Everyone wants more jobs in their district so that they can get reelected, but nobody can figure out how to create these jobs in every district. So they just talk, argue, posture and politic and, well, that's about it.

I guess these people have not played /watched the movie Dead Space

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Once it becomes economically advantageous to mine the moon, someone will finance it.

That is the point. Go back to the 1950's. Kennedy motivates the country to gear for a moon trip. For what? Money? Obv not, but why? Answer that question, and you will start to understand all of this. No private company would ever try to go to the moon, because there would be no way to realize profit. And you know, private capital pursues profit ONLY. Besides, what private company could come up with $20 billion in the 60's?

Only a nation-state could fund such a project, and fortunately we had real leadership in that time period.

So now that your government has financed the learning process of out how to get to the moon, and how to keep people alive on the moon, and how to dig on the surface of the moon, you think it is ok to let private companies stake claim to the moon? Nice.

 

Originally Posted by Milo

Try googling Beal Aerospace, dumbass. After that try doing a little more research into how NASA operates, and the "protection" it gets from the US government.

You give an example of a company that was started 28 YEARS after we landed on the moon, using technology learned from the initial quest, that disbanded after only 3 years in operation, and accomplished nothing. Ummmm, elaborate?

And you are sorely mistaken about how NASA operates. They develop tech, then make it freely available for commercialization and industry, with obvious benefits to the welfare of US (and world) citizenry. Check out the NASA spinoff web page here:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/index.html

Thousands of examples of NASA tech improving our lives. And you want to spew anti NASA propaganda?

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I see. So any industry that government subsidizes in any way at any time should be forbidden to private industry because they are "going on the backs" of government effort. Yes! I want private industry in this and you still haven't convinced me that the money spent in the "60's and '70's by NASA was a net good for humanity. How do you know that money wouldn't have funded a cure for cancer? Just because government subsidized something in the past does not mean we should never let private industry into that market. Don't want private industry "piggy backing" on taxpayer funded science and technology? Stop subsidizing it.

The American System, in a nutshell: Develop infrastructure and foster atmosphere of creativity so the minds of the population can develop the economy and improve life for our citizens.

Of course private industry should have access to NASA tech. It is freely available. Again, check out the NASA spinoff page. The entire purpose of NASA, is to make tech available to the people.

My issue with your statements, is that you give no credit to the role of government, and all credit to this "glorious" private money that, in your opinion, does so much good. Should we let private money utilize NASA discoveries? Absolutely and obviously. Should we let private corporations stake claim to the moon? Hell fkng no.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Oh. And the "why" as to why we went to the moon. It was to beat the Ruskies there so we could "win" something in the space race since they got the first satellite up. It was cold war spending at its finest.



You ignore the "unseen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable..._broken_window

For somebody with as much animosity towards the fed as you claim, you are surprisingly uneducated about the presidency of JFK. This incredible president was following in the footsteps of many great men, and was developing the economy. The moon flight was, first and foremost, an economic endeavor. Not in the sense of turning a profit, but of developing the economy and allowing human creativity to flourish.

As for hazlitt's rehashing of bastiats parable, I have a couple of comments. First, this is one of the few "true" parables that hazlitt deals with. War and destruction suck, and literally suck the life out of an economy. But how can you apply that parable here? Mobilizing the country for a task of discovery and enlightenment is a tad bit different than mobilizing a country to destroy something.

And it would do you well to reread economics in one simple lesson, and this time think a bit more critically. He presents many truths early on, and apparently lulled you into blind acceptance of his idiotic theories that are not only incorrect but quite dangerous to an intelligent mind such as yours.

 

Originally Posted by hrk

Without public credit issued by our government, there is zero chance we would have made it to the moon by now. Zero.

Absolute truth, imveo.

Glad to see Dyz pulling a page out of religion's can't-prove-the-unprovable playbook -- "you can't prove the invisible hand wouldn't have put people on the moon!"

2 things.

#1:

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

"Absolute opinion" is more like it.

 

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon in literally the post you quoted

imveo

and #2:

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

You can't obviously because there is no science that tells you what would have been done in the absence of taxpayer funding of NASA.

 

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon in literally the post you quoted

Glad to see Dyz pulling a page out of religion's can't-prove-the-unprovable playbook -- "you can't prove the invisible hand wouldn't have put people on the moon!"

welp.

 

Originally Posted by rayspizza

Solid reference and in a very rare instance I'm going to back DZA over RS on this subject. The evidence just simply there. Sure we can perform and ad hoc speculation, but a true empiricist can only come up with th ethe conclusion that there is insufficent evidence to support the claim

It's just completely 1000% ignoring reality and what it took to get to the moon in the first place. There's 0% chance we would have gone to the moon if not for massive government investment. We STILL haven't gone to the moon even 40+ years after getting there. Hell, don't even trust me if you don't want to. Ask any other expert in the aerospace industry.

But like I said, no one can overcome the can't-prove-the-unprovable argument, so I'll let dyz live in fantasy land because there's no way to convince him otherwise.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Right. So I'm supposed to ignore the "absolute truth" part and focus on the relatively obscure internet acronym that I haven't seen before. Whatever. Just know that when you give an opinion on a subject like this on this site, a certain percentage of people will just accept it as gospel without caring about any investigation on their part due to the "credentials" you have accrued here. Power corrupts sir. I advise you to tread carefully if you wish to wish to appear non-partisan and factual on subjects such as this.

lol. Like I said time and time again, there's no going back and undoing what was done, so no matter what I say, you'll always say "invisible hand! we don't know!"

I don't need to tread carefully about anything. If people want to write me off, that's fine. However, I think I have a certain amount of knowledge about the subject, and In My Very Educated Opinion, there is 0% chance we would have sent a person to the moon without massive government investment. You can choose to believe it or not, I'm not going to be upset if you continue thinking something magical could have happened. Just realize that about every single expert in the field will disagree with you.

good thing I wasn't talking about any of those things.

And I want to play the "you don't know game" as well. There's a good chance we never would have come up with plastic, or healthcare advancements, or network/satellite investments or astronaut ice cream, and we would all still be driving iron cars, and have lower life spans, and not have iphones or gps or pocketfives, and would never wonder what the hell astronaut ice cream is. Sad times.

Conjecture is so fun.

 

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon

good thing I wasn't talking about any of those things.

And I want to play the "you don't know game" as well. There's a good chance we never would have come up with plastic, or healthcare advancements, or network/satellite investments or astronaut ice cream, and we would all still be driving iron cars, and have lower life spans, and not have iphones or gps or pocketfives, and would never wonder what the hell astronaut ice cream is. Sad times.

Conjecture is so fun.

Yeah. Instead we might have cold fusion. A world wide anti-nuclear laser system in place. World peace. Unbridled commerce and rapid progress. Yeah. Sure. We can just conjecture. Don't assume though that we went "the best" way just because some good came out of the way we went. How do you know all those things you mention wouldn't have been accomplished by exploring the deep oceans instead of space? Maybe even better things since we'd be finding more new species in the oceans and different kinds of life than we have in space.

 

Originally Posted by saxman

Dyz - if we can agree that private enterprise invests its money to achieve an ROI within a reasonable time period ... then we look at government investments such as NASA and space exploration (specifically the moon landing in this case). Do you honestly believe a private venture would risk billions of dollars on an unknown return, over an unknown time frame? The only reason private enterprise is now considering space exploration and perhaps mining the moon is because the technology has already been developed and proven thereby minimizing the risk. The heavy lifting has already been done thanks to government investment and the positive spin offs from that work have been numerous.

Are not energy companies investing money on some pretty long ROI time frames? I don't agree that it was impossible. I agree that it was unlikely because there were doubtless many other options to invest in that would bring good things to people quicker and more efficiently than going to space did. Yes. If your argument is that we had to force investment in one area because it was too inefficient for private markets to do it then I agree. It doesn't mean that it had better outcomes than other options.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Yeah. Instead we might have cold fusion. A world wide anti-nuclear laser system in place. World peace.

Or death and world war!!

 

Originally Posted by Diggity D

goddamn that was such a good movie, gonna watch that one tonight again. best sci fi movie i've seen in a looooooooong time