I’m not going to make a blanket defense of the Dept. of Ed., since I’m not a fan of NCLB, but criticizng the Dept. of Ed. isn’t an argument in favor of manned space exploration. It’s an argument against the DOE.
I agree, but if you can’t reasonably figure out the value, how does that square with your market-oriented philosophy that you usually espouse here? If the market can’t figure out the value, why do you think government should go ahead and support it?
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your economic philosophy. But I do recall when we were talking about high speed trains, that you were against them because there wasn’t a provable benefit, only a hypothetical one, and that you were against them because they were a market distortion (I don’t feel like looking up the thread, so feel free to correct me if I’m misremembering). In advocating for manned space exploration, aren’t you advocating for something that has speculative benefits and is a market distortion at the same time?
I’m not sure moral hazard is the correct term, but I comprehend the argument. However, under US law, not honoring the property rights would be a fairly clear takings violation and possibly a due process violation.
I think prizes are a bit tangential to our discussion, since with a prize you can clearly define the economic benefit (if you want to). But with prizes for science that has only hypothetical economic benefit, we’re back to my original question as to how that fits into your economic view.
I was trying to compare relative value. I actually think that one of the side benefits of manned spaceflight is that it probably pays for the entire program in educational value in terms of inspiring children to do better in school. A measure of the overall value of the space program compared to the funding it gets.
I’m not a hardcore libertarian - I only want the government out of the way when there is the potential for a functioning market that can do it better. But I’ve always agreed that there are some things you need government for - building interstate highways, carrying out basic research of no apparent commercial value, and space exploration. I also support government catastrophic health insurance, because I think the health insurance market is broken. I also support minimal levels of public assistance for distressed individuals, because I think a safety net leads to a more civil society, which is a prerequisite for well-functioning markets in the first place.
People argue that high speed trains can run at a profit. My answer is that if they can, the government has no business running them. And if they can’t, then there’s no point building them becaue we already have better alternatives. If you want to argue that a high speed train is a social good even if it can’t move people as efficiently in terms of cost and energy as other systems we already have, then that’s the right approach to get my support. I just don’t think you can do it. I’ve looked at the numbers, and I don’t think they make sense.
The moral hazard was created by previous government actions - the government has proven itself untrustworthy through the abuse of eminent domain and constant modifications of law to benefit special interests, and therefore it would have a very hard time selling me on the notion of spending billions to get a claim to some moon property.
In any event, there are international treaties to prevent this, I believe.
The point to a prize is precisely to attach a measurable economic benefit to an achievement in science or engineering that otherwise wouldn’t have one. Yes, it’s a government program, but it’s one with a very light touch - the government simply creates the incentive for the market to work, then stays out of the way. In areas where there would otherwise be no functioning market at all, this may be a good model for government intervention.
No, I’m just applying the same definition of value to haircuts that you have applied to space. If you demand an accountant’s version of return on investment, you won’t get it from space or haircuts. Yet people continue to spend money on both haircuts and space, and for analogous reasons that have nothing to do with return on investment.
The definition of value you have adopted is useful to an accountant or economist, but useless to the consumer. A person who used that definition would never change his spending habits, because by definition the things he is not currently buying must have no value to him.
Here’s another old economist joke: An economist is walking down the sidewalk and sees a $20 bill on the ground. He looks down and then walks on. His friend says, “Didn’t you see that $20 bill lying there?” The economist says, “That couldn’t have been a $20 bill. If it were, someone would have picked it up.”
Space and haircuts are the $20 bill, and you are the economist.
Rather than spaceflight, can we get the thread back on topic.
While people who caused the economic problem are getting huge taxpayer-paid bonuses while 20% are un/underemployed, can we say the job stimulus policies of the last year have failed?
no. You are explaining the success or failure of a program with a narrow specific case. There have been a lot of jobs created and a lot more saved. But NASA appears to many as wasted money. i am not in that camp. I love the space program. But Obama has to sell the programs to everybody across the country. There is no way he sell burying money into NASA.
Like Durbin said about the bankers getting to loot the treasury"they own the place’. NASA does not have the political clout and media access that the bankers do. They are still in charge.
Note that I’m not dismissing the issue as unimportant, nor am I saying there is no issue, nor even am I arguing that what’s being done is the best course of action. Rather, I’m simply providing what I see as evidence that calling the last year’s policy a “failure” is, at least IMHO, pretty much just factually wrong.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080531_the_corporate_state_and_the_subversion_of_democracy/?ln
Railing about Obama and NASA engineers is entirely inadequate when you see the forces he is up against. The momentum for remaking America into another useful country for corporations is just too p[owerful. We are in a big world of hurt . The Repubs have said they have decided filibustering every act Obama does will allow them to get back into power. To make the country ungovernable is treasonous. They do not care that the Dems were voted in. They are sabotaging every Dem initiative. They rely on favorable news organizations to make it appear it is the Dems fault. I fear for the country.
So what? I never claimed that space has no value or the valuation is different. I said that the value is hypothetical. Try and pay attention.
This is nonsense. Many people do get an actual, real ROI on a haircut. You can keep stating nonsense, that doesn’t make it so.
Huh? People change their spending habits because the relative value of things for them changes. If you don’t even know this, you can’t expect anyone to pay attention to you.
Yes, please continue making trite jokes in order to cover up your loony ignorance and nonsense.
What’s funny about that joke is that you are the one refusing to assign a value to the $20. Just as you were the one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
To (hopefully) add to the debate by supplying fodder, I just came across a DailyFinance article: Economists Say U.S. Expansion Nearing Self-Sustaining Status. Yes, he says that unemployment will remain at 9.5% at the end of 2010, but that the economy really is on the cusp of getting better. (Really, I think this is worth reading.)
While I cannot vouch for the reputation of the above author, I believe that Brad DeLong is acceptable to all sides as a cite. So, as counterpoint to the above, he indicates that it’s likely going to be a jobless recovery.
I don’t have the background or knowledge to argue intelligently one way or the other; as I said, I’m just supplying discussion fodder…