Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

Commodore · 2008-04-18 07:38:04

Beside the power and the authority of the United States to lobby taxes on the people, they also have the power to generate credit internally from it own self.
<snip>
Larry
Wow that was quite a reply Larry - almost an essay
Let me make these points:
1. Government doesn't create wealth, business does - government consumes wealth.
2. Credit can and should be created by private capital sources, it isn't necessary for government to do this. Government consumes enormous quantites of credit for its own ill conceived and often useless and wasteful projects.
3. Government interferes in the economy by setting interest rates in an attempt to control the money supply and therefore the economy. This does have an effect on the supply of credit.
4. Taxation channels vast resources through government departments, this is redistributed according to the political agenda of the day - mostly inefficiently.
Now some spending on space and science is IMHO a good thing because it yields enormous benefits. To repeat the question, how much should be spent considering this is all taxpayer money and some of it will be wasted?

Obviously, there a natural limit to the amount of credit the government can create before adversely effecting the currency.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-18 20:30:36

Beside the power and the authority of the United States to lobby taxes on the people, they also have the power to generate credit internally from it own self.
<snip>
Larry
Wow that was quite a reply Larry - almost an essay
Let me make these points:
1. Government doesn't create wealth, business does - government consumes wealth.
2. Credit can and should be created by private capital sources, it isn't necessary for government to do this. Government consumes enormous quantites of credit for its own ill conceived and often useless and wasteful projects.
3. Government interferes in the economy by setting interest rates in an attempt to control the money supply and therefore the economy. This does have an effect on the supply of credit.
4. Taxation channels vast resources through government departments, this is redistributed according to the political agenda of the day - mostly inefficiently.
Now some spending on space and science is IMHO a good thing because it yields enormous benefits. To repeat the question, how much should be spent considering this is all taxpayer money and some of it will be wasted?

cIclops, your locked into a mindset of repeating propaganda with absolutely no bases in fact. You see what you want to see and you don't see what you don't want to see. I do not denie that the Government consumes a certain amount of wealth, but you can't support your claim that the Government doesn't create a certain amount of wealth either and doesn't provide goods and services the American people.

Examples of the US Government and government on all level inside the United States generating wealth:

1. The Tennessee Valley Authority. They are a government corporation that runs a series of dams, lakes, locks, Hydro-electric power plants.

2. The government issued credit that built rail roads and those congressional acts that created those rail roads. They were later privatized, but they were originally built and even run by the government on either the state or federal level.

3. The Army Corp of Engineers manages a series of locks and dams on most of American major water ways. Those locks and dams make much of the Mississippi and it tributaries navigable for caring freight on barges for the private sector. If the Army Corp of Engineers wasn't doing that, much of the Mississippi and it tributaries would be unnavigable to the private sector.

4. The Governments on all levels participate in building roads that make it possible for the private sector to get the resources they need to make there products and to carry there finished products to market.

5. The Government on all levels participate in building dams, to provide water to the cities and sewer system to carry the waste away. This is another good or service that they provide.

6. They build subway system in those big cities and there the only ones that could do it too.

7. The city air ports and the list goes on.

8 The US Post Office.

If this isn't generating wealth, then what do you call it?

Your problem is, when private enterprise does something like build a car. You call that generating wealth, but when the government does something like build a subway system, you don't call that wealth. Both the private sector and the government are providing transportation for people, but you call the private sector generating wealth, but you call the government a consumer.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2008-04-18 20:52:27

Beside the power and the authority of the United States to lobby taxes on the people, they also have the power to generate credit internally from it own self.
<snip>
Larry
Wow that was quite a reply Larry - almost an essay
Let me make these points:
1. Government doesn't create wealth, business does - government consumes wealth.
2. Credit can and should be created by private capital sources, it isn't necessary for government to do this. Government consumes enormous quantites of credit for its own ill conceived and often useless and wasteful projects.
3. Government interferes in the economy by setting interest rates in an attempt to control the money supply and therefore the economy. This does have an effect on the supply of credit.
4. Taxation channels vast resources through government departments, this is redistributed according to the political agenda of the day - mostly inefficiently.
Now some spending on space and science is IMHO a good thing because it yields enormous benefits. To repeat the question, how much should be spent considering this is all taxpayer money and some of it will be wasted?
Obviously, there a natural limit to the amount of credit the government can create before adversely effecting the currency.

Whether we have a government credit generating system of a private credit generating system, there is indeed a limit to how much credit can be product and what you should use it for. In theory, you have an unlimited amount credit that you can create out of thin air. But, there a certain amount of credit that needs to be created of the economic system will collapse and that amount of credit has to be generated each and every year of the system will implode on itself. The amount of credit that needs to be created of the United States so it doesn't implode on itself and on the other end Hyper inflate it currency out of existence is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars per year. That why there a big fight over who get control over the right to generate credit, because they also get to dictate how that credit going to be used and they also are the ones that generally benefit from it too.

The United States hasn't generated credit since John F. Kennedy and his issuance of the silver certificate.

Larry,

cIclops · 2008-04-19 03:48:31

cIclops, your locked into a mindset of repeating propaganda with absolutely no bases in fact. You see what you want to see and you don't see what you don't want to see. I do not denie that the Government consumes a certain amount of wealth, but you can't support your claim that the Government doesn't create a certain amount of wealth either and doesn't provide goods and services the American people.

Is it too much to ask that we discuss our views and not make this so personal?

Your examples are all government agencies, pseudo businesses that AFAIK are funded and subsidized by taxpayer money. They mostly operate without competition. Once big government moves into an area they squeeze out private enterprise. There's no reason today why government should be delivering mail or providing any other basic service, with a few exceptions like police, justice and the military - and to get back on topic, space exploration. If government agencies are so good at this, why not have them run restaurants and shops too? The answer is they are hopelessly inefficient, any time they screw up more money is just poured in to cover their losses. Money that they forcibly extract from the true wealth creators and ordinary citizens. The net result is a less prosperous society and a less efficient economy - and millions of people dependent on taxpayer supported jobs. Look how NASA has to take into account all those jobs at KSC when it makes decisions about new launch systems.

Terraformer · 2008-04-19 11:14:10

For Space Exploration, it's kind of going to the Private Enterprises. NASA doesn't develop any new tech, it just pays companies to.

Commodore · 2008-04-19 15:14:01

cIclops, your locked into a mindset of repeating propaganda with absolutely no bases in fact. You see what you want to see and you don't see what you don't want to see. I do not denie that the Government consumes a certain amount of wealth, but you can't support your claim that the Government doesn't create a certain amount of wealth either and doesn't provide goods and services the American people.
Is it too much to ask that we discuss our views and not make this so personal?
Your examples are all government agencies, pseudo businesses that AFAIK are funded and subsidized by taxpayer money. They mostly operate without competition. Once big government moves into an area they squeeze out private enterprise. There's no reason today why government should be delivering mail or providing any other basic service, with a few exceptions like police, justice and the military - and to get back on topic, space exploration. If government agencies are so good at this, why not have them run restaurants and shops too? The answer is they are hopelessly inefficient, any time they screw up more money is just poured in to cover their losses. Money that they forcibly extract from the true wealth creators and ordinary citizens. The net result is a less prosperous society and a less efficient economy - and millions of people dependent on taxpayer supported jobs. Look how NASA has to take into account all those jobs at KSC when it makes decisions about new launch systems.

Most of the things listed were also things that the private sector would have little to no interest in anyway, either because its impossible do to massive goverment regulation, or because such a project would not be profitable if the company had to foot the bill all by itself. But once the goverment invest in the infrastructure, people find new ways to use it that didn't exist before, and the country as a whole prospers. Take the TVA, there was no technical reason power could not have been provided, but the power company concluded there were not enough customers to be worth the investment. Also, private industry didn't care about the seasonal flooding, cause they could afford to build on higher ground. But once the money was spent and the job done, the region was far more productive for all parties. Same for the Eisenhower Interstate. I think that it was far better for (nearly) all parties when the railroads were built to a common gauge and spread to cover a little more than just were the owners could make money when the goverment had a hand in it.

Much of the inefficiencies are the caused by various regulation brought upon the goverment by itself. Usually catering to the extremist demands of a handful of legislators and activist just to get a project underway. You got to make parts in one particular senators state in order to get his vote, or you have to do environmental impact studies to save the Horny Spotted Newt that no one has ever heard of.

If you what more efficient goverment, limit what it can do and make sure its the same everywhere.

Commodore · 2008-04-19 15:16:39

For Space Exploration, it's kind of going to the Private Enterprises. NASA doesn't develop any new tech, it just pays companies to.

It may pay companies for the technologies, but what incentive do those companies have for applying those technologies together for exploration?

Martian Republic · 2008-04-19 20:47:06

For Space Exploration, it's kind of going to the Private Enterprises. NASA doesn't develop any new tech, it just pays companies to.
It may pay companies for the technologies, but what incentive do those companies have for applying those technologies together for exploration?

NASA has always contracted out to private US Companies to develop new technologies that they need to developed so they can complete the mission that they were given to do. They need some new engine or new type of metal or micro switches, etc, for some new project there doing and NASA doesn't build it themselves, so they contract it out to the lowest bidder to develop it for for them. When those companies develop the new technology to have developed to build what NASA wanted built, then NASA buy that new product that the company developed for NASA. Now that company has a new product line, compliments of the US Tax Payer through the NASA contract to buy a particular product that didn't exist before it was developed. But, since NASA was the one that paid for the development of that new technology at some point in time that is also opened up to the rest of the US Business to use too. But, that company has first crack at using that technology first since they developed it. So a short time period is given them to redeem that technology first before other companies get a crack at using that new technology. Here where it get interesting when it opened up to all the other companies in America, because there all doing something else and they can all use that new technology for something different to serve another application.

The medical field will use those micro circuit to make wheel Chair that can be powered or managed by the people who are in the wheel chairs.

It is these other application like this that I keep referring to as the bases for creating that fourteen to one dollar return on our investment of going to the moon, which it where those micro circuit were developed. It both expands the US Economy and it also improves the life of the people that use that new technology. People who are in wheel chair, it gives them new mobility that they didn't have before and the list goes on.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2008-04-19 21:27:09

cIclops, your locked into a mindset of repeating propaganda with absolutely no bases in fact. You see what you want to see and you don't see what you don't want to see. I do not denie that the Government consumes a certain amount of wealth, but you can't support your claim that the Government doesn't create a certain amount of wealth either and doesn't provide goods and services the American people.
Is it too much to ask that we discuss our views and not make this so personal?
Your examples are all government agencies, pseudo businesses that AFAIK are funded and subsidized by taxpayer money. They mostly operate without competition. Once big government moves into an area they squeeze out private enterprise. There's no reason today why government should be delivering mail or providing any other basic service, with a few exceptions like police, justice and the military - and to get back on topic, space exploration. If government agencies are so good at this, why not have them run restaurants and shops too? The answer is they are hopelessly inefficient, any time they screw up more money is just poured in to cover their losses. Money that they forcibly extract from the true wealth creators and ordinary citizens. The net result is a less prosperous society and a less efficient economy - and millions of people dependent on taxpayer supported jobs. Look how NASA has to take into account all those jobs at KSC when it makes decisions about new launch systems.

I am not like you. I am not locked into any one mindset.

Where it make sense for the government to own the infrastructure and to manage it, then I have not problem with them owning it and running it. Things like the City Water System or Amtrak.

Where it make sense for big industries to exist and do business, I have no problem with that either. Things like car and air plane manufacturing come to mind, but I would like them regulated to prevent abuses that large corporation will do sometimes.

Where it make sense for private individual to do business and have neither the large corporation or the government doing it, then I support that way of doing it. The family farmer comes to mind in that category of business, but, those family farmers have to be protected, from price fixing by those billion dollars corporations and by the price fixing of there loans by those billion dollars banks that act like loan sharks.

Where it make sense for both the private sector and the government to get involved in it like the health care business. We have private hospitals and we have public hospitals, we also have those military hospitals. We have private insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare and non profit companies for health care insurance. To have good quality health care, we need all of it, so I accept the fact that we need all of it to have a good quality health care system.

I am not locked into any one way of thing like you are. When it make sense to do it some other way, thin I will do it some other way and not keep saying the same old stuff that doesn't work.

When I say that your locked into a mindset and you won't let it go, I am not attacking you. I am making a statement of fact about you. If you or anyone has any doubt about may claim that your locked into a mindset and will refuse to reason with other people over these ideas. Then they should look over the last several post, where I have given you several example that refute you idea that the government only consumes and doesn't produce anything at all productive. I can also show you business that also consume wealth and don't produce anything either. Bear Stearns is just such a business and there are other business that do the same thing that Bear Stearns does, which is to engage in non productive business of business that is detrimental to the economical health of the United States. I don't accuse all business of being this type of business, but you accuse all government on all levels of being non productive on every front and that is just not so.

Larry,

cIclops · 2008-04-20 02:04:30

When I say that your locked into a mindset and you won't let it go, I am not attacking you. I am making a statement of fact about you. If you or anyone has any doubt about may claim that your locked into a mindset and will refuse to reason with other people over these ideas.

That's about as ad hom as it gets Larry. I'm surprised you bothered to reply considering how locked into this "mindset" I am and my refusal to reason with you and others. Further discussion is obviously a waste of time.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-20 19:50:29

When I say that your locked into a mindset and you won't let it go, I am not attacking you. I am making a statement of fact about you. If you or anyone has any doubt about may claim that your locked into a mindset and will refuse to reason with other people over these ideas.
That's about as ad hom as it gets Larry. I'm surprised you bothered to reply considering how locked into this "mindset" I am and my refusal to reason with you and others. Further discussion is obviously a waste of time.

I suppose so.

When someone make cut and dried choices that they can't support and then makes a blanket statement to support that cut and dried choice they made and then won't come off there position when someone else gives them several examples that interdict's the choice they made, then there is no point in going on with the discussion.

You never really answered my objection to you saying the government never produces any wealth, it only consumes. You basically punted of passed most of it and only picked what you thought you could kind get by with your concept that the government never produces any wealth at any time, case close.

So you have not really answered my challenge to you claim that the government never produces any wealth.

With that, it time to break off this discussion.

Have a Good Day!

Larry,

louis · 2008-04-22 13:37:14

Since we are talking about politics and all, I think it is vital that society provides work for all people capable of work.

I don't think this means creating useless jobs. In the UK for instance many beautiful old churches are closed for 90% of daylight hours because the church cannot afford to provide security and they would otherwise be vandalised. Now if unemployed people were given a phone and required to provide security in Churches these wonderful buildings would be open to the public - providing a fantastic new cultural resource and probably stimulating tourism in many areas.

That's just one example. There are plenty of other ways we could employ people productively. This is much better than just paying them benefit or letting them starve. They can be paid pro rata for their benefit. If the minimum wage is £5 per hour and the person is receiving £100 a week in benefits they could be required to work for 20 hours.

It would not be a very expensive scheme (although there would be some administrative costs) and would have many benefits. Not least unemployed people would feel useful and would have something for their CV. There would be promotion opportunities within the scheme.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-22 19:54:01

Since we are talking about politics and all, I think it is vital that society provides work for all people capable of work.
I don't think this means creating useless jobs. In the UK for instance many beautiful old churches are closed for 90% of daylight hours because the church cannot afford to provide security and they would otherwise be vandalised. Now if unemployed people were given a phone and required to provide security in Churches these wonderful buildings would be open to the public - providing a fantastic new cultural resource and probably stimulating tourism in many areas.
That's just one example. There are plenty of other ways we could employ people productively. This is much better than just paying them benefit or letting them starve. They can be paid pro rata for their benefit. If the minimum wage is £5 per hour and the person is receiving £100 a week in benefits they could be required to work for 20 hours.
It would not be a very expensive scheme (although there would be some administrative costs) and would have many benefits. Not least unemployed people would feel useful and would have something for their CV. There would be promotion opportunities within the scheme.

lous, you have come a long way in understanding that we can't just let people starve to death and we don't want useless jobs for them either or make work jobs. I have stated many times what the US Government should to create jobs and there not make work jobs either. We really need the infrastructure that I say that we should build and we are going to use that infrastructure after it been built for thirty or forty years afterward too. But, what you are talking about doing is just make work jobs at minimum wages. We need good paying jobs that someone can raise a family on with health care included in the package, with retirement and a two week vacation. If we aren't taking along those lines for those people that need jobs, then we just playing games with them and there lives.

Larry,

Commodore · 2008-04-22 21:29:30

The other elephant in the room here is the fact that cost so much to merely exist. Various forms of insurance/extortion, a court system that allows an absurd level of idiotic litigation, and a fundamental failure of the education system I mentioned make us so dependent on other to exist, and in completely non-productive fields. We pay for things we don't need just to keep others employed.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-24 19:37:07

The other elephant in the room here is the fact that cost so much to merely exist. Various forms of insurance/extortion, a court system that allows an absurd level of idiotic litigation, and a fundamental failure of the education system I mentioned make us so dependent on other to exist, and in completely non-productive fields. We pay for things we don't need just to keep others employed.

Frivolous lawsuits is one thing.

But, what does that have to do with whether we build subways or super trains system or nuclear power plants?

We need those things!

So let build them.

Larry,

Commodore · 2008-04-24 23:39:30

The other elephant in the room here is the fact that cost so much to merely exist. Various forms of insurance/extortion, a court system that allows an absurd level of idiotic litigation, and a fundamental failure of the education system I mentioned make us so dependent on other to exist, and in completely non-productive fields. We pay for things we don't need just to keep others employed.
Frivolous lawsuits is one thing.
But, what does that have to do with whether we build subways or super trains system or nuclear power plants?
We need those things!
So let build them.
Larry,

They significantly increase the cost of health care and workers comp insurance, both huge issues on major construction sites.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-27 19:10:39

The other elephant in the room here is the fact that cost so much to merely exist. Various forms of insurance/extortion, a court system that allows an absurd level of idiotic litigation, and a fundamental failure of the education system I mentioned make us so dependent on other to exist, and in completely non-productive fields. We pay for things we don't need just to keep others employed.
Frivolous lawsuits is one thing.
But, what does that have to do with whether we build subways or super trains system or nuclear power plants?
We need those things!
So let build them.
Larry,
They significantly increase the cost of health care and workers comp insurance, both huge issues on major construction sites.

I am for good quality health care for everyone and not just for everyone in the United States either. Good quality health care should be considered part of doing business. If those business aren't going to have health care for there workers, then they don't need to be in business at all. If business aren't going to be taking care of there employees and will take unfair advantage of them, then I don't want them in business. I think it should be a right and not a privilege to have a good health policy or program for everyone in the United States and not just for those on a large construction site with those large contracts. If they were getting either no health care or sub-standard health before they got that job at that large construction sight, then I should hope that there health care should be better and if it cost more, then OK. Now where there are abuses and there is even fraud going on with the people that are using the health care or the ones providing that health care to the people, then Yes something should be done about it. I also consider a good health care program should also include having clear water, good quality food that not been contaminated, clear air, etc. I consider what you call a health care plan to be only apart of a bigger package of a prober diet, clean water, clean air, etc

What I consider to be part of a bigger health care plan were to be done, then the part that you consider to be a health care plan should go down in price, because fewer people will be getting sick and won't need Health care.

Larry,

Commodore · 2008-04-27 22:33:24

They significantly increase the cost of health care and workers comp insurance, both huge issues on major construction sites.
I am for good quality health care for everyone and not just for everyone in the United States either. Good quality health care should be considered part of doing business. If those business aren't going to have health care for there workers, then they don't need to be in business at all. If business aren't going to be taking care of there employees and will take unfair advantage of them, then I don't want them in business. I think it should be a right and not a privilege to have a good health policy or program for everyone in the United States and not just for those on a large construction site with those large contracts. If they were getting either no health care or sub-standard health before they got that job at that large construction sight, then I should hope that there health care should be better and if it cost more, then OK. Now where there are abuses and there is even fraud going on with the people that are using the health care or the ones providing that health care to the people, then Yes something should be done about it. I also consider a good health care program should also include having clear water, good quality food that not been contaminated, clear air, etc. I consider what you call a health care plan to be only apart of a bigger package of a prober diet, clean water, clean air, etc
What I consider to be part of a bigger health care plan were to be done, then the part that you consider to be a health care plan should go down in price, because fewer people will be getting sick and won't need Health care.
Larry,

Business has no business in health care. In fact theres already too much business in health care, thats why it cost so much, the stockholders can not be denied. The simple fact is that people will pay any price for the chance to stay alive, it's a survival mechanism. It's the nature of business to take advantage of this.

The trouble with treating health care as a right is that people start treating life as a right. Health care is just as much an art as a science, with the out come determined by circumstances often unforeseen and beyond a doctors control. Furthermore, health conditions are not merely a question of combating competing organisms, genetic conditions and just plain old stupidity on the part of patients play equal parts. And we can't exactly enforce diets and other healthy measures to mitigate them and still call ourselves a free country. Though some places try.

The only thing we can do is make sure the facilities and technology are available, and let the doctors do their job. I think we can build, operate, supply and man more than sufficient general, specialist, and emergency infrastructure for a fraction of what we are paying now, even while ensuring that the builders, suppliers, and staff make a worthwhile profit. Supplies can be mass produced cheaply to a surplus for emergencies. Doctors should be handsomely paid for the extensive training and tremendous responsibility they bear. Drug and device advances could be funded much like the defense industry, with the government owning the right to reproduce as needed.

cIclops · 2008-04-28 14:24:47

OT beep.

The words 'space', 'mars' or even 'outsourcing' haven't appeared for some time.

Hint: this is a space politics topic.

Commodore · 2008-05-01 16:07:17

OT beep.
The words 'space', 'mars' or even 'outsourcing' haven't appeared for some time.
Hint: this is a space politics topic.

Well if the goal is to fund Space, or Mars, and to avoid outsourcing, then you need to eliminate the wasteful spending that make up the Medicade/are, and Social security budgets. They are the largest segments of the budget that are negotiable, or even constitutionally required.

cIclops · 2008-05-02 02:37:24

Only a small part of NASA's budget is used for true outsourcing, that is buying goods and services from non-US companies. Almost all international cooperation is done on a "no exchange of funds" basis. Flying instruments on the spacecraft of non-US agencies is a net gain as it makes more missions possible for the same amount of funding. Equally, adding non-US instruments to a US project enhances its capabilities at no cost.

Compared with the humungous cost of Federal health care and Social security, the amount of money involved in such "outsourcing" is lost in the noise. It's a red herring designed to provoke protectionism.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-02 10:30:34

Since we are talking about politics and all, I think it is vital that society provides work for all people capable of work.
I don't think this means creating useless jobs. In the UK for instance many beautiful old churches are closed for 90% of daylight hours because the church cannot afford to provide security and they would otherwise be vandalised. Now if unemployed people were given a phone and required to provide security in Churches these wonderful buildings would be open to the public - providing a fantastic new cultural resource and probably stimulating tourism in many areas.
That's just one example. There are plenty of other ways we could employ people productively. This is much better than just paying them benefit or letting them starve. They can be paid pro rata for their benefit. If the minimum wage is £5 per hour and the person is receiving £100 a week in benefits they could be required to work for 20 hours.
It would not be a very expensive scheme (although there would be some administrative costs) and would have many benefits. Not least unemployed people would feel useful and would have something for their CV. There would be promotion opportunities within the scheme.
lous, you have come a long way in understanding that we can't just let people starve to death and we don't want useless jobs for them either or make work jobs. I have stated many times what the US Government should to create jobs and there not make work jobs either. We really need the infrastructure that I say that we should build and we are going to use that infrastructure after it been built for thirty or forty years afterward too. But, what you are talking about doing is just make work jobs at minimum wages. We need good paying jobs that someone can raise a family on with health care included in the package, with retirement and a two week vacation. If we aren't taking along those lines for those people that need jobs, then we just playing games with them and there lives.
Larry,

For every government job that is created, more jobs are lost to the private sector, because the money that is required to create those private jobs is taken by government to create government jobs.

A government is a monopoly, it does not face compeditive pressures, as a consequence there is more job security for those employed by the government than by private industry, but the money that is required to hire those government employees comes from the pockets of private industry through taxation. What government can't do very well, because of its ineffeciency, is create economic growth directly. Government can foster growth by taxing minimally, but the more it taxes, the less the economy grows.

I feel that government has an important role, it enforces the law and provides uniform standards for industry so that companies can compete efficiently with each other in producing product and services, but the government itself is not very good at producing product and services, it should only do so, where there are no alternatives to it. It makes little sense for instance, for government mining companies to mine coal or to drill for oil, although the people working for such companies, probably enjoy job security and benefits, the rest of society pays in taxes and subsidies, the price for those securely held jobs and benefits for a few workers, and in return receives less in goods and services that it would otherwise receive from an equivalent compeditive private company.

Governments should foster growth by staying out of the way, and by taxing only that what is necessary, and by providing services only where necessary, where it can't be obtained in the private market.

Also where government does provide services, such as education, it should pay for that service directly where ever possible instead of providing the service itself.

To give an example:
pay for an education so that the parents can afford to send their children to a school of their choice, rather than have the government run a school.

Another example is to pay for medical coverage rather than run a hospital itself.

Government should get its work done by employing the fewest number of government workers necessary to accomplish the task, and where there are opportunities to get private companies to provide the service, they should.

Martian Republic · 2008-05-04 21:35:48

Tom Kalbfus, you make several assertions that aren't true and they are:

For every government job that is created, more jobs are lost to the private sector, because the money that is required to create those private jobs is taken by government to create government jobs.

FDR's Four river project is an example where your assertions fall apart. That Four river project and other such project by the US Government was the foundation for restarting the US Economy during the Great Depression which was caused by the private sector. The money to build those four river projects, didn't come from taxes either, because, over half the people or more were unemployed at the time that FDR proposed those projects. The money came from the Treasure Department by FDR giving the power to generate credit to the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department created the credit in the amount that was need to finance those four river projects and they were paid back to the US Government over the proceeding thirty years after those projects were finished. Not only did those four river projects not take jobs away from the private sector, they actually created jobs for the private sector by having those private companies bid on those government contracts to build them. Not only that, many of those companies actually even congregated around those government projects like they do around those government built roads. Companies like steel and Aluminum manufactures did, because they need both water and power which they could get both at a fairly reasonable price, but had to deal with the market forces in other places.

A government is a monopoly, it does not face compeditive pressures, as a consequence there is more job security for those employed by the government than by private industry, but the money that is required to hire those government employees comes from the pockets of private industry through taxation. What government can't do very well, because of its ineffeciency, is create economic growth directly. Government can foster growth by taxing minimally, but the more it taxes, the less the economy grows.

Agreed, the government is a monopoly if you want to put it that way. But, private companies have there own short falls too, they are bound to pay there stock holders which also add to the price of the product, after all the stock holder has to have his return on his investment. Then you have companies like Enron that were energy pirates in the California price gouging several years ago.

I feel that government has an important role, it enforces the law and provides uniform standards for industry so that companies can compete efficiently with each other in producing product and services, but the government itself is not very good at producing product and services, it should only do so, where there are no alternatives to it. It makes little sense for instance, for government mining companies to mine coal or to drill for oil, although the people working for such companies, probably enjoy job security and benefits, the rest of society pays in taxes and subsidies, the price for those securely held jobs and benefits for a few workers, and in return receives less in goods and services that it would otherwise receive from an equivalent compeditive private company.

For the most part, I agree with you here. There are places where it make sense to have the private sector do it and only have government super vision over it.

Governments should foster growth by staying out of the way, and by taxing only that what is necessary, and by providing services only where necessary, where it can't be obtained in the private market.

I think we need to take it on a case by case bases. If there selling roses, we don't need government super vision. But, other places, that may not be so.

Also where government does provide services, such as education, it should pay for that service directly where ever possible instead of providing the service itself.
To give an example:
pay for an education so that the parents can afford to send their children to a school of their choice, rather than have the government run a school.
Another example is to pay for medical coverage rather than run a hospital itself.
Government should get its work done by employing the fewest number of government workers necessary to accomplish the task, and where there are opportunities to get private companies to provide the service, they should.

I have not problem with the Federal, State, county or city owning some of the infrastructure like subways, dams, Electric Power Companies, city air ports, Amtrak, US Post Offices, Hospitals, etc. I also have no problem with there being private ownership of some of the infrastructure too, like hospitals, the air lines, the truck lines, factories, mines for the ores, etc.

So I have not set number as to how many employees that the government should have for employment. But, I don't want a run away government that is trying to employ everyone either.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2008-04-18 07:38:04

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#52 2008-04-18 20:30:36

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#53 2008-04-18 20:52:27

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#54 2008-04-19 03:48:31

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#55 2008-04-19 11:14:10

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#56 2008-04-19 15:14:01

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#57 2008-04-19 15:16:39

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#58 2008-04-19 20:47:06

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#59 2008-04-19 21:27:09

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#60 2008-04-20 02:04:30

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#61 2008-04-20 19:50:29

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#62 2008-04-22 13:37:14

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#63 2008-04-22 19:54:01

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#64 2008-04-22 21:29:30

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#65 2008-04-24 19:37:07

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#66 2008-04-24 23:39:30

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#67 2008-04-27 19:10:39

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#68 2008-04-27 22:33:24

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#69 2008-04-28 14:24:47

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#70 2008-05-01 16:07:17

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#71 2008-05-02 02:37:24

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#72 2008-05-02 10:30:34

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#73 2008-05-04 21:35:48

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

Board footer