You are not logged in.
No, what I mean is there is too much hatred and fundamental issues for it to be a legitimate world government at this point.
This is all nice theory, but it isnt based on any economic fact!
The dot com fiasco, as I have said, is a perfect example of why capitalism works! Why should a prodcut with no demand be successful?
And if that person sits back and thinks they have everything, someone will get more, and they will lag behind!
This isn't a successful argument, because it is not logical. What could be more democratic than people choosing which companies live and die by their needs? Or would we rather have a communism with 3 choices for each good? No, that is undemocratic. When resources are shoved down people's throats, its undemocratic.
Well, I have to disagree with you on your technology comment. Why, certainly apollo was innovative? 1969 is less than fifty years ago. The computer was innovative. The Internet was innovative. Technology builds on technology: if you dont consider this innovation, then innovation never occurred in history!
Let me list a few:
1) Computers
2)Internet
3)Bioengineering of materials
4) Robots
5) Nanotech
6) satellite
7) fusion (yes, i would consider it discovered, because we are ever closer to the break-even point)
8) Unmanned aircraft
9) All kinds of new medical techniques
10) Im too tired
Oh, and countries like Guatemala are a perfect example of why proper regulation is necessary. With a corrupt government, no system will work! I can point to a number of corrupt states that aren't capitalist. It is all in the application!
ah, yes, we should allow people to pick their nose all day: "Im being productive, what do you want?" This is one of the reasons pure communism or socialism would probably fail.
no, the cable is thickest at the center, i believe. not at GEO, which is where the counterweight is.
initial R&D could be done by a NASA think tank, and then the contracts sold to anyone who best combines the cost and application of the concepts.
Roark, look up just one post
alexander, take an economics class.
We have a legal system. You see, everyone from Ken Lay to Joe Shmo on the assembly line is subject to the law. So your whole "the elites control everything" is crap.
Second, we have supply and demand. The company that provides the best combination of the product and marketing mix gets ahead. This spurs competition. What is wrong with clever entrepreneurs getting their due reward? Nothing.
If a company's product isnt liked, the company dies.
Then we have another layer of competition. The workers will go where they feel most appreciated, paid, and loved. If they don't like a company, they can quit and find somewhere else, and not necessarily in that order. Wealthier people are taxed more than poor people.
Everybody has to work at his own job. A wage worker is in that position because he isnt as skilled as the CEO at his job. Would you rather less intelligent people run companies?
Servitiude is slavery. When you get paid, 40 hour work weeks, with weeks of vacation, healthcare and insurance benefits, this isnt servitude. Stalinism is servitude.
Wow, if I had more time before I had to go, I would have a lot of fun with this post. It is utter rubbish!
Eh, as of this point, the UN represents countries that are so vastly different that to call them a world government wouldnt be a good representation of reality. Maybe in 50-100 years, as our global economy assimilates countries and economies into a contiguous entity, but certainly not now.
A lot has to happen before that time comes.
Hamarkhis, interplanetary distances are analogous to oceans. Sure, there will be disputes on planets, but it will be far more difficult to invade a separate planet.
Earth is populated by 5+ billion people. Yet i still have my freedom!
If the reactor is off, even with uranium on board, as someone at NASA said, its about as dangerous "as a pile of dirt."
I don't recall a nuclear submarine blowing up in the past 50 years, so why should we expect a nuclear spacecraft to blow up anytime soon either?
I'm not being revisionist. Yahoo and Amazon each had a few thousand people working for them. Grumman near me had 35,000 people working for them before they shut down. A few thousand people is nothing.
Obiously, without demand, you wont get anywhere! That's the whole point of economics, and capitalism! You can't sell something people either don't want or don't want to pay for!
So they only show it when it suits them. Ah, I see, that makes them more credible! Wait, but isnt that what Fox does? With a name like fair, you'd think that they held themselves above those types of practices.
No-the dot com boom was predicated on selling nothing. Economics is based on labor, supply and demand. Except there was no real labor, no real supply, and thus, no real demand. They were selling nothing! Yahoo is a good example-there was nothing besides a search engine and ads.
People found a bubble that they could get investments in, and then found out that their plans had no substance! They weren't providing a real, tangible service. Whereas Amazon.com did, and they are successful for it, companies expected to get money for selling nothing.
I would go with 3. The chances of a nuclear accident from the space program are virtually nill. NASA will be forced to adhere to the strictest safety policies to quell any opposition, and they know a single accident on the spacecraft would trigger huge reaction. So I wouldnt bet on a nuclear space-related accident.
and if you could jettison the wastes towards the Sun once in orbit, prior to reentry, then wouldnt you solve the waste problem?
not for an SSTO, my idea is to lift off using the nuclear rocket, orbit, and shut the reactor down before reentry. There is minimal chance of meltdown in the launch phase, which is a few minutes, and the exhaust is clean. Once you shut it down for reentry, any chance of catastrophic nuclear accident is mitigated.
Robert, what about my booster questions?
Do you need large boosters for a small NTR that is about the mass of the shuttle orbiter? How much would the mass be? And would they have to be expendable, or could they be built into the design?
Yes, but I don't see any semblance of a balance on "fair.org" Therefore, it shows a bias. There are certainly good things to report on our government, and there are valid points in the argument for war on iraq. Do we see them? No.
Of course, you'll just say that it is all just hogwash, which shows a bias against it. It is all opinions, and to have an opinion in either direction is bias. They may very well report the facts, but presentation means everything.
Not necessarily. Because every entrpreneur can start a business, that creates jobs for other people, who can advance to start their own business, and so on. There are so many job opportunities in this country, aside from the recession, that I think everyone could get ahead, or at least to what is deemed as "middle class" living standards.
But I've said before, that unless you constantly redistribute resources, a more innovative person will always make better resources than his neighbor, leading to an inequality. Capitalism works on these traits, and the differences in humans inherent in the species, which is why it revolutionized society to an extent, and was heralded as the beginning of economics (smith himself is called the "father of economics).
I think I mentioned earlier that a company that builds the vehicle can then sell it to NASA or other space organizations. With protective patents of course, to ensure it isnt stolen.
If I were to build it, i would refuse to sell it to anything but a global space agency, combining the ESA, JSA, Russian Space Agency, and NASA.
Advertising on the spaceships is something I mentioned as well, and selling the rights to equipment (i.e. IBM wants their computers, they have to pay to have exclusive space). Long term contracts are a bad thing, because they discourage innovation, and reduce competition. I would make 1-2 mission contracts, and maybe 3-5 mission contracts for things like hardware.
You know, you can get about a dozen coffee varieties at your local Mobil, and they are quite good. 7-11 has 3 or 4 coffees available. Just for example's sake.
And there are always areas where the corporate entities won't touch, because the markets are too small. If you go to smaller communities, you still have those smaller shops, and this is where the chance for new, innovative companies is.
An intelligent person can get ahead, if he makes the right choices. Bill Gates is an example, although his methods were shady, to put it lightly. Getting ahead doesn't mean getting rich. A poor black person from the slums has an opportunity to move to a better neighborhood through hard work. It isn't easy, I grant you that, but it is possible.
Our education budget isn't very useful. Education is a conundrum, because of population differences and concentrations. New York is a good example. The city should be getting more education funding, but our governor is more of an upstate-man. So, with heavy population density, the funding, which may exceed the upstate funding, is insufficient. And then you have to manage those resources.
Education is also a difficult thing, because you don't want a static learning environment. You always have different teaching styles, which you want, but also leads to differences in education quality. So education, almost more than anything else, is a tremendously fragile system of humans and resources.
...ok josh, ok.
Meh, I was talking in a theoretical sense. I'm not saying anyone should be doing it. My true idea would be a single planetary republic, with the countries or regions as provinces. They get their own government, and country governments, and so on.
Capitalism responds to the whims of the people. If people wanted a smaller coffee shop, if enough people, then it would exist. Starbucks makes good coffee. At reasonable prices.
Nike began with a track&field coach selling shoes out of his trunk. Many of the largest coporations began as tiny peddling operations like that.
Checks and balances are provided by a legal system. If you take anything at its purest form, it probably wont work. Thats why you add assisting elements to the mix. Obviously there is some regulation. I don't think Adam Smith suggested otherwise. In fact, I believe he supported a certain degree of govenment regulation. Capitalism requires it.
In capitalism, a motivated, clever individual can find ways to morally and legally acquire resources. Is that wrong? No. Just because the wealth gap is great doesn't mean that this is indicative of a problem. Raising the minimum wage too much will hurt the economy, in a sense, because countries like Indonesia will produce goods for less. An economic system has to take into account its global climate. The answer to low wages is better public education, because with it, people can be more productive, and thus earn more wages.
Look, no system is perfect, but I like capitalism because it does conform to the market. Government bureaucracy has bloated some of our economy, but this is not the fault of capitalism.
Non-profit doesnt mean unbiased. Look, I'm no conservative republican. I'm no bleeding heart either. I usually go straight down the middle. My choice for news: New York Times. And BBC.
I tend to be a little wary of these "independent" online sites, in either direction.
The whole fox thing was the point: in my view, theyre foils. One shows whats wrong with the government, one shows only the "good."