will destroy other worlds like it's destroyed this one. I could say similar things about communism, and with greater cause. Consider Stalin's purges, Hitler's evil, or the bloodletting of China's Cultural Revolution or Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. All of these societies killed millions of their own people all in the name of some state-sanctioned idea of perfection. Anyone fighting those visions or even questioning them faced show trials, midnight knocks on the door, gulags, or much, much worse. And returning to the first point, environmental regulations and conditions are much worse in the former Soviet Union than the U.S. I'm sure someone will throw some other statistics at me showing all the evil capitalism has done. However, I would like to also offer, in comparison to the evil done by other contemporary social systems, what good capitalism has done. Through mass production and industrial technology, it has brought down the prices of thousands of goods that once belonged only to the very rich or royalty. It has brought about revolutions in communication, including this Internet that allows people to spread messages about the evils of capitalism to all corners of the world. It has brought human beings to the Moon, images of the far reaches of the universe to our TV screens, and economic and other aid to all corners of the planet within hours of nearly any disaster. One might rail against Enron or WorldCom or now AIG and the rest of the big banks, and perhaps with some justification. But it is capitalism that builds high-quality homes, cars, and cell phones, not governments. It will always be so, and if it is no longer so, well, expect poorer-quality products and rationing.
• Human beings have no business escaping to other planets when their primary duty is to make life better for their fellow men here on Earth. I caught a whiff of this sort of argument from some of my religious friends. Pro-space people are focusing too much on this life and other worlds, and not enough on the afterlife and redeeming themselves in this world. "Well, maybe, says I. But what about building asteroid defenses that protect life on Earth? If there's no life, there's no church to protect, right?"
  "If an asteroid strikes, that's God's will."
  "Yeah, but if we have the ability, we should build the defenses."
  "We could build the defenses, but whether they work or not is God's will."
  "But if we build the defenses, we're at least giving ourselves a fighting chance, right?"
  Get the feeling I've had this discussion before? Anyhow, I have yet to understand why some of my coreligionists have such a negative attitude toward science and technology, though I suspect it goes back to arguments having little to do with space itself. Still, it's an argument I've heard against building space hardware, and it disturbs me.
• Human beings were not meant to live on other worlds. This is a much harder argument to refute because we haven't done it yet...at least not long-term. But it's a simple fact: right now, Earth is the only place in the universe where Homo sapiens can live without need for artificial life support. Everywhere else, we face challenges related to atmosphere (or lack thereof), gravity, dust, and lifelessness. Barring some science fictional scenario where we find an Earthlike planet nearby and simultaneously develop "warp drive," we will only live on other worlds in this solar system, using the machines and life forms we bring with us. We might terraform Mars, cool down Venus, or build structures beneath the grey mountains of the Moon or the ice of Europa. In the meantime, we have those tuna cans and sausages that ensure structural stability and atmospheric integrity. To say we can't survive as unarmored, naked human beings is correct but also missing the point: we can do it, the question is, will we do it?

Potpourri XVI

I must put my DoD budget analysis on hold again. Dog ate my homework, what can I say?

I also owe Darlene the Science Cheerleader a blog on reviving the Office of Technology Assessment. In the meantime, you can check out Dar's original entry on this petition. You can also check here and here for my earlier entries on this topic. Given all the other silliness in Washington, a calm, sober group of analysts providing sage advice on science and technology issues sounds like a good idea.

Oh yeah, and I decided to spend my tax refund on a Kindle 2 with case. I'm expecting to take delivery on Monday. I'll write a product review once I've had a chance to work with the toy a bit.

This looks like something to write while drinking a glass or two of wine: a winery is holding a contest to write the blurb on the back of their latest label. The catch? The name of the wine is Rocket Science.

OpenNASA has a new posting on reinventing NASA.

7,000 uranium centrifuges in Iran, and so Obama wants to convene nuclear arms talks with them.

A Rasmussen Poll states that only 53% of Americans think capitalism is better than socialism.

An NSS blog on a Catch-22 in space development.

Fox News reports on NASA cost overruns.

The Pentagon played an economic war game recently--and the results were not promising.

President Obama's new science advisor talks about many issues with Science, including space and NASA.

This is an interesting site: you can track this guy's GPS position as he climbs Mt. Everest.

Potpourri X

Lots of thought-provoking stuff out there, so I'll jump right into it:

NASA

• NASA is offering content for people to develop do-it-yourself podcasts.
• The three-year progress report for the Ares Projects is now available as a two-part video on YouTube.
• The Great Moonbuggy Race will be running at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center this weekend.
• The Futures Channel partnered with the Ares outreach team to develop some videos on careers at NASA.

Other Space Stuff

• Also, April 4 is Yuri's Night, an annual celebration of the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin. The actual day is April 12, but Easter falls on April 12 this year, so the organizers moved it. Huntsville's Yuri's Night event will be at LeeAnn's downtown.
• The Coalition for Space Exploration has announced its Board of Advisors for 2009-2010.
• The Space Access Conference is happening soon.
• The National Space Society's International Space Development Conference is also coming soon!

The Economy

• President Obama says the U.S. Government will now cover any warranty-based maintenance for owners of GM cars. But I'm told on Facebook that I need to "calm down" because "capitalism is fine." Riiiiight.
• Congressman Barney Frank is proposing a bill that would set caps on all employee salaries at AIG, not just the CEO. "Calm down, Bart. Capitalism is just fine." Riiiiiight.

Technology

• Honda is developing thought-controlled machines. Wild.
• The Chi-coms are working on a "kill weapon" for targeting aircraft carriers. Oh, goody.

Politics & Culture

• One of my favorite Law & Order actresses, Angie Harmon, is sick of being called a "racist" because she disagrees with President Obama's policies. Welcome to the club, Angie. I got this accusation shortly after Election Day, and still find it offensive.
• Venezuela-born Miss Universe had a great time at Guantanamo Bay.
• Some advice for Gen Yers entering the workforce in Washington.
• Hat tip to D2 for this item on evaluating "employee engagement" in the workplace.
• Darlene the Science Cheerleader has been in contact with a congressman interested in reviving the Office of Technology Assessment.
• On the lighter side of things, a man in Ohio was arrested for driving drunk on a motorized bar stool.
• An interesting question from one of my acquaintances on LinkedIn.com:

"Is the concept of "Tough Love" at the root of society's problems or is it their answer?"

Some argue "spare the rod, spoil the child" and it seems to me that the underlying philosophy in this also lies in some of the advice on how best to deal with the current economic crisis. But is the deterministic righteousness of tough love the root problem in many and diverse areas of our societies, or is it rather the belief in the "Noble Savage" and laissez-faire indulgence? Or are both just perversions of love, part self-loathing part narcissism?

• An interesting video on the mayor of Missassauga, Ontario. We should all be so good at 88!
• I got hip-deep into a long conversation about capitalism, Obama, etc. on Facebook last night ("Calm down, Bart..."), so I decided to change my status as a way of getting free of the argument. I changed my status to "Bart is moving on to another topic." Some FB friends offered the following alternatives:
  --"I've got a topic...Socialism"
  --"How about the right to privacy issues?"
  --"Eminent domain?"
  --"The topic is me. All about me! ME, ME, ME!!!!"
  
  The last answer was offered by my buddy Gwen. I opted for her answer, as I was too tired at that point to offer alternatives. I promised I'd address some of these in the blog. I will, just not right now. More to come...

I Want Capitalism Back

This article on the Obama Administration's follow-up to TARP is worth reading, particularly this:

But wait, it is now not just the recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money and other taxpayer funds who are to be regulated. According to "sources," the White House is considering salary controls for "all financial institutions" and "publicly traded companies," not just those receiving "federal bailout money."
What's more, the feds intend to impose this by fiat, meaning regulations not legislation. When the government controls your salary, control over your financial compensation is not far behind.

Workers at GM think they're being treated worse under the Obama administration than they were under straightforward GM management.

*

I wrote this in response to a reader, but apparently it needs to be repeated. Those of you who hate the "power of big business" need to remember that said power, however financially impressive, is nothing compared to the power of the government. Businesses are nothing if they don't provide goods and services that customers want. On the flip side of this, government had more direct control over people because they control the laws, and those laws are enforced by regulations, police, courts, taxes, and when all else fails, the point of a gun. Businesses cannot do any of these things legally.

Occasionally I get retorts like, "Big business runs the government because they've got money and lobbyists and they 'own' senators." This requires re-explaining as well. Yes, businesses have lobbyists. Yes, those lobbyists make contributions to various members of Congress and Senators' campaign funds. But they cannot enforce their wishes. A member of Congress can accept a donation one day, and then turn around and vote for a bill that harms the donor's interests the next. And if the government really was so beholden to big businesses, then why are those businesses subject to the highest corporate taxes in the Western world? Why must they spend money for things like ADA, OSHA, EPA, FICA, benefits, etc.? All of those are huge expenses that interfere with profits. If businesses' lobbyists "control" the government, then they should be fired, because they're doing a poor job of it.

And then there's this angle: up until the 1930s, business lobbyists weren't really necessary because Washington didn't control that much of the economy. There was no need to have high-powered lawyers and professional persuaders in $1,000 suits walking the halls of Congress to protect their interests. Government power has since centralized in Washington, and that's why the lobbyists were necessary--as protection.

A liberal friend just posted on Facebook,

[X] thinks that firing Wagoner was just the start. In every revolution, heads gotta roll ...

To which I responded, "Revolutions are great until it's your ox being gored." Obviously I didn't vote for Obama. But I'm willing to bet that even people who voted him did not vote for a revolution, just a change in policies. And to follow on to my response, revolutions can consume their own. It's always cool to "get even" with whoever the revolutionaries think is the bad guy until suddenly YOU'RE the one labeled as the bad guy. For examples of this sort of behavior, see the history of the French Revolution and Russian Revolution.

More on the Economy

I have left the economy and President Obama alone (like he cares) to focus on more interesting things. However, he continues to take direct action to make the economy he inherited from Bush worse. Let's start with this op-ed Mr. Obama wrote, and which posted in only three newspapers in the U.S. (the Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times). The other papers that received the posting were all overseas. He's the President of the United States, and he has important things to say to the world. Wouldn't you think it would appear in every paper in this country? It's not like it wouldn't get out via the Internet to other locations, but jeez, that works both ways--an email from the POTUS would get top billing everywhere. So, again: why the directed posting? Might as well read it now, before it disappears:

We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation.

Translation: Obama believes that the activist stance he's taken on the economy here needs to be taken globally. If Obama considers his first budget (over $3 trillion) a "half-measure," one can only feebly guess what a full measure of activism will look like. Yow.

Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

"Bold, comprehensive, and coordinated action." Translation: He's giving a green light to the leaders of the world to soak their local rich people.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Actually, there are many folks who could deny the need for urgency when it comes to government action. As I've written before, this economic slowdown was no worse than some recessions seen in the last 25 years, and none of those situations required a massive, unprecedented government intervention in the market.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Way to encourage us and talk about hope, Mr. President.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

True. But more to the point, the global economy is dependent upon the American economy. If our economy starts turning ugly due to government takeovers of businesses, people will stop investing here. So when Obama does things that are bad for the American economy, like spending three trillion dollars we don't have and does not exist, that harms the global economy.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up -- already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

So if you know that some banks are behaving badly but individuals need to spend, why not just give individual private citizens a big chunk of change ($5-10,000) and let the bad banks fail?

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Translation: This is my economy, and I'm not through tinkering with it yet.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Translation: If you think you can go overseas to get away from my policies, think again, pal. I'm going to ask every nation on Earth to do things my way.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Stimulus is not working. Banks refuse to loan, businesses refuse to spend, and consumers refuse to spend because they're afraid of what might happen next. "Dramatic" is accurate. The stimulus is not jump-starting job creation, except on a temporary basis within government agencies--for instance, ACORN is looking to get some work supervising the Census.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

And stimulus isn't working overseas, either. Protectionism is almost inevitable, as every government must protect the jobs of its own citizens first.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Again, the major banks are not loaning. They're trying to find a new level at which to leverage their assets. A loan-to-asset ratio of 30:1 is obviously too much, so they're holding onto their assets and reassessing what how much they're willing to loan out to businesses. He can talk a good game about getting foreign banks and nations to encourage trade, but they're as paralyzed as the U.S.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

I wonder if the countries and people who face the greatest risk also happen to be the ones who don't pay their bills.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

Yes, by all means, let's do a bailout for even more organizations.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

There is some truth here. However, if you allow people and banks to fail and learn from the consequences of failure, wouldn't that be a better deterrent than bailing them out and teaching them nothing? I don't believe more government regulation would help. I'd like to see what Goldman Sachs does to encourage internal reform after they return their federal bailout money.

Here's a simple way to encourage responsibility, which I've been pushing since at least 2000: Give people frequent flyer or bonus miles for paying their bills, not racking them up.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.

The argument against this is rather like the argument against having a nationalized school or healthcare system. If you have only one solution or system for everybody, and that solution or system is wrong, then everybody suffers. Instead, individual countries, states, and businesses should be allowed to experiment to see what works. Some experiments might fail, but successful experiments can be copied as well. That's part of the joy of the diversity of the market. If the government IS the market, there is no diversity, and everyone rises or falls at the whims of those in power.

All of our financial institutions -- on Wall Street and around the globe -- need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

There is some truth in this. Capitalism survives best in an environment where the rule of law is exercised consistently and fairly. Unfortunately, Obama's policies are neither. His bailouts are going to specific businesses, just as his party is threatening specific individuals within those businesses with mob-like behavior. I'm not for money laundering, so I'll let that item stand as is. However, I like it how the offshore tax havens bit is thrown in at the end, like an afterthought. This is why the issue in Switzerland matters. Obama is determined to prevent people with money from moving that money overseas to avoid his impending higher taxes. If the taxes were lower here, people wouldn't need the tax havens because they'd be willing to pay the lower rates. The same applies with income taxes, though I doubt Obama is a fan of the Laffer Curve anyway.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.

Now I still don't understand why some companies are willing to give bonuses to executives that have run the company into the ground. That's a battle I'll need to fight on my own as a stockholder. However, it is still the company's business as to who gets paid what. It is not the government's business. I happen to be one of those people who would like to be rich someday. There have to be private-sector means of curbing the spending of good money on bad behavior. I'd rather see a stockholder revolt than a taxpayer revolt. One item makes the business page. The other makes the front page, and usually involves bloodshed.

I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

"We need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy." Ah, the eternal lure of the "Third Way." Clinton tried it, and had to back off after the '94 elections. We already have Third Way thinking in America: it's called the welfare state. That's where a large, capitalist society willingly accepts high taxes to provide long-term relief and support of poor people in the form of transfers of wealth.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.

Anyone else bothered by the notion of "harnessing" innovation?

The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

"Join me, I am popular and know what to do!" Well, we can only hope. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is more focused on government controls than private-sector prosperity. I am not inspired. And I still want to know why this op-ed wasn't posted elsewhere. It's not like most of America's newspapers would turn him away.

Space Cadet Politics

Nader Elhenawy has a rather long, but worthwhile piece on The Space Review. Go on and read it, or my selective commentary won't make much sense.

*

I could not help being struck by the predominance of a libertarian-conservative outlook among those who follow these matters online. (I specify it as libertarian-conservative because our use of the word “libertarian” tends to overlook the long history of left-libertarianism.)
Why this should be the case is far from obvious.

The author would not be surprised by the prevalence of conservatism/libertarianism in space if he read a little more Robert A. Heinlein, who was a science fiction writer focusing on rockets. He also was a 1930s liberal and later '50s and '60s conservative/libertarian, but a capitalist all the way down the line.

Re: postmoderism as a conservative perspective

I found this twist on things interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. Classical liberalism, with its emphases on individual liberty and progress, is now part of today's conservative-liberatarians. Meanwhile postmodernism is very much a part of progressivism/liberalism, with its emphases on relativism, postcolonialism, feminism, and other -isms that question Western rationality, technology, and universal philosophies (e.g. Christianity, capitalism).

The "final frontier" of Democrat John F. Kennedy (and his disciple Gene Roddenberry) is now questioned as "imperialist" by postcolonial theorists in that same party. Progressives support green power and genetic activities because they are small, earthbound, and so not likely to intimidate or overpower the individual. Rocketry cannot help but be big--a sin in itself, for reasons that elude me--because of the sheer number of experts and money required to make it a going concern.

In short, space is merely an extension of our present and past ideological battles applied to a broad canvas--the ultimate blank slate. Examples can be found in the pages of science fiction. The "Future History" short stories of Robert Heinlein collected in The Past Through Tomorrow might be seen as the genesis of the conservative-libertarian viewpoint. If you want to see an example of government-centric "New Deal" or "Great Society" liberalism in space, check out Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, starting with Red Mars. Another "grand vision" for space is the (Carl) Saganite ethos of making the universe safe for robots, while humans stay home. Still another is that of Gerard K. O'Neill, which is more or less the vision of the National Space Society. O'Neill believed in large orbital settlements/cities in space, manufactured by and sustaining a high-tech industrial civilization. It's very difficult to find a postmodern vision for near-term space exploration because most of the component ideologies that make it up are more concerned about denouncing and undoing Western capitalism/conservatism here on Earth.

One thing that I should point out is that science and technology are essentially apolitical. You can be a communist, a capitalist, a Mormon, or a Zoroastrian--if you follow the laws of nature and build things correctly, you can get people and cargo into space. As the Soviet Union proved. As did Communist China, India, and now Iran. A human future in space is, perhaps, inevitable. The form of society that the future takes is up for grabs. So we'll see how it all sorts out. The private sector might, indeed, win the battle to control the economy in low Earth orbit...at least until the government decides to regulate them out of existence.

Response to a Reader Re: the Economy

My compliments to Rolando for a thorough and thoughtful response to my posting. My responses follow. I do not guarantee that they will satisfy, but they are an accurate reflection of my views.

Do you understand inertia? Obama has ONLY been in office 1 month. If you were trying to stop a speeding car it would take time to slow it down, and vice-versa.

Okay, I did correct myself later on and ask “At what point can the voters make him accept responsibility?” I got weary of the Bush-bashing for 8 years, which started from the moment he was finally declared to be president (“selected, not elected”) until the day he was booed on Obama’s inauguration day. However, as I note elsewhere, Obama is now saying and doing things that are actively making things worse. That’s why he’s got to take some ownership.

The RIGHT "incentives" make the economy better. The RIGHT "reduction in regulation" and the RIGHT "tax-cuts" help make the economy better. Giving tax-cuts to companies who outsource the work, does not "maximize the opportunity of [American] citizens". It does not create jobs.

No, see, this is one of those fundamental differences between believers in government intervention and those who mistrust it. There are always people in government who think they can do things better if only THEY were put in charge. Capitalist economies work best when government allows the "invisible hand" of the market to do its job, or if it “is performing basic research (e.g. in NASA labs and at universities), being an early adopter of new capabilities (e.g. airmail service), building infrastructure (e.g. roads, seaports, launch facilities), and regulating health, safety, and consumer protection.” (See Eligar Sadeh’s Space Politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations)

Government starts getting bigger, more intrusive, and less effective when they try to pick favorites in the marketplace. Ronald Reagan crystallized the problem well: “If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.” This is the general cycle of government intervention in the market. A great example is transportation: government went crazy helping canal companies, giving them all sorts of perks and benefits and special incentives to build, operate, or expand canals. Then canals got supplanted by railroads, and government had to subsidize canals until they died out because they couldn’t compete. Railroads went through a similar cycle until the arrival of airplanes and trucks on the interstate highway system. And now airlines are on the verge of being subsidized—with nothing to replace them, incidentally.

And for the record, I would not support cutting regulations that allow more fraud; however, I would support cutting regulations that make business unnecessarily expensive, like EPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, or ADA. Companies can do these things if they choose and are found to be effective and create goodwill with their customers, but sending in a bunch of auditors and examiners to intrude on the operation of a business expands the power of the government with very little good shown to the public.

As for the “right” tax cuts, the only entities who truly pay taxes are individuals. Businesses don’t pay taxes, in the pure sense—they pass on their tax burdens to the customers, who, at the end of the day, are people. So raising taxes on businesses hurts individuals, not businesses, except to the extent that they have to raise prices on their customers to pay for higher taxes. The only "fair" thing left to do is cut individual rates across the board and let those who are able to benefit, do so.

Also, as I’ve noted in other postings, nearly half of the working public doesn’t even pay income taxes—they get a full refund at the end of the year via the Earned Income Tax Credit or other handout programs. And because the U.S. has a “progressive” tax system, that means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. So one might play the class-warfare game all day, but the very nature of our economy and tax system is such that only “the other half” truly benefits from a tax cut.

One thing that many people who lean conservative don't seem to understand is that the American Market is not very lucrative for investment. We are too expensive in comparison to other countries such as China and India. They are just as just as bright as we are and they are a fraction of the price. If my goal was to maximize profit, I would not hire Americans. I'd sell to them, but I wouldn't hire them. Now I am an American, so MY thoughts are for Americans -- but hardcore business executives are ruthless AND the best strategy when pursuing MONEY is to hire outside of America. Hence, tax cuts for very large organizations is not necessarily good for Americans because when these business people invest they won't invest in America.

I actually have no problem with a general, low tariff on American goods, matched by a tax cut for American citizens. That protects American jobs and keeps more people off the welfare rolls. Of course there is the risk of other nations putting up protective tariffs as well. There are ways to lower American labor costs, but they require doing things like breaking the power of unions and reducing the number of government-mandated costs, like FICA, OSHA, EPA, etc. (see above).

I agree (to an extent). I think that providing people with benefits is important to prevent these people from making the mortgage problem worst, but I agree it motivates people to not work. That is why if I were setting the rules I would require these people to do a minimum of 10-15 hrs of volunteer work per week. This way, the people have enough time to find a job and they are giving back to the community in a positive manner.

Fine by me.

Company bailouts makes me cringe. These company CEOs are either incompitent or highly dishonest -- both possibilities upset me. However, if these companies go down - then many people will lose their jobs -- and it isn't an isolated event -- there is a domino effect. I hate it -- Do you have a better approach? -- I would bailout these companies, but arrest the upper management -- have them help fix their mess in prison. Unfortunately, these people have ALL the politicians in their pocket books -- this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue -- they are both corrupted.

A few firms fail in every recession, and people go on to look for jobs at companies that aren’t incompetent. The unemployment rate was about 6.1% at its worst in the ’01-’03 recession and a shade under 8% in the ’91-’93 recession, and neither event prodded the government to go bonkers with spending, intervention, and the rest—and the economy recovered. Bottom line on this: capitalism is a competitive environment, and guaranteeing employment has never been part of the American social contract.

As far as arresting corporate officials, if they’ve committed crimes, fine. Arrest them. If, however, the things they’ve done are legal under the system as currently described, then they go free.

I don't think helping people who were mislead by predatory lenders is wrong. I think it is a very good and proactive idea. It is either this, or you let them foreclose and we pay for it through another method -- by bailing out the banks again :).

I cringe when I hear things like “predatory lending practices.” If you know you can’t afford something, like a house, you have an obligation to yourself and your family to look seriously at your financial standing before making a huge purchase on credit—especially one where the lender tells you that the rate is subject to change as interest rates fluctuate. That’s like going to a loan shark and expecting leniency. This latest crisis, however, has soured me on real estate as an “investment,” possibly forever. We had a financial crisis in the late ‘80s when the congress made a bunch of tweaks and changes to the tax code (wanting to get the RIGHT incentives passed, you see), like reducing the mortgage deduction. A bunch of people started bailing out of their homes, savings and loan institutions went under, and BAM! $190 billion went up in smoke…history repeats.

Now here is where I need your intellect to get a better understanding of things from conservatives. Now you don't talk about the positive things that Obama is "spending" on like Education, Green Technology, Infrastructure and Lowering Health Care Cost. All these efforts, if done correctly, provide jobs now AND make us more competitive tomorrow. Now how can this be bad? I really want to know what the grievance with these type of "investments" from the conservative side. I mean the "teaching someone to fish" is at the very core of conservative beliefs (I know I was brought conservative and I am an independent not a democrat) -- why then is investing in education labeled as "spending"? -- I simply don't understand. Why is investing in new industries like "Green Technology" labeled as "spending" when it is known that we are running out of oil reserves? It creates jobs NOW and it is an investment for the future. Why is investing in the Health Care technological infrastructure in order to Lower Health Care Cost considered spending? It lowers long term costs and it creates jobs NOW. (Now I think that there is support for this on both sides -- so I might be misspeaking.) -- However, to play the devil's advocate the conservatives are going to try and deregulate the Health care industry in the name of "competition" (being advised by people in the health insurance industry -- of course) and the only thing that is going to happen is health care costs is going to increase. Now to be fair I am certain that the Democrats will F'it up too, but I think that their approach will be more conscientious -- so I expect it to be slightly better -- I hope. Now I agree that some of the things that are on the bill are wasteful -- That is politics -- you work at NASA so you should understand politics. However, the PLAN in general is not bad. The litmus test is for stimulus items is 1) Does it create jobs now? 2) Does it create more opportunities or lower long-term costs? If both these things are yes, then it is a good stimulus item. If it does not it is pork.

As I noted above, government does some things well, like fighting wars, maintaining law & order, building infrastructure, and funding basic research. Where it gets into trouble is in trying to do things that individuals or businesses have proven time and again they do better themselves, like insurance, education, performing applied research, space exploration, and running businesses.

My gripes with “investments” (subsidies) targeted to specific applied technologies is that it amounts to corporate welfare and picking winners and losers. The Obama administration is so convinced that “green” technologies are the way to go that they are willing to regulate existing industries out of existence like coal and nuclear fission and neglecting options like improved fission reactors, space-based solar power or helium-3 fusion.

I have friends who tell me they are perfectly happy to pay more taxes if it means that everyone gets “free” medical coverage. Yet it never escapes my attention that when rich or powerful people need a critical operation, they come here, they don’t go to Britain, France, or Canada, the primary exemplars of socialized medicine. Why? Because they can get the procedure right away, and they value the quality of care. That system has been built capitalistically, not socialistically, and the horror stories of waiting lists and rationing are legion. I do agree with one of the friends I’ve talked to about this (Doc, a regular reader): scientific, factual studies of waiting lists and quality-of-care issues need to be done, here and abroad. As far as I can tell, much of this war has been fought anecdotally. However, until I’ve gotten serious evidence of the benefits of government-funded and run health care, I’m dubious about the proposition.

There’s also this: government is not going to have plans as good as private ones. Taxpayers simply can’t afford for everyone to have a “Med-90” plan (the 90% coverage plan I used to have with Disney), which of course is what everyone would want. You could use the same argument with unemployment or welfare insurance: if the government ensured that everyone made at least $100,000 a year, who’s going to pay for all that, and if it was affordable, why would people ever work again? And with more government intervention in the medical process, you would end up trading one set of constraints with another: instead of money being the deciding factor in some medical decision, it could come down to a legal or political decision. We already have too many lawyers involved in medical decisions, and congress is made up mostly of lawyers.

I’ve been told that “pork is in the eye of the beholder.” Science and space spending tend to fall under this definition. I would say, however, that basic research and exploration are valid function of the American government, and have been since at least 1804. Once the basic research work is done by NACA/NASA, it should be transferred to the private sector, where competition, innovation, and economies of scale can be better brought to bear. Also, basic research—understanding the properties of the physical universe—has become a basic function of government since the decline in private foundations and the increase of government-funded research after World War II. Private-sector companies might or might not participate in basic research, but the understanding should be that basic facts about the universe should be known and free to all. What individuals choose to do with those facts once they’re known is the job of the private sector. This is not some whacko conservative notion, it’s in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

In other words, the U.S. Government has as part of its basic operating instructions to protect patents and copyrights for applied research, inventions, and ideas. It doesn’t say anywhere that the government is required to or responsible for paying for those inventions or ideas.

And I think you're wrong about your "litmus test." The ultimate test of a stimulus should be how much private sector activity is generated, not government activity. Jobs can always be found, but the private sector has always been more lucrative in this country. If a "stimulus" creates a bigger, more expensive government, more people beholden to the government for their livelihood, more long-term debt, more taxes down the road, and more intrusion into people's private or financial lives, the cost is too high.

Sorry this is so long, and I probably didn't answer all your comments, but I addressed as many as I could. I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for reading.