Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

BWhite · 2004-10-14 12:45:15

PS - The Chicago Tribune reports NASA has hired a professioanl storyteller. Some guy from Evanston IL.
They are paying him $25,000 per year.
*Can you please link to the article? Storyteller in what capacity, precisely?
--Cindy

Print edition, sorry. Actually I am holding the paper right now, but that doesn't help much I guess.

The on-line Tribune requires registration (am I not registered with them) but it was on the front page lower left corner on October 11th.

Maybe we can will try google for Syd Lieberman.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-14 13:35:58

"Don't forget that it was this process that rebuilt America that had gone into a depression and brought us out of that depression..."

Gotta agree with Cobra Commander here, that FDR didn't exactly walk on water economically speaking... Infact, some economists believe his quasisocialist policies may have extended the Great Depression, not eased it. The government "making" money by printing it on paper or extremely long term cheap loans both contribute to inflation and can damage the economy. It doesn't matter what form the money comes in, like "free credit," as long as the Gov't gives out much more money then it takes in there is a good chance you will actually harm the economy.

Government investment with "free money" in private business can stimulate economic activity and make up for the investment in taxes, but only to a point I think, and the trillion-dollar project it would be to build a city in space without a good reason amounts to nothing little more then an aerospace welfare bonanza.

BWhite · 2004-10-14 16:03:11

Quotes from the Aldridge Commission report and testimony:

They were blunt concerning the importance of the “entertainment” industry for successful implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration. Quoting from its final report:

[T]he Commission believes that a new model is needed to expand the role of space exploration in our culture. Working together, the White House, NASA, industry, and professional organizations can forge a new model for public engagement built on grass roots support. Such support requires sustainable, systematic, effective marketing and communications programs, employs professionals who are trained in the art and science of communication, and uses new and even novel means for communicating with the public about space.
. . .
The marketing and communication involved in keeping people informed about and engaged in space exploration cannot be a part-time or stop-and-start endeavor. Contemporary story-telling techniques should be used to persuade people to make an investment in the space frontier. Robust marketing, advertisement and recruiting campaigns that attract and hold the attention of the American public should be created and implemented.

During the San Francisco testimony (April 2004) the panel was concerned with how such media professionals might be engaged to perform this function. Commission member Robert Walker asked a pointed question to John Bernardoni on this topic:

“My question to you is: How does the entertainment industry allow us to get that connection? Because if we rely simply on the fact that we are doing good things, and that there is a great opportunity here, we won’t get there. Somehow we have to establish that connection. And I think it’s a belief of at least some of us here that entertainment may give us the opportunity to establish that connection that then will allow us to have the sustainability.”

Bernardoni answered as follows:

“Well, you’re right. People only line up behind a program, whatever it is, for a long period of time for two reasons: They either get money, or there is something compelling about it that keeps them attached.”

Unless we reject this aspect of the Aldridge Commission report <cheap political shot> and the Bushies love to "cherry pick" from reports </cheap political shot> we need to hire storytellers.

NASA can either pay them from its budget (at taxpayer expense) =OR= we can ask America's storytellers to pay NASA for the right to sell the story of space to the American people.

That was the point of my mentioning the fellow from Evanston. $25,000 per year is a tiny drop in the torrent of media money that flows through our culture.

= = =

If people disagree, please specify whether you disagree with me or the Aldridge Commission, or both. :;):

Read the first quote carefully. I like this part:

Robust marketing, advertisement and recruiting campaigns that attract and hold the attention of the American public should be created and implemented.

These are not Bill White's words. These words were written by the Aldridge Commission.

Grypd · 2004-10-14 16:36:24

The United States like most western countries has an aging population (so called baby boomers) which has a poor personal pension situation and will need goverment to supply finances to combat poverty as they hit retirement. What the United States also has is a federal budget that has no ability to meet its real ends and is spiralling into a major defecit situation. No political party can afford the fallout of doing what has to be done to sort this by the raiseing of taxes by substantial amounts like a dollar a gallon of fuel etc that would provide finances to sort this problem.

Frankly for us to expect the sustained spending from goverment that is needed to do the Bush plan is ridiculous under the current political climate. Unless we can prove that it is in the United States financial interest the current Bush plan will go the way of the 90 day report, branded a financial impossible. With the pressure on all goverment spending that NASA will be under then it is likely that NASA will be a much reduced entity in the future unless it can make the American people believe it is an essential program.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-14 17:08:41

...Don't forget that it was this process that rebuilt America that had gone into a depression and brought us out of that depression an industrial power second to none in the world.
In conjunction with World War II and its aftermath, making the US the major industrial power on Earth because everyone else was in ruins. That's the balance to FDR's schemes, which on their own would not have ended the Depression. Nothing is free, eventually everything has to be paid for, even if indirectly.
I'm not arguing that government can't use some financial shenanigans, merely that that's what they are. Government generated credit isn't creating something for nothing, it isn't just free money to do good things. Mars colonisation will cost billions upon billions of dollars, there's no way around that. It has to come from somewhere.

Look we want to build some physical item like a dam or a space station or a city on the Moon or a super train system or what ever else we want to build.

You basically have only two ways to finance it by one being private funding and the other public funding.

You go through private financing which is more concerned with making money and the infrastructure take second place even if it needed to make society function. It takes twenty years to build these infrastructural projects and it has a usefull life of another thirty or forty years after that. Now within this private funding we have two ways to fund it and both ways require a return on investment or they won't choose to invest in the venture. These are the bankers and the investers and they play a part in society, but there interest are primarally self-interest. No banker nor private investor will volintarally cancel debt or wright stuff off loans on a continual bases. They just won't do it. Here what they will demand:

Banker will want the money loaned and maybe 5% interest on the loan. Let say we need the money for thirty years to build what ever we are building in space to build and start recieving a pay back on it. Let say we have to borrow ten billion dollars to build what ever we are going to build. The rule of 72 give us the pay back price in thirty years. We divide the interest by 72 and it will tell what it will be with simple interest. So 72 divided by 5% interest is 14.5 years that we would have to pay twenty billion dollars or just over thirty billion dollars in thirty billion dollars in thirty years.

Most investor want between 7% to 15% interest per year to invest. Now there might be a few small investors like you and me who might take less or even make a donation, but we are the exception. Or maybe there might be a benifactore who has million of dollars like the one that came along for the space ship one developement project, but those are exception and not the rule. But, to get the big serious investor in on a consistant bases and get them to put there money down or invest, there going to have to be a consistant posible return on his investment of 7% to 15% interest. Beside the ten billion dollars that they are going to invest, they will be expection between $40 to $70 billion dollars.

Now let go to government generated credit that the government is creating. This credit is not being generated for the purpose of making someone whealth, but for the purpose of building needed infrastructure and generating business activity in the physical economy. Since the Federal Government generated it, they make rules on how it going to be use and what happens to it. They choose to charge 0% or up to 2% interest if they choose to. They can deffer interest payments for thirty years and have absolutly interest paid on the amount that was borrowed and then charge 2% interest after that. Or they could sell it off to private bank and let them collect the 2% or 3% interest that going to be charged or off load it to lunar bank that was setup over the last thirty years as a result of U.S. Federal investment in the moon project. Or the U.S. Government could do what Alexader Hamilton did meny times and creat self-exstinguinshing debt. Beside, by this time, the U.S. Government has already got there money several times over. When the U.S. Government does this type of investing, they get an emidiate return to the U.S. Economy of three to four times, because that how meny times the new money rolls over after it been generated. If the Apollo mission is any example, it could roll over another 14 times in technological spin off and new business activities of invention and such. Oh, yes after only thirty years, we could still only owe 10 billion dollars and not that thirty or forty or seventy billion dollars if we had choosen to go through a private institution. It beat having to pay 20 to 60 billion more in interest charges.

Because of these kinds of benifits to the U.S. Economy, the United States should engage in such massive infrastructural building project both down here and in space.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-14 17:54:55

I understand what you're saying, you've explained in detail on many occasions. What I'm saying is that if you break this down, no semi-supportive historical comparisons or semantics, what you're proposing is the government going ahead with a program and just deciding that it has the money. Just -POOF!- billions of dollars on the table. Neat trick. Sometimes this sort of thing can actually be made to work to some degree, but by its very nature it devalues the currency, costing money indirectly. The bigger the magic money pile, the more inflation results. Just like the rockets you'll build with it, you get diminishing returns beyond a certain point. The amounts of initial and sustained capital required for a Mars settlement plan would be crushing, even state-run economies would buckle under the strain. Under a free market? Watch the runaway inflation, it'll make the Great Depression look like good times.

But if we can get at least some of the money from the general economy, such as through sales of goods and advertising and the rest through other direct means, all of a sudden we don't have those problems. We're feeding the economy instead of feeding off of it.

Or, I'll just decide that I'm a godzillionaire and finance it myself. I'm good for it.

Grypd · 2004-10-14 18:00:30

...Don't forget that it was this process that rebuilt America that had gone into a depression and brought us out of that depression an industrial power second to none in the world.
In conjunction with World War II and its aftermath, making the US the major industrial power on Earth because everyone else was in ruins. That's the balance to FDR's schemes, which on their own would not have ended the Depression. Nothing is free, eventually everything has to be paid for, even if indirectly.
I'm not arguing that government can't use some financial shenanigans, merely that that's what they are. Government generated credit isn't creating something for nothing, it isn't just free money to do good things. Mars colonisation will cost billions upon billions of dollars, there's no way around that. It has to come from somewhere.
Look we want to build some physical item like a dam or a space station or a city on the Moon or a super train system or what ever else we want to build.
You basically have only two ways to finance it by one being private funding and the other public funding.
You go through private financing which is more concerned with making money and the infrastructure take second place even if it needed to make society function. It takes twenty years to build these infrastructural projects and it has a usefull life of another thirty or forty years after that. Now within this private funding we have two ways to fund it and both ways require a return on investment or they won't choose to invest in the venture. These are the bankers and the investers and they play a part in society, but there interest are primarally self-interest. No banker nor private investor will volintarally cancel debt or wright stuff off loans on a continual bases. They just won't do it. Here what they will demand:
Banker will want the money loaned and maybe 5% interest on the loan. Let say we need the money for thirty years to build what ever we are building in space to build and start recieving a pay back on it. Let say we have to borrow ten billion dollars to build what ever we are going to build. The rule of 72 give us the pay back price in thirty years. We divide the interest by 72 and it will tell what it will be with simple interest. So 72 divided by 5% interest is 14.5 years that we would have to pay twenty billion dollars or just over thirty billion dollars in thirty billion dollars in thirty years.
Most investor want between 7% to 15% interest per year to invest. Now there might be a few small investors like you and me who might take less or even make a donation, but we are the exception. Or maybe there might be a benifactore who has million of dollars like the one that came along for the space ship one developement project, but those are exception and not the rule. But, to get the big serious investor in on a consistant bases and get them to put there money down or invest, there going to have to be a consistant posible return on his investment of 7% to 15% interest. Beside the ten billion dollars that they are going to invest, they will be expection between $40 to $70 billion dollars.
Now let go to government generated credit that the government is creating. This credit is not being generated for the purpose of making someone whealth, but for the purpose of building needed infrastructure and generating business activity in the physical economy. Since the Federal Government generated it, they make rules on how it going to be use and what happens to it. They choose to charge 0% or up to 2% interest if they choose to. They can deffer interest payments for thirty years and have absolutly interest paid on the amount that was borrowed and then charge 2% interest after that. Or they could sell it off to private bank and let them collect the 2% or 3% interest that going to be charged or off load it to lunar bank that was setup over the last thirty years as a result of U.S. Federal investment in the moon project. Or the U.S. Government could do what Alexader Hamilton did meny times and creat self-exstinguinshing debt. Beside, by this time, the U.S. Government has already got there money several times over. When the U.S. Government does this type of investing, they get an emidiate return to the U.S. Economy of three to four times, because that how meny times the new money rolls over after it been generated. If the Apollo mission is any example, it could roll over another 14 times in technological spin off and new business activities of invention and such. Oh, yes after only thirty years, we could still only owe 10 billion dollars and not that thirty or forty or seventy billion dollars if we had choosen to go through a private institution. It beat having to pay 20 to 60 billion more in interest charges.
Because of these kinds of benifits to the U.S. Economy, the United States should engage in such massive infrastructural building project both down here and in space.
Larry,

It sounds like it would be a total fiscal nightmare leading to hyper inflation and the eventual devaluation of the United States currency. This is because a country is only as powerful as its apparent worth as no country has the gold standard to be able to actually to pay the holders of its currency. Another problem is that the United States will have to eventually default on loans that are generated and this will mean no more credit will be given. A country is only as strong as its financial status is and in these times if the USA was to go and do for what is a better term a soviet block 5 year plan then it would suffer a major reduction in its financial power. The first thing to go would most certainly be that barrels of oil are measured in dollars with the major prestige loss that goes with that.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-14 18:11:53

"Don't forget that it was this process that rebuilt America that had gone into a depression and brought us out of that depression..."
Gotta agree with Cobra Commander here, that FDR didn't exactly walk on water economically speaking... Infact, some economists believe his quasisocialist policies may have extended the Great Depression, not eased it. The government "making" money by printing it on paper or extremely long term cheap loans both contribute to inflation and can damage the economy. It doesn't matter what form the money comes in, like "free credit," as long as the Gov't gives out much more money then it takes in there is a good chance you will actually harm the economy.
Government investment with "free money" in private business can stimulate economic activity and make up for the investment in taxes, but only to a point I think, and the trillion-dollar project it would be to build a city in space without a good reason amounts to nothing little more then an aerospace welfare bonanza.

FDR did not walk on water, but he does know economic principle that the person that you are
refering does not know about. The person that your refering to is either a fool or a liar and I don't
know which. Most of the economic prenciple that he bases his opinion on are also based on lies.

What most people don't understand is that both a private central banking system or a government
central banking system is going to be generation large amounts of credit and that not the issue. The
issue is who going to generate it and what it going to be used for. It doesn't matter which one of
them generates the credit and one of them has to or the U.S. Economy would implode otherwise.
It doesn't matter which one generates the paper money or credit, neither one is generating wealth.
But, what they do with that credit or money does make a difference on the U.S. Economy and the
ability to generate real wealth.

The private bank called the Federal Reserve System generates IOU and loans them out to there
membered banks at 2% or 3% and they loan that money to the Federal Government at 5% persent
interest or the prime lending rate. By the way, this is the primary cause of inflation, being charged
interest on a Federal Reserve Note or IOU and cause of the National Debt too.

The government bank or Treasury Department also generates a credit note, but uses it to finance
building a super train system or loans it to a private manufacturing corporation at either 0% or near
0% interest to buy new machines with new technology that are more productive and get more part
per man hour. In either case, the U.S. Government is activily improving the productivity of the
American worker or building needed infrastructure like roads, super train system that are need to
maintain a modern society. If it done in the right fashion and in the right amount, the U.S.
Economy will not inflate and could even deflate a little bit. You could have manufacturers that
could sell there product for less, because they don't have to pay high interest to those banks and
they will have a work force that can produce more cheaper than before they got that government
loan.

Now as to an aerospace welfare bonanza. I can agree with that in part, but yes there would be one
heck of a lot credit to send it off. Yes, it would be in the trillion dollar range to abe to even build a
small city on the moon, let alone a city on Mars, which would be even a larger amount. Maybe in
the several of trillions of dollars range. Besides an aerospace bonanza, it would also generate about
million new high pay with benifit type of jobs or so in the U.S. Economy. Then there would be the
technological spin off, because your developing new technology at a faster rate that during the
Apollo mission program.

Why?

Is this suppose to be a problem or something?

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-14 18:34:49

I understand what you're saying, you've explained in detail on many occasions. What I'm saying is that if you break this down, no semi-supportive historical comparisons or semantics, what you're proposing is the government going ahead with a program and just deciding that it has the money. Just -POOF!- billions of dollars on the table. Neat trick. Sometimes this sort of thing can actually be made to work to some degree, but by its very nature it devalues the currency, costing money indirectly. The bigger the magic money pile, the more inflation results. Just like the rockets you'll build with it, you get diminishing returns beyond a certain point. The amounts of initial and sustained capital required for a Mars settlement plan would be crushing, even state-run economies would buckle under the strain. Under a free market? Watch the runaway inflation, it'll make the Great Depression look like good times.
But if we can get at least some of the money from the general economy, such as through sales of goods and advertising and the rest through other direct means, all of a sudden we don't have those problems. We're feeding the economy instead of feeding off of it.
Or, I'll just decide that I'm a godzillionaire and finance it myself. I'm good for it.

I'm not suggesting unlimited spending and there are boundaries which you can not go past or you will in fact have problem. To have a healthy U.S. Economy, the money supply has to grow at about 3% per year and if you have a 3% population growth, then the money supply needs to grow about 6% per year. These are the basic economic boundaries you have to abide by. For the United States to fall within those boundaries, it would have to generate about $500 billion to one trillion dollars per year to generate that 3% to 6% growth in the financial economy. All we doing is dedicating credit that going to have to be generated anyway and dedication about 1/10 of it to the space effort. The other 9/10 of that new credit is going to be used right here in America to rebuild the United States.

Currently Alan Greenspan is generating over three or four trillion dollars or more and that a whole lot bigger problem than what you think I'm taking about doing. His generated paper or credit or money is chasing bad paper that he generate last year. But, the credit that I'm talking about creating actually is assigned to a physical asset that you can touch or use. The credit that I'm talking about represent physical wealth and not some illusion of wealth that generated in those banks or on Wall Street.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-10-14 18:45:38

Martian Republic,

You have one answer to possible funding US government one of the largest economies in the world could do it, or a group of governments could do it combined, or global private enterprise could do it.

But it requires a change in the understanding of humanity and the role that we (humans) will play in the exploration, colonization of space and the possible realization of other intelligent species ( non-human ) in the space as well.

The 21st Century, is a time to start changing preceptions globally to bring the earth together into one world , to think of yourself as human beings of earth then residents of United States or other countries, then we can come up with the funding to explore our solar system and beyond for humans from earth and not an Amercian from united states on the continent North America on the planet earth.

Until then we will have discussions and arguments over the funding, how to go, and ownership of resources and more.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-14 18:58:26

In conjunction with World War II and its aftermath, making the US the major industrial power on Earth because everyone else was in ruins. That's the balance to FDR's schemes, which on their own would not have ended the Depression. Nothing is free, eventually everything has to be paid for, even if indirectly.
I'm not arguing that government can't use some financial shenanigans, merely that that's what they are. Government generated credit isn't creating something for nothing, it isn't just free money to do good things. Mars colonisation will cost billions upon billions of dollars, there's no way around that. It has to come from somewhere.
Look we want to build some physical item like a dam or a space station or a city on the Moon or a super train system or what ever else we want to build.
You basically have only two ways to finance it by one being private funding and the other public funding.
You go through private financing which is more concerned with making money and the infrastructure take second place even if it needed to make society function. It takes twenty years to build these infrastructural projects and it has a usefull life of another thirty or forty years after that. Now within this private funding we have two ways to fund it and both ways require a return on investment or they won't choose to invest in the venture. These are the bankers and the investers and they play a part in society, but there interest are primarally self-interest. No banker nor private investor will volintarally cancel debt or wright stuff off loans on a continual bases. They just won't do it. Here what they will demand:
Banker will want the money loaned and maybe 5% interest on the loan. Let say we need the money for thirty years to build what ever we are building in space to build and start recieving a pay back on it. Let say we have to borrow ten billion dollars to build what ever we are going to build. The rule of 72 give us the pay back price in thirty years. We divide the interest by 72 and it will tell what it will be with simple interest. So 72 divided by 5% interest is 14.5 years that we would have to pay twenty billion dollars or just over thirty billion dollars in thirty billion dollars in thirty years.
Most investor want between 7% to 15% interest per year to invest. Now there might be a few small investors like you and me who might take less or even make a donation, but we are the exception. Or maybe there might be a benifactore who has million of dollars like the one that came along for the space ship one developement project, but those are exception and not the rule. But, to get the big serious investor in on a consistant bases and get them to put there money down or invest, there going to have to be a consistant posible return on his investment of 7% to 15% interest. Beside the ten billion dollars that they are going to invest, they will be expection between $40 to $70 billion dollars.
Now let go to government generated credit that the government is creating. This credit is not being generated for the purpose of making someone whealth, but for the purpose of building needed infrastructure and generating business activity in the physical economy. Since the Federal Government generated it, they make rules on how it going to be use and what happens to it. They choose to charge 0% or up to 2% interest if they choose to. They can deffer interest payments for thirty years and have absolutly interest paid on the amount that was borrowed and then charge 2% interest after that. Or they could sell it off to private bank and let them collect the 2% or 3% interest that going to be charged or off load it to lunar bank that was setup over the last thirty years as a result of U.S. Federal investment in the moon project. Or the U.S. Government could do what Alexader Hamilton did meny times and creat self-exstinguinshing debt. Beside, by this time, the U.S. Government has already got there money several times over. When the U.S. Government does this type of investing, they get an emidiate return to the U.S. Economy of three to four times, because that how meny times the new money rolls over after it been generated. If the Apollo mission is any example, it could roll over another 14 times in technological spin off and new business activities of invention and such. Oh, yes after only thirty years, we could still only owe 10 billion dollars and not that thirty or forty or seventy billion dollars if we had choosen to go through a private institution. It beat having to pay 20 to 60 billion more in interest charges.
Because of these kinds of benifits to the U.S. Economy, the United States should engage in such massive infrastructural building project both down here and in space.
Larry,
It sounds like it would be a total fiscal nightmare leading to hyper inflation and the eventual devaluation of the United States currency. This is because a country is only as powerful as its apparent worth as no country has the gold standard to be able to actually to pay the holders of its currency. Another problem is that the United States will have to eventually default on loans that are generated and this will mean no more credit will be given. A country is only as strong as its financial status is and in these times if the USA was to go and do for what is a better term a soviet block 5 year plan then it would suffer a major reduction in its financial power. The first thing to go would most certainly be that barrels of oil are measured in dollars with the major prestige loss that goes with that.

First of all, why would the United States have to default on the loan?

The United State is the one that generating the credit and then they are the borrowing from United States on the credit note they created. The United States is both the creditor and borrower. They can do what ever they want with that credit note. After that credit note has served it purpose, since there both the creditor and borrower, they could just choose to wade that credit note and throw it away and generate some new credit within certain boundaries of course. It doesn't make any difference if anything been paid or not on that credit note.

Under the U.S. Constitution only the U.S. Government has the right to generate credit or print money. In other words the U.S. Treasury or government bank only has the right to be the bank of last resort or having the power to generate new money or credit. I'm suggesting that we put the Federal Reserve system through bankrupsy and reorganization.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-14 19:18:57

Martian Republic,
You have one answer to possible funding US government one of the largest economies in the world could do it, or a group of governments could do it combined, or global private enterprise could do it.
But it requires a change in the understanding of humanity and the role that we (humans) will play in the exploration, colonization of space and the possible realization of other intelligent species ( non-human ) in the space as well.
The 21st Century, is a time to start changing preceptions globally to bring the earth together into one world , to think of yourself as human beings of earth then residents of United States or other countries, then we can come up with the funding to explore our solar system and beyond for humans from earth and not an Amercian from united states on the continent North America on the planet earth.
Until then we will have discussions and arguments over the funding, how to go, and ownership of resources and more.

What I propose in doing does not have to be just the United States doing it, but what I propose in doing is to lead the way for all nation to either choose to be a part of the operation or not. The United States is one of the few countries that can play a key leadership role in doing what need to be done to get us into space or even save earth from distruction. If we can get the United States to act again within that National Mission that our founding father had for this country and for what the U.S. Constitution represents, there are few countries that could replace or do what the United States could do. The primary purpose of the United States was to test out the Republican form of government base on the General Welfare concept and man in God image and then to export it back to Europe. The original purpose of the United States was to have a nation that served the common good of not only the American people, but of the world at large. It not at all like George Bushes view of America and what he has been using our troops for in the middle east.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-10-14 19:45:42

The primary purpose of the United States was to test out the Republican form of government base on the General Welfare concept and man in God image and then to export it back to Europe.

If the US government (Congress/President) won't do this voluntarily maybe some other group who believes in the above will see the Moon or Mars as one heck of a good pulpit to preach from.

And pay for it however they can. . .

Grypd · 2004-10-15 03:19:21

First of all, why would the United States have to default on the loan?
The United State is the one that generating the credit and then they are the borrowing from United States on the credit note they created. The United States is both the creditor and borrower. They can do what ever they want with that credit note. After that credit note has served it purpose, since there both the creditor and borrower, they could just choose to wade that credit note and throw it away and generate some new credit within certain boundaries of course. It doesn't make any difference if anything been paid or not on that credit note.
Under the U.S. Constitution only the U.S. Government has the right to generate credit or print money. In other words the U.S. Treasury or government bank only has the right to be the bank of last resort or having the power to generate new money or credit. I'm suggesting that we put the Federal Reserve system through bankrupsy and reorganization.
Larry,

Well it is like this, Money or credit has to be based on something in FDR's time it was the gold standard, Nowadays it is the apparent fiscal and economic strength of your country. This value is not done by the US goverment or any goverment as such but is done on the international Monetary trading boards which trade finances about each day. For a country to start printing money it means more is in circulation (even if sitting in a federal bank) and this devalues the rest of that currency. The first things these investors in the US currency are going to do is get rid of there less valuable currency. Currently the United States is in a defecit situation where does it get the money it uses, not from taxes but from loans. If the US makes its dollars worth less than they where when it took the loan out it must pay back more of other currencies to pay the loan back. If it does not or cannot pay this loan back then it has defaulted with the dire economic situation that occurs. This has occured before an example was Argentina that had its currency devalued by 70% 2 years ago. This means savings in that country and its capacity to purchase abroad are much reduced. It also means companies inside that country are cheaper to be snapped up by the international multi state companies.

FDR's economic plan worked because the second world war happened. The United States found its factories and buisnesses in full production making armaments which where lend/leased to the allied beligerents in that war. What did that mean it meant countries like Britain, Canada, Australia paid for its weapons and ships they got from the United States. This meant that the even though the United States did not get money immediately it was still going to get paid and so had economic value. The money that FDR had spent was recouped not from the taxpayer as would have been needed but from the payments for the lend/lease materials. It was Nixon who was bolstered by the money lowing into his country was able to release the USA from the gold standard to become what it is now. As an aside Britain finally paid for its lend lease materials in the Early 70s.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-15 08:35:41

"...To have a healthy U.S. Economy, the money supply has to grow at about 3% per year and if you have a 3% population growth, then the money supply needs to grow about 6% per year. These are the basic economic boundaries you have to abide by. For the United States to fall within those boundaries, it would have to generate about $500 billion to one trillion dollars per year to generate that 3% to 6% growth in the financial economy. All we doing is dedicating credit that going to have to be generated anyway and dedication about 1/10 of it to the space effort. The other 9/10 of that new credit is going to be used right here in America to rebuild the United States.

Currently Alan Greenspan is generating over three or four trillion dollars or more and that a whole lot bigger problem than what you think I'm taking about doing. His generated paper or credit or money is chasing bad paper that he generate last year. But, the credit that I'm talking about creating actually is assigned to a physical asset that you can touch or use. The credit that I'm talking about represent physical wealth and not some illusion of wealth that generated in those banks or on Wall Street."

I'm not so sure you have a firm grasp on how the Gov't uses credit to control the worth of the dollar... limiting the generation of new currency to mitigate inflation and generating currency to prevent reverse inflation as the economy grows, which would also be catastrophic for trade. Of course Greenspan is "chasing paper with paper," thats how the Gov't influences inflation. You can't upset this balence without doing damage any which way... a little bit is okay, but trillions of dollars is not.

Furthermore, the sheer quantity of that money is huge, and taking a double-digit fraction of that out of the hands of banks and giving it to NASA+Boeing/Lockheed/et al. would cause severe damage to the economy, and would be turning back the economic clock, an unmitigated disaster in the making.

As for attaching this credit to a physical asset, the banking system has somthing better: attaching that credit to the wealth and economic strength of the country. This isn't the days of old with turn-of-century Presidents, our economic system in this country isn't wired the same anymore, using comparitivly anticent economic strategies today simply doesn't work... An "FDR style economic policy" today would quite frankly destroy this country.

Tying the credit to a physical asset that depreciates or is used up (expendable rockets?) is risky too, I am not so sure this is a good idea. Most of this money would eventually find its way back into the economy by way of Boeing/LockMart/et al but it would do so at the cost of the rest of the economy in the mean time, and Boeing/LockMart will maximize their cut of the bennefits for certain so I doubt that money would ever be as effective an economical regulator as regular Fed Reserve monies.

"...an aerospace bonanza, it would also generate about
million new high pay with benifit type of jobs or so in the U.S. Economy."

Yes it would generate new jobs, but the idea you can use the space industry as a magic money multiplying machine isn't a sound one. Yes it works to a point, but with the amount of money being talked about I doubt that the bennefits will outweigh the extreme cost. It IS a bad thing; this isn't FDR's days anymore.

clark · 2004-10-15 10:12:52

If people disagree, please specify whether you disagree with me or the Aldridge Commission, or both.
Read the first quote carefully. I like this part:
Robust marketing, advertisement and recruiting campaigns that attract and hold the attention of the American public should be created and implemented.
These are not Bill White's words. These words were written by the Aldridge Commission.

May I disagree with you in a nuanced way, ala Kerry <cheap politcal shot> ?

I can agree that there is value in hiring some professionals to market NASA accomplishments in such a way as they become more broadly meaningful to a wider audience. We can see the effects of Hubble pictures, colorized and doctored, devoid of any meaningful scientific value other than the pretty picture we all ooh and ahh at. Look at the result of that little PR coup, 300 million dollars to go keep it taking more pretty pictures.

Yet, if I were in charge [shakes fist at unfair fate and gods], I wouldn't neccessarily go about lining up PR firms and selling advertising rights wholesale to private enterprise. That way seems to prostutite the exploration value, and ultimetly undermine it to such an extent that it is only considered a valid enterprise if we can make a quick buck or push the latest name-brand gadget out the door. I think it's too short term for what is required.

So, if I was in charge [again shakes fist to indifferent chance and happentstance], I would create a small fund to act as a prize purse/grant money for artists, authors, sculptors, musicians, poets, screenwriters, playwrites, comedians, philosphers, etc. etc. It would fund the creation of, and act as a catalyst for individuals to create a wealth of art that would take whatever is related to science and technology and make the infinite universe relatable to the public.

Most of us here, even the die hard scientists among us, were led down this cursed path by the dreams of others. It wasn't really Apollo that made us dream of going to the great beyond- it was Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, Bova, Robinson, Card, Wells and a whole slew of others who gave us glimpses of what might be. It was the magizines and comic books. It was Star Wars, or the hundreds of bad B flick movies about space.

Getting PR firms is just getting a fad going, with no weight to carry it beyond the next fashion line.

If I was in charge, I might further provide funds for the creation of non-proft educational groups that reach out to children and provide structrued education and development in aerospace, space sciences, and astronomy (think Space Scouts). Start summer camps at those old abandoned FMARS sites.

This is a slower approach, but it has the effect of placing a greater visibility for space within a larger audience, a bit more holistic if you will. It also would have the effect of causing PR firms to want to start marketing space and relate their advertisement about space since an audience (read eyeballs) would exsist.

But who would put me in charge? [shakes fist at everyone] :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-10-15 10:21:40

I can agree that there is value in hiring some professionals to market NASA accomplishments in such a way as they become more broadly meaningful to a wider audience.

This depends on our answer to another question. What should NASA be accomplishing?

And, can we expect the federal budget to be sufficient to sustain the answer to the above question?

RobS · 2004-10-15 10:24:33

From what I know of economics, I agree with GCNRevenger. The money supply does have to grow a certain amount every year based on population growth and productivity increases. It doesn't just grow via the government, either; banks only need to keep a small percentage (10 or 20%) of their assets as cash. They are often in the position to issue a bit more credit than their total deposits because there's a lag time in the cash flow. The same with the stock market; one can buy short. And the valuation of stock increases the net worth of the economy even when it exceeds the assets of the company issuing the stock.

So not all of the increase in money supply comes from the government. In the early nineteenth century (after President Jackson) NONE of it came from the government, because Jackson abolished the national bank. State-chartered banks issued promisory notes and these circulated as currency. Many states, desperate for canals and railroads, chartered companies that issued bonds to build infrastructure. Needless to say, the economy was pretty fragile and the business cycle volatile.

In the colonial period, there was such a shortage of coins that anyone could issue them. In Connecticut, a local supply of copper was used to issue "Higley coppers" which are now very rare collector's items.

Governments have been trying to make money for themselves by increasing the money supply ever since coinage was invented. The Roman Empire was constantly dealing with inflation in the second, third, and fourth centuries because the emperors were calling in the old coins, melting them down, adding lead and other base metals, and issuing new coins with less silver content. It worked for a little while. then people discovered the coins had less silver and their value dropped. Also, if you double the money supply through huge government purchases using new coins, the items the government purchases become scarce and their price goes up. People divert resources to make more of those things and resources get scarce for other items, so their prices go up too. Get the picture?

The Reagan Administration was able to print billions of dollars to cover their budget deficits because at the time the world economy was roaring along and many countries decided to back their currency with dollars. Many overseas banks wanted dollars too. So demand for dollars was coincidentally very high, and hundreds of billions went out of the country. The result was a big increase in the money supply but not too much inflation. Of course, if there is ever a rush to convert those dollars to euros--which is now a reasonable rival to the dollar as a world currency--the value of the dollar could plunge.

-- RobS

clark · 2004-10-15 10:27:39

This depends on our answer to another question. What should NASA be accomplishing?

Low cost Earth to Orbit. Nuclear power propulsion and generation in space. Closed life support. Material extraction and manipulation in space. Artifical gravity. Radiation shielding. Solution to long term zero-g exsposure.

Most of this is part of VSE, or is the product of pursuing VSE.

And, can we expect the federal budget to be sufficient to sustain the answer to the above question?

Depends. Low cost to Earth Orbit makes everything else cheaper in the long run...

BWhite · 2004-10-15 10:31:09

Back to cindy's question. http://www.michiganstoryfestival.org/20 … n.html]Syd Lieberman is telling stories for NASA.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-15 18:07:35

First of all, why would the United States have to default on the loan?
The United State is the one that generating the credit and then they are the borrowing from United States on the credit note they created. The United States is both the creditor and borrower. They can do what ever they want with that credit note. After that credit note has served it purpose, since there both the creditor and borrower, they could just choose to wade that credit note and throw it away and generate some new credit within certain boundaries of course. It doesn't make any difference if anything been paid or not on that credit note.
Under the U.S. Constitution only the U.S. Government has the right to generate credit or print money. In other words the U.S. Treasury or government bank only has the right to be the bank of last resort or having the power to generate new money or credit. I'm suggesting that we put the Federal Reserve system through bankrupsy and reorganization.
Larry,
Well it is like this, Money or credit has to be based on something in FDR's time it was the gold standard, Nowadays it is the apparent fiscal and economic strength of your country. This value is not done by the US goverment or any goverment as such but is done on the international Monetary trading boards which trade finances about each day. For a country to start printing money it means more is in circulation (even if sitting in a federal bank) and this devalues the rest of that currency. The first things these investors in the US currency are going to do is get rid of there less valuable currency. Currently the United States is in a defecit situation where does it get the money it uses, not from taxes but from loans. If the US makes its dollars worth less than they where when it took the loan out it must pay back more of other currencies to pay the loan back. If it does not or cannot pay this loan back then it has defaulted with the dire economic situation that occurs. This has occured before an example was Argentina that had its currency devalued by 70% 2 years ago. This means savings in that country and its capacity to purchase abroad are much reduced. It also means companies inside that country are cheaper to be snapped up by the international multi state companies.
FDR's economic plan worked because the second world war happened. The United States found its factories and buisnesses in full production making armaments which where lend/leased to the allied beligerents in that war. What did that mean it meant countries like Britain, Canada, Australia paid for its weapons and ships they got from the United States. This meant that the even though the United States did not get money immediately it was still going to get paid and so had economic value. The money that FDR had spent was recouped not from the taxpayer as would have been needed but from the payments for the lend/lease materials. It was Nixon who was bolstered by the money lowing into his country was able to release the USA from the gold standard to become what it is now. As an aside Britain finally paid for its lend lease materials in the Early 70s.

Grypd I can see that you insist on defending your ignorance of what you think is true. If you insist on doing that, there no point in continuing the discussion. I will point out several things that you posted that are not true and will completely change what you said and would not have said it if you would have known the truth.

1. Your first error.

Do you know the difference between the Gold Standard and the Gold Reserve Standard?

The Gold Standard is a British system that has say one troy ounce to one gold coin so you more or less have a fix money supply to the amount of gold you have on hand.

The Gold Reserve Standard is an FDR creation. This money is elastic in that you depend on the one generating the credit and in this case it would be the U.S. Treasury Department which has the authority of the U.S. Government. Now is you have a trade imballance then you will have to make good trade defficiet, but usually that would be after two or three years of trade imballances. That where negotiation with other countrys come in and the ajusting of the currency is done so that each country won't distroy each other.

2. Your second error!

The United States does not currently generate credit, the Federal Reserve generates credit. The United States has not generated credit since the assination of John F. Kennedy when he re-authorized the Treasury Department to generate credit with Presidentual order Number 11110. The Federal Reserve System is not part of the U.S. Government. The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by other major private banks with it own stock holders. The Federal Reserve Stock is not sold on Wall Street, but it does issue stock for the private company bank called the Federal Reserve. When you pay your taxes to the Federal Government, it goes to the Federal Reserve system a private bank. You do not pay taxes to the U.S. Government, but you are actually giving your money to a private bank. That private bank called the Federal Reserve System get your money and take there cut out of it and take the cut of your money that the other big membered get and when there through with it, give the Federal Government what what left over. This money or credit that the Federal Reserve generates is called Fiat Money. Also the Federal Reserve has generated billion of dollars a year and as time go on they have to generate larger about of this Fiat Money to keep the system from sinking, because of the larger and larger debt load on the economic system.

3. Your third error!

It was Nixon that decoupled the financial economy from the physical economy and caused the run away inflation. It was Nixon took us off the Gold Reserve Standard and Brenton Wood system. Money was decoupled and debt being generated took off. The three big banks and Wall Street owe over 45 trillion dollars between them in worthless paper called Derivities. There it over 300 trillion dollars of worthless derivities worldwide. There is only about 6 trillion dollars physical asset worldwide, so all that debt is unsupported. That worthless paper is growing faster than the physical economy and is consuming the physical economy. That 300 trillion of worthless paper or debt that floting around the world and that 45 trillion dollars or debt in those three banks and Wall Street with the help of that private bank called the Federal Reserve System with both Paul Valker and Alan Greenspan at the helm. That debt was generated in the last thirty five years

4. Your fourth error is.

Is that deregulate the banking industry and Wall Street is a good thing. The reason that FDR regulated the Banks and Wall Street orinally, was because were the ones that caused the the 1929 depression in the first place. The removal of those government regulation is what causing inflation with those financial pyramid scheems of credit with no assets or net value in sight. Money has no net value and the trillions of dollars on Wall Street is just so much monopoly money with no real if the one lending it has no credibility. All that debt piled on top of other debt in pyramid and money chasing money with no pupose, but to encrease it dollars amount every time it goes around to give the illusion that wealth is be created will eventually crash and it has to crash too. You can't have this paper economy growing faster than the physical economy, which is exactly what it doing right now. Nixon decoupling the financial market or paper economy from the physical economy was the primary trigger for inflation over the last 35 years. It also dried up the money supply that could be invested in NASA too and they started canceling NASA project for building a base on the moon, developing fission powered rocket, fusion etc. Those project were either being canceled just before or not too long after Nixon 1971 signature on that taking us off the Gold Reserve Standard. All of the sudden, space became too expensive for us to afford it anymore. We also use to have healthcare for all Americans that needed it too, we can't afford that anymore either, because it too expensive. Now over half the American don't have healthcare anymore. Also we probably have over 8 million unemployed people with about 1/5 of the U.S population below the poverty line. Forty years ago one guy working in a factory or one of those steel foundaries could make enough for himself, a wife and maybe two or three children. Now he has to have two or three jobs and may she has two jobs too and they may even one of there children are working too part time just to make end meet. This is 2/3 of the U.S. population that being affected. The United States is going into another depression and the policies that you support are what is causing the United States to go into that depression too.

What you don't understand is: money only has two purposes.

1. To be used as a medium of exchange so we don't have to get into pigs for cows or shoes, etc. Having money that has a set value is a good thing.
2. Money or credit is use to generate future physical goods and services that will be need by our population. So we will allicate either money or generate the credit we need to produce it or build that infrastructure or develop the technology we to accomplish our goals or satify our physical needs.

Money or credit has no purpose than these two primary goals. Now some of generated wealth can be diverted into a bank account and differed for a few years and there can be other types of investments, but those are all secondary in nature as compared to those two mensioned as the primary purpose for money. That why the U.S. Constitution give only the U.S. Government the right to generate credit and there suppose to use it that way and for that purpose and it called the "General Welfare" cause in the U.S. Constitution.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-10-15 18:53:12

This depends on our answer to another question. What should NASA be accomplishing?
Low cost Earth to Orbit. Nuclear power propulsion and generation in space. Closed life support. Material extraction and manipulation in space. Artifical gravity. Radiation shielding. Solution to long term zero-g exsposure.
Most of this is part of VSE, or is the product of pursuing VSE.
And, can we expect the federal budget to be sufficient to sustain the answer to the above question?
Depends. Low cost to Earth Orbit makes everything else cheaper in the long run...

Form follows function. Design your tools to best accomplish your goal.

Sounds like you are saying the goal should be to make tools.

Okay, tell me = WHY = we are making tools and I can better suggest what tools we should be building.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-15 21:24:39

"...To have a healthy U.S. Economy, the money supply has to grow at about 3% per year and if you have a 3% population growth, then the money supply needs to grow about 6% per year. These are the basic economic boundaries you have to abide by. For the United States to fall within those boundaries, it would have to generate about $500 billion to one trillion dollars per year to generate that 3% to 6% growth in the financial economy. All we doing is dedicating credit that going to have to be generated anyway and dedication about 1/10 of it to the space effort. The other 9/10 of that new credit is going to be used right here in America to rebuild the United States.
Currently Alan Greenspan is generating over three or four trillion dollars or more and that a whole lot bigger problem than what you think I'm taking about doing. His generated paper or credit or money is chasing bad paper that he generate last year. But, the credit that I'm talking about creating actually is assigned to a physical asset that you can touch or use. The credit that I'm talking about represent physical wealth and not some illusion of wealth that generated in those banks or on Wall Street."
I'm not so sure you have a firm grasp on how the Gov't uses credit to control the worth of the dollar... limiting the generation of new currency to mitigate inflation and generating currency to prevent reverse inflation as the economy grows, which would also be catastrophic for trade. Of course Greenspan is "chasing paper with paper," thats how the Gov't influences inflation. You can't upset this balence without doing damage any which way... a little bit is okay, but trillions of dollars is not.
Furthermore, the sheer quantity of that money is huge, and taking a double-digit fraction of that out of the hands of banks and giving it to NASA+Boeing/Lockheed/et al. would cause severe damage to the economy, and would be turning back the economic clock, an unmitigated disaster in the making.
As for attaching this credit to a physical asset, the banking system has somthing better: attaching that credit to the wealth and economic strength of the country. This isn't the days of old with turn-of-century Presidents, our economic system in this country isn't wired the same anymore, using comparitivly anticent economic strategies today simply doesn't work... An "FDR style economic policy" today would quite frankly destroy this country.
Tying the credit to a physical asset that depreciates or is used up (expendable rockets?) is risky too, I am not so sure this is a good idea. Most of this money would eventually find its way back into the economy by way of Boeing/LockMart/et al but it would do so at the cost of the rest of the economy in the mean time, and Boeing/LockMart will maximize their cut of the bennefits for certain so I doubt that money would ever be as effective an economical regulator as regular Fed Reserve monies.
"...an aerospace bonanza, it would also generate about
million new high pay with benifit type of jobs or so in the U.S. Economy."
Yes it would generate new jobs, but the idea you can use the space industry as a magic money multiplying machine isn't a sound one. Yes it works to a point, but with the amount of money being talked about I doubt that the bennefits will outweigh the extreme cost. It IS a bad thing; this isn't FDR's days anymore.

To begin with, Alan Greenspan does not represent the U.S. Government. Alan Greenspan represent a private bank called the Federal Reserve System which primarally answers to other private banks like Chase Manhattan, Bank American, etc. This private bank has a government charter to act like a Central bank of last resort and has the power to generate credit. What little control the United States does excersis come with apointing the charman of the board or Alan Greenspan by the President of the United States, but that all the control over the Federal Reserve that the U.S. Government has over that institution. But, even there, it the banks that make there choice as to who they want as the charman of the Federal Reserve system and then they send him over to the President of the United States to accept or reject. But, basically Alan Greenspan a bankers man and not one looking after the best interest of the United States or the American People.

I think government contracts that are created by the new credit we generate would be a great way to control the U.S. Economy and make into a booming economy. The U.S. Government is the Prime loaner of money to those business, issuer of new contract, setting up of tax laws and can generally make the rule by which anybody that get a contract from the U.S. Government has to abide by. Anybody that break there contract with the U.S. Government or misappropriets funds within that contract, beaks a federal law. So send out a U.S. Marshall to arest them. No problem, we have plenty of control or even denie them future contracts for ten year. With tens of billion or even hundreds of billion of government contracts out there to be had, it going to hurt that private business more than it going to hurt the U.S. Government.

But, why would you want to give the authority to create money to a private bank with the Federal Reserve System?

You give some private bank the right to generate money out of thin air and then they have the right to loan it to you and charge you interest and you will have to pay it too if you take there loan. But, you need to borrow from them so you can buy stuff so you can do your business. Now that stupid.

Now why would you want to do something stupid like that?

I have a better idea, instead of giving that power to some private individual or group of individuals, let have the U.S. Government generate that credit and stipulate what we want them to use it for.

I don't understand you people. You insist on giving some private individual's the right to create there own money and then loan it to you and charge you interest on the money they just generated. I don't know why you insist on it and even demand to pay interest too.

I'm sorry, but I'm not that generous to those fat rich guys like the rest of you guys are.

As far as tieing money to physical good. That what give money it value if everybody accept it. Whether you set physical goods or services or infrastructural project or use gold as your set value for your paper money, your setting it value and what it worth in the market place so you can do business. Money primary purpose is to be used so we don't have to barder or have to do an exchange one thing for something else. So that means money has to have a set value and it can not be decoupled from the physical world or tangible objects like gold or otherwise it loses one of it primary purposes. The other primary purpose of money or credit is to generate wealth in the future and if you can't tag it to what your building or creating, than that created credit doesn't have any value either and we have not way to create future wealth or space colonies either.

What your basically are saying, money that has a set value as to some physical item of ounce of gold is not good. You basically are diffending flooting exchange rate money that can be gamed by individuals to extract wealth from other people. This kind of money has no value and is only a mechinism stealing from other people by, usury, ground rent, altering the exchange rate, etc.

What I'm saying is, money that does not have a set value is Fiat money and no value at all.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-15 21:35:20

The Federal Reserve is NOT truely a private entity: it is still ultimatly under the control of persons appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is by and large a government bank... rattling off scarry-sounding LaRouche soundbites about evil corperate conspiracy to rule the Earth doesn't make it so. Furthermore, I find your nonsense figures of "300 trillion dollars" in "derivitives" and such completly rediculous... I imagine another invention of Mr. LaRouche to further his "economic doomsday conspiracy" theory. Really, how can you take such a figure seriously?

Your beliefe in this littany of economic ideas is also beyond comprehension with the vast majority of your statements being flatly untrue.
-Stocks having no value? Their value is a share in the worth and/or profit of a corperation
-The banking system responsable for a host of evils? Like when you flatly ignore that health care is vastly more expensive then it used to be because of advances in medical science.
-The higher standard of life afforded by having two jobs per family: multiple cars, much larger houses, vacations, all unheard of way-back-when...
-NASA "not having enough money" to build advanced hardware or Lunar bases because there was no national need or will, not because there was less money to go around (duh!)...

I'd like to take a minute and reiterate, Lydon LaRouche is a certifiable lunatic with delusions of being a Neo-Roosavelt... As crazy as he is though, he is cunning, and cunning enough to conjur up a sage-sounding "plan" filled with half-truths and counter-mainstream (even counter-reality) to "save" the country from the evil conspiracy doomsday that waits just around the corner... Very effective at duping people who readily believe in doomsday prophesy, psuedo-science, and hair-brained conspiracy theory... All we need to do to secure our salvation is elect LaRouche! Everybody write in on November 2!

The man is a complete nutcase, you can see for yourself on his website where all this economic nonsense that MartianRepublic keeps repeating comes from...

Edit: "What your basically are saying, money that has a set value as to some physical item of ounce of gold is not good."

Actually, that is exactly what I am saying (or supporting). Tying money directly to anything physical doesn't work anymore, it restricts growth too much... Money has become a more complicated beast then your uber-simplistic definition. Welcome to the 21st century.

Again, again again, pouring huge gobs of money into aerospace companies and using them as the first stop on the money cycle is a horrible idea, the economy relies on the flow of that money, and retarding that flow by mind-boggling corperate investment is a recipie for disaster.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-15 22:32:16

The Federal Reserve is NOT truely a private entity: it is still ultimatly under the control of persons appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is by and large a government bank... rattling off scarry-sounding LaRouche soundbites about evil corperate conspiracy to rule the Earth doesn't make it so. Furthermore, I find your nonsense figures of "300 trillion dollars" in "derivitives" and such completly rediculous... I imagine another invention of Mr. LaRouche to further his "economic doomsday conspiracy" theory. Really, how can you take such a figure seriously?
Your beliefe in this littany of economic ideas is also beyond comprehension with the vast majority of your statements being flatly untrue.
-Stocks having no value? Their value is a share in the worth and/or profit of a corperation
-The banking system responsable for a host of evils? Like when you flatly ignore that health care is vastly more expensive then it used to be because of advances in medical science.
-The higher standard of life afforded by having two jobs per family: multiple cars, much larger houses, vacations, all unheard of way-back-when...
-NASA "not having enough money" to build advanced hardware or Lunar bases because there was no national need or will, not because there was less money to go around (duh!)...
I'd like to take a minute and reiterate, Lydon LaRouche is a certifiable lunatic with delusions of being a Neo-Roosavelt... As crazy as he is though, he is cunning, and cunning enough to conjur up a sage-sounding "plan" filled with half-truths and counter-mainstream (even counter-reality) to "save" the country from the evil conspiracy doomsday that waits just around the corner... Very effective at duping people who readily believe in doomsday prophesy, psuedo-science, and hair-brained conspiracy theory... All we need to do to secure our salvation is elect LaRouche! Everybody write in on November 2!
The man is a complete nutcase, you can see for yourself on his website where all this economic nonsense that MartianRepublic keeps repeating comes from...
Edit: "What your basically are saying, money that has a set value as to some physical item of ounce of gold is not good."
Actually, that is exactly what I am saying (or supporting). Tying money directly to anything physical doesn't work anymore, it restricts growth too much... Money has become a more complicated beast then your uber-simplistic definition. Welcome to the 21st century.
Again, again again, pouring huge gobs of money into aerospace companies and using them as the first stop on the money cycle is a horrible idea, the economy relies on the flow of that money, and retarding that flow by mind-boggling corperate investment is a recipie for disaster.

I know that you think Lyndon LaRouche is crazy and you may have serious question as to my
sanity too. So don’t believe Lyndon LaRouche and don’t believe me. But, here what the Federal
Reserve System has to say about them issueing stock to other private banks. Surely you will
believe the Federal Reserve Systeam and what they have to say about themselves.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalin … sect05.htm

And if that does not convence you, well, OK!

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-14 12:45:15

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#27 2004-10-14 13:35:58

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#28 2004-10-14 16:03:11

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#29 2004-10-14 16:36:24

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#30 2004-10-14 17:08:41

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#31 2004-10-14 17:54:55

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#32 2004-10-14 18:00:30

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#33 2004-10-14 18:11:53

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#34 2004-10-14 18:34:49

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#35 2004-10-14 18:45:38

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#36 2004-10-14 18:58:26

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#37 2004-10-14 19:18:57

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#38 2004-10-14 19:45:42

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#39 2004-10-15 03:19:21

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#40 2004-10-15 08:35:41

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#41 2004-10-15 10:12:52

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#42 2004-10-15 10:21:40

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#43 2004-10-15 10:24:33

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#44 2004-10-15 10:27:39

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#45 2004-10-15 10:31:09

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#46 2004-10-15 18:07:35

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#47 2004-10-15 18:53:12

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#48 2004-10-15 21:24:39

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#49 2004-10-15 21:35:20

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#50 2004-10-15 22:32:16

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

Board footer