Conference 7.286::space

    The jobs created and spinoff _could_ be dramatic! 

    Sure, quite a few folks wouldn't be interested in "high-tech" work,
    but many would. The jobs they vacated would be filled by those
    who were interested and capable of filling them. A "ripple" effect
    would be generated.

    Growth is another factor. We haven't even BEGUN to do any _real_
    exploration of the Moon, let alone the rest of the Solar System.
    The technologies developed would ALSO be usable for oceanic exploration
    as well.

    Initially, a significant governmental investment would be needed.
    Scrap the d*mnd Graham-Rudman BS! The wailing and gnashing of teeth
    has _always_ been just the politicians' and economists' football!
    (after all, to whom is the "national debt" owed? It is owed to
    the people. The people DON'T need payback in dollars, they need
    payback in employment and visible national goals.)

    We are potentially on the verge of a new era. What was once called
    the Space Age is only the start. An "Age of Space Exploration"
    _could_ be about to begin, just as the "Age of Exploration" began
    after 1492.

    As a nation, though, we are becoming bound by fear-of-risk and
    hedonism. As long as the fear of failure is greater than the 
    desire to explore, our efforts are must fail. Each accident will
    be met with redoubled caution, until we reach the ultimate safety:
    that of not even trying.

    We are also afraid to spend. As long as the benefits of exploration
    are measured against a _monetary_ return we will suffer the same fate
    as our declining public school systems! We throw money at the
    problem rather than enthusiasm. We look at cost-per-student as a
    measurement rather than success-per-student. (How do you measure
    success? You set standards of what the SOCIETY wants and then HOLD
    to them...there will be problems, but at least you will have an
    identifiable goal.)

    The initial exploration of every era have always been by governmental
    auspices (as least as far as I have seen!) The later exploitation
    can be done by privatization. The initial stuff has to be government
    sanctioned and financed.

    Unfortunately, those of us who have the greatest enthusiasm for such
    things are commonly the ones farthest from the decision makers!

    Let's go for it! Stop counting beans and let's become goal-oriented
    rather than dollar oriented!

    John B.      

re .1
    
>    (after all, to whom is the "national debt" owed? It is owed to
>    the people. The people DON'T need payback in dollars, they need
>    payback in employment and visible national goals.)
    
    The "national debt" is owed to the people who have lent money to the
    government which is by no means "the people". Indeed that money is
    usually borrowed by the government through bonds etc. with specific
    repayment terms e.g. maturing on some date in the future and if I were
    a lender I would expect my money to be returned as agreed with
    interest. "The people" each have a share in the national debt and are
    the ones to suffer when interest charges eat up government spending or,
    god forbid, taxes rise to pay for it. Of course I agree with you that
    employment and national goals are important.
    
    Perhaps there is a more appropriate conference to debate the merits of
    Graham-Rudman.

    Re: .2

    You're right, there probably IS a better place to discuss
    Graham-Rudman! :)

    With the end of the "Cold War" we have a "reconversion" opportunity
    similar in some ways to the reconversion after WWII.

    We can reduce Defense spending, but in doing so many service members,
    DoD Civilians, and defense-financed workers will be out of work...
    and there were not enough private-sector positions to employ all
    the job seekers we had BEFORE the cuts. 

    Unless we replace (re-convert, if you will) those positions with
    others, unemployment can only rise...with a proportionate drop
    in the economy and in "intangibles" such as quality of life.
    ("Intangible" only to those NOT affected!)

    We have a great opportunity to:

    -- Increase employment
    -- Encourage academic excellence
    -- Stimulate a rapidly growing technology
    and certainly not least:
    -- Provide identifiable and exciting national (even international)
       goals!

    There are those more interested in dollars and "power" rather than
    accomplishment and knowledge. The problem is that to get into Congress
    you must wield dollars and "power." 

    John B. 

  Sorry, guys, there is no opportunity here. In fact you can NOT just go on
borrowing and borrowing forever. 

  As someone pointed out, it is not just "the people" who lent the money to the
U.S. Government. Much of it came from banks and many of those are foreign
banks. Even if the government doesn't pay back the loan, they have to pay the
interest on that loan every year and that interest is growing. 

  When we began this round of borrowing money back in 1980 (at the time it was
called "Reaganomics" or Borrow, Borrow, Borrow, Spend, Spend, Spend) the
interest on the National Debt (i.e. what the government paid in interest) was
fairly small. The borrowing, which created all the growth in the 80s, has left
us with so much debt that paying interest on that debt is now something like
12%-15% of the national budget.

  When Reaganomics began, interest on the debt was buried in the 4% worth of
"other" on most budget pie charts but now it is the 4th largest item on the
Budget after Social Security, Entitlements, and Defense. If we continue to
borrow that interest will only go up. If we don't pay it, we will lose our
credit rating and we won't be able to borrow any more anyway. 

  When you consider that Defense spending is something like 25% of the budget
you can see that cutting it back by 1/4 to 1/3 will only free up 8% of the
total budget. Figure about half for reducing the deficit and there is not
a whole lot left to go around.

  Also a big problem hanging over everyone's head is the increasing cost of
medical care. Right now medical care in the U.S. is something like 10% of the
GNP and people are calling for national health insurance to increase that by as
much as 5%. Keep in mind that the GNP is about 3 times the budget so an
increase of 5% GNP going to medical care translates to an increase of 15% of
the budget if the Federal Government decides to pick up the tab. 

  So to summarize:

  Defense cut backs	3%-8%
  Amount needed to
   reduce Deficit	4%-12%
  Amount needed to
   fund Health		5%-15%

  And we haven't even started talking about programs being proposed to rebuild
industry, rebuild roads and bridges (i.e. the Boston Harbor Tunnel) etc.

  It's nice to dream, but the money just isn't there. The only way the U.S.
could raise the money is through increased taxes and that is not very likely.
NASA will have to scrape for what ever it can get just as it has been doing for
the last few decades. 

  George

    George, you are 90% right on the money.
    
    There is just, in my opinion, one thing you are missing.  Yes, it is
    true, most of the defense cutbacks should go into reduction of the
    annual deficit.  This nation, however, BADLY needs civilian investment,
    be it in space, fiber optics, biotech, ai, whatever.  Without
    investment to make the economy grow, you will never be able to pay off
    the debt.  The answer is to put strategies in place that lead to 5% or
    so per year growth, with growth at that level, we will be able to make
    interest payments, as a percent of the budget decrease.  And I don't
    believe we can get to that kind of growth in a lassie-faire
    environment, it will require leadership.
    
    Tony

  I agree. One problem with defense and space research is that there is no 2nd
order growth as a result of the spending. By that I mean that if you spend
money on defense or space, it causes growth, but what you produce does not
produce anything in return. Same with spending in the medical area. 

  However if we spent on our basic industries that provide capital and
consumer goods making them more efficient, then we might be able to have a
positive trade balance with other nations. That would make companies more
profitable which would increase the tax base closing the deficit and allowing
more money for space research, defense, medical spending and the rest. 

  George 

>One problem with defense and space research is that there is no 2nd
>order growth as a result of the spending. By that I mean that if you spend
>money on defense or space, it causes growth, but what you produce does not
>produce anything in return. Same with spending in the medical area. 

I wouldn't say that it produces *no* 2nd-order growth, but it is terribly
disproportionate to the amount invested.   [Then again, the "spinoffs", etc.
that I'm thinking of might not be considered 2nd-order.]


- dave

    George,
    
    re:  Second order growth 
    
    I agree with the concept.  I disagree with your application of it to
    space and medicine.
    
    Military, its clear.  You build an aircraft carrier, it does nothing
    but sail and 'show the flag', zero economic return.  Build a subway
    system and it continues to provide an economic return.
    
    For space, the second order growth would be caused by things like
    communications satelites and new space based communications concepts
    (Irridium comes to mind), admittedly not as large as for other, more
    mundane investments.  I agree there is no second order growth to be
    found from the space station for decades, at least.  (now maybe the
    NASP would have a closer payoff ...., in commercial hypersonic
    transports before the turn of the century.)
    
    For the medical area, I cannot disagree more.  The cost of say a MRI is
    front loaded and continues to have returns, much like the hypothetical
    subway system mentioned earlier.  Most of the cost for these new, high
    tech detection systems is capital cost.  The return is in the form of
    better diagnosis and hopefully treatment, leading to lower cost
    medical care.
    
    Investment in biotech could lead to new drugs that prevent disease or
    cure it at far lower cost, providing a TREMENDOUSLY positive second
    order 'savings', if you don't want to call it growth, but virtually the
    same as growth, to your and my pocketbook.  
    
    Tony
                                                

  Tony, 

  I agree that communications satellites are wonderful benefits, but they are
hardly space research. They are an old concept. Space research would involve a
lunar base, going to Mars, space colonies, etc. While I'm all for these things,
their main short term benefit is in the area of advancing human knowledge. The
short term return on investment is hard to justify. 

  As for the medical area, I agree there is a wonderful benefit if we invest
there because it enables us to increase the average standard of medical care
for our citizens. But remember under the old system, if you got a disease the
standard applied would be "unless you are rich or have health insurance, it's
time to die". Or, "If you have a complex disease, it's time to die". Most of
the new spending is aimed at insuring more people and curing diseases that use
to kill people, not at lowering cost to those already insured and curable. 

  Increasing man's knowledge by going where "we've never gone before" is a 1st
order benefit. Bringing back the rare earth elements for practical use is the
2nd order benefit but that's a long way off. Curing disease in the uninsured
and curing what was incurable is a 1st order benefit as well. And while I'm all
for it and as the "boomers" go through middle age more people are for it, this
hardly results in a 2nd order benefit. 

  Conversely, if you find a way to double the production of steel with half the
effort and cost, that's something which produces a 2nd order benefit, lots of
cheap steel. Finding a way to double the production of computer chips at half
the cost results in another 2nd order benefit, lots of cheap computer chips.
If you can then sell the steel or chips abroad and make a profit, you increase
the tax base, and have money to balance the budget and invest in those projects
that don't have a 2nd order benefit like space research and medicine. 

  George 

re .4
    
>Much of it came from banks and many of those are foreign banks.
    
    That was what I forgot to say. Most economies nowadays have a
    substantial amount of foreign investment. Decisions a country makes
    about managing its own economy will be noted by those investors and
    there can be consequent effects on exchange rates (and hence the price
    of imported and exported goods) and/or interest rates (and hence the
    cost to business to expand). Foreign investors may well care much more
    for a well run economy with predictable returns than for national
    goals.
    
>If we continue to borrow that interest will only go up. If we don't pay it, we
>will lose our credit rating and we won't be able to borrow any more anyway. 
    
    Initially if your credit rating is downgraded it just means that your
    interest rates go up (because you are considered a higher risk). This
    means that your interest payments increase even if you don't borrow any
    more.

re .5
    
>And I don't believe we can get to that kind of growth in a laissez-faire
>environment, it will require leadership.
    
    Many economists would agree with you. The government can however
    encourage investment and savings through fiscal (i.e. taxation) policy
    without needing to intervene directly by making the investing itself.
    
P.S. The US is not alone in budget woes. The Australian government budget
deficit this year will be about the same as that of the US, as a percentage 
of GNP.

    
    Just cutting the defence budget has second order effects, normally,
    all the resources tied up on non-economic defence goods & services.
    Can now be re-directed to economic goods & services, thus raising
    everyone's standart of living.
    
    The thing for the governament to do, is to no only cut the defence
    budget, but tru whatever measures help the freed industries make
    the change over as fast as possible. Otherwise there is going to be
    a period of unemployment for those people and capital resources.
    
    I for one don't think that it is a coincidence that 2 of the world's
    better economies grew into being after their countries cut almost
    all military spending (that is Germany and Japan after World War II). 
    And in the other side, the USSR went bankrupt, due in large part to
    its huge military spending.
    
    Does the USA realy need to spend 30% of its budget and 10% og its
    GNP on military spending. Do we need a 2 million standing army on
    time of peace. Me I would like to see the military budget cut to
    25% of todays, and the army reduced to 1/2 million people. It would
    do wonder's for the economy.
    
    Gil

    re: -1

    "...I would like to see the military budget cut to
    25% of todays, and the army reduced to 1/2 million people. It would
    do wonder's for the economy."

    ...perhaps not. Increasing the unemployed by 1.5 million from the Army
    (you'll have to cut similarly from the Air Force and Navy (includes
    Marines), too, would likely have a rather negative effect. (!!!)

    Also, remember that the "civilian" workforce considers most military
    to be "unskilled." ("Oh...I see on your resume that you spent 6 years
    as an Artilleryman...well, we don't have any positions right now for
    being able to launch a projectile 15 miles...")  I know. I've been
    there. Military experience transfers fairly well into Defense
    contracting, but that's cut, too. 

    Consider also that decimation of the military will also decimate the
    DoD Civilian workforce (WG and GS positions, especially). The DoD is
    the world's LARGEST employer! Frustrating, but true. 

    With a government-sponsored and directed space program, much "military"
    might be transferred to space program support. Building and securing
    new launch facilities, transportation, etc. Creating upwards of 1.5 
    million unemployed, most of whom will not be able to get a job with
    equivalent salary or benefits, will only worsen the problem. 

    If we continue to view the government as the "bad guy" and to fear 
    government support and direction of the initial space programs (at
    least until we get viable "colonies" on the Moon and Mars) our
    space efforts will be the laughing stock of future historians.
    We just won't go anywhere.

    The best way to provide for the welfare of the nation is to provide
    meaningful work and real, interesting goals. Space is it.

    Just my opinions...

    John B.
     

    re: -1
    
    Actually, -1 and -2 are talking about 2 different things.
    
    SHORT TERM consequences of reducing military spending are severe.
    
    LONG TERM befefits are just as enormous.
    
    Tony

    re .11
    
    >I for one don't think that it is a coincidence that 2 of the world's
    >better economies grew into being after their countries cut almost
    >all military spending (that is Germany and Japan after World War II). 
    
    It would appear that one of the more productive things you can do to a
    country is to seriously restrict it's military spending to self
    defense only. Of course for this to happen there has to be some
    external power to make it happen, and that is usually some other
    country(ies) massively overspending on military.
    
    gary

    Yeah. the Conversion method used by Japan to successfully move away
    from defense spending was carpet bombing. Afte that, the carpet bombers
    did all the defending Japan required so she was free to rebuild other
    industries.
    
     We must work out a transition.

    Re .-1 & .2
    
    All kidding aside, YES we must work on a transition. To begin with
    I think that the USA  doesn't need 2 million people and 1/3 of the
    budget to defend itself.
    
    1/2 a million people and around 7.5 % of the budget seems adequate
    to me. The biggest justification for the current state of affairs,
    the "Cold War" is over.   And I can't help but smile when I hear
    generals and other people state that the USA needs just as big an
    army to take care of regional conflicts... 
    
    A better way would be to trust an outside force to defend us, but that
    doesn't look likelly for a long while. Maybe in 30 or 40 years Several 
    countries will get together and pay for an unified army together, or 
    better yet all countries get together (i.e. the UN). Reducing by a big
    BIG fraction the cost for each.
    
    When that happens, the economies of the countries involved will go
    tru the roof. And will allow then to spend a bigger fraction of their
    income on such long term ventures as SPACE EXPLORATION.
    
    Gil

  Again there is a problem with numbers. Right now defense spending is about
24%. It's been a while but the last pie chart I saw for federal spending went
something like:

  Defense		24%
  Entitlements		24%
  Social Security 	24%
  Interest Payments	20%
  Other			08%

  With the Deficit in excess of 10%, you would have to cut Defense back under
14% before there was any left to give away. No proposal from either the White
House or either house of Congress shows a cut that big. And as others have
pointed out, any cut that big would cause so much unemployment that
Entitlements would go up (Unemployment Insurance). 

  Add to that the growing call for increases in spending in medical areas and
it's hard to imagine that there is any peace dividend available. 

  George 

    Re .-1
    
    >Entitlements would go up (Unemployment Insurance).
    >  Add to that the growing call for increases in spending in medical
    >areas and
    >it's hard to imagine that there is any peace dividend available.
    
    You mean it makes no difference if you spend 24% of the budget on
    defence or not... Hum ... could you please give to me 1 out of every
    4 dollars that you earn. I mean, if it makes no difference... (-;
    
    And please note that armed force reduction will not should not all
    happen in a day. To span it out over 3 or 4 years seems reasonable.
    With the governament doing its best to get all those people and
    industries re-employed in the private economy ASAP. (i.e. tax breaks,
    re-education, relocation, etc)
    
    Gil

  The problem is this: 

  Today, the Federal Government is spending more than it takes in by about 10%.
The money is made up with new borrowing. This is a retreat from Graham Rudman
Hollings and is being done to try to rescue the economy for this year only.

  One thing the Democrats and Republicans have in common is that they like to
look good in an election year. Both sides have promised to address deficit
reduction next year. That's because they can't borrow forever and if they have
to stop borrowing, which will cause a worse recession, they would rather do it
when there are no election.

  If you reduce defense spending by 10% and keep borrowing, obviously you have
10% to spend on something else. However if you follow the plan that is being
promised and reduce defense spending by 10% but reduce the deficit and raise
medical spending, then there is no money left.

  Reducing two things by 7% each (deficit and defense), and raising something
else by 7%% (medical), and then raising NASA's budget by something will not
work. That's Voo-Doo Economics. In the '80s, they did that sort of thing by
borrowing billions of dollars a year. The result is that we now have enormous
interest payment to make each year. We can't afford to keep doing that so
Voo-Doo economics will no longer work.

  George

    
    Re: .19
    
    >  Today, the Federal Government is spending more than it takes in by
    >about 10%.
    
    	Only 10%?  The deficit this year will be in the $250-300 Billion
    range and, if I remember correctly, the total government budget is
    around $1.4 Trillion.  That puts the deficit at around 20%.
    
    							-craig

  I was being conservative in my estimate. If it is really 20% that just
doubles the problem I was trying to describe.

  George