Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/PBST6ITUV4RZ4RUXCBCSFPOVNVNW2RZO/?format=api
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/PBST6ITUV4RZ4RUXCBCSFPOVNVNW2RZO/?format=api", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api", "message_id": "[email protected]", "message_id_hash": "PBST6ITUV4RZ4RUXCBCSFPOVNVNW2RZO", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/N6TZD7HTUJ4A3PFRSUTYN7C627GJ5SET/?format=api", "sender": { "address": "w5ggw (a) cox.net", "mailman_id": null, "emails": null }, "sender_name": "Gregg Wonderly", "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose", "date": "2011-08-09T23:47:05Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/NJPVRQCSI6DHYQOZ3SU3EVS3F464SOPV/?format=api", "children": [ "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/AGK3XCQUQ4SFBTQVRV7FMH4X467ZXM2E/?format=api" ], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "I agree, that there is change that can happen. Here's my view on what I really \nthink are the issues.\n\nI was specifically referring to the notion that \"funding\" is the \"problem\". \nFunding will be the \"issue\" that allows change to actually happen, and at what \nspeed it can happen. Money availability is largely controlled by the \"Fed\" in \nterms of providing an interest rate that will allow private enterprise to \n\"invest\" by getting loans from the banks that the Fed serves.\n\nSure, there is also a fixed amount of \"money\" available from private parties.\nBut, if no one who \"has the money\" wants to fund \"space flight\", then it won't \never happen privately. I.e. why hasn't the privetization already happened? I \nthink it's because it doesn't \"make money\". There's nothing \"known\" to generate \nvalue out of space \"flight\". Space based research, perhaps, but not \"space \nflight\". Transportation to the ISS is an occasional thing... Not a giant \nopportunity for continued income and business growth (limited occupancy etc.).\n\n\nThere has to be some other interests generated. Nasa's exploratory program can \nprovide the data and some \"Wow moments\" that raise the interest levels of those \nwith money. But, if there is no \"investment\" opportunity, then a mindset change \nhas to happen that causes people to believe that it needs to happen and they \nshould \"pay\" for it rather than \"invest\" in it.\n\nBecause of the development of \"the space program\" by the government of the U.S., \nthat's largely where it has been funded from, and the Fed, has \"printed money\" \nfor many parts of that development.\n\nIf there is only a \"small\" amount of private funding available, it may not go to \nthe 'right' places. So, in order for \"all possible opportunities to be \nexplored\", there has to exist enough interests with enough money to make it \nhappen. Federally funded exploration programs are one way to make sure specific \ntasks are executed. But, because people believe that \"money\" is and should be \nof a \"fixed supply\", we'll have countless arguments about \"budget\".\n\nIf we did something with a space program over the course of 10 years, instead of \ndoing it in 1 year, for example, people would see less effect of the \"money \nspent\" over 10 years. But if all of the economic impact occured in just 1 year, \nit could have very recognizable impact, as the wars have in the past. The Fed \nhas moved the economy along at slow speeds because its easier to keep an eye on it.\n\nThe amount of \"cash\" available, is arbitrary, because the Fed decides when to \nprint it based on their economic outlook and then decided interest rates. They \nare printing like mad right now because of the recession. This is the policy \nand procedures of how the Fed works as an independent organization (no one who \nyou voted for can make them do anything).\n\nAs we all know, a huge mount of \"value\" was \"injected\" into our economy by \nmassive, risky, unmanaged credit. We didn't have the money in circulation to \nsupport that value, and suddenly it was realized that there was a problem. Next \nwas the decision about who loses? Is it the person making the purchase, or the \nperson loaning the money, or the person who sold the risky item? It has been \ndecided that no one loses, and we'll just adjust the economy by printing money \nso everyone can \"do\" what needs to be done to recover. Go watch the Fed vs the \ncongress videos on youtube.com if you didn't get to see how much grilling the \nFed got for \"fixing the economy\" by bailing out the \"can't fail\".\n\nLet's hope everyone is acting responsibly this time, because printing more money \nonly adds \"money\" to support the \"value\", if everyone agrees to \"keep\" the value \nof \"money\" the same in the economy. Otherwise, we get \"inflation\" that will \ndevalue money again, and that won't help. Hyper-inflation is being predicted.\n\nYou can hope for privatization to work, but there are no guarantees. With a \nbaseless \"money\", we can, actually just print like mad, all we want to employ as \nmany people as possible to do as much \"work\" as we can find to do. Since \neveryone is working, and we are getting useful results, does it seem wrong to \n\"print money\" to employ people to work? We did this for the wars...\n\nOnce we are done with a \"work\" program, how do all those people continue to live \nin the economy? What is happening with the Space Shuttle program? An answer \nmight be that we just keep printing money and let them \"live\". But that's what \neveryone calls socialism and historically, it hasn't worked. Food stamps, \nunemployment, and other assistance programs are argued to create socialistic \nbehaviors, but how do we decide the moment that a person or a project deserves \nto fail? Do we have to judge it as \"bad\", or do we need to declare it \"okay to \nfail\"?\n\nPractically, we can argue and discuss about gold or silver backed currency till \nwe are blue in the face. In a resource backed, currency based economy, if new \npeople are to be employed, someone else needs to take a pay cut, spend some \nmoney, or die so that the new person can be paid some money. If more \"value\" is \ncreated in the economy with new products, then the price of other items have to \ndecline for that other value to be accessible for purchase. If you have to plan \nyour business to continuously reduce prices, how far can you go before you \ncan't? What does that do to initial prices and who can purchase? The Fed \ncontrols available money, hoping to manage this appropriately so that printing \nonly should happen when new economic value exists.\n\nGetting more of the \"resource\" such as mining gold/silver, would be like \n\"printing\" money because once you add it to the economy, there will be more \navailable and the worth of the existing will likely decline unless there is \nadditional \"value\" added to the economy to make the \"gold\" harder to get. This \nis why some people believe the Fed is okay as long as it's managed \nappropriately. It is cheaper to print money then it is to \"mine\" gold, and gold \nand silver are useful resources, where as \"paper\" is manufactured from renewable \nresources.\n\nWith the Fed in operation, the \"annual cost of living increase\" in your pay \ncheck was about equalizing your \"money\" with the \"Fed\" printing rate so that you \ndidn't have to take an effective cut in pay because of the inflation being created.\n\nThe Fed prints enough new money to take \"growth\" into account, based on what it \ncan track. The problem was that too much \"money\" was being loaned out and the \n\"banks\" had stacked their own debt at more than 10-to-1 against cash on hand \nwith loans because of lack of regulation. Thus the economy was larger than the \nFed could \"perceive\" and we didn't have enough \"cash\" to cover such risky \nbehavior. And yes, the risky behavior should not of been happening either.\n\nIt's important to learn how it all works so that we understand that \nprivetization is possible, but there are countless circumstances that don't \nalways make it economically possible. Money, today, is a vehicle that can be \nused for a lot of things, and the misuse of it, as we've seen, can destroy the \neconomy or damage it severely.\n\nThe X-Prize, for example had very view participants because there wasn't any \n\"real\" prize except recognition, and ultimately the \"knowledge\" gained from \nparticipation.\n\nWhere are all the interests at really? I think there should be lots of \ninterest, but I sure don't see anything that would suggest that there would be \n10 space flight companies making regular trips into space by 2020.\n\nThis is way off topic for this group...\n\nGregg Wonderly\nW5GGW\n\nOn 8/9/2011 11:08 AM, R Oler wrote:\n> Greg. well all I can say is that anyone who says that the US has \"virtually\n> abandoned\" crewed spaceflight is not up on current events. What we are doing is\n> transitioning from a program of the military industrial complex to one which\n> centers on private enterprise...and that will open space access for a lot of\n> things. And that will include amateur radio payloads. In my view the association\n> between amateur radio and human spaceflight has hurt amateur radio more then it\n> has helped.\n>\n> Go read \"The Revolution in Military Affairs\"...and you will get the drift Robert\n> G. Oler WB5MZO Life member AMSAT ARRL NARS\n>\n> > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:08:01 -0500\n> > From: [email protected]\n> > To: [email protected]\n> > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]\n> > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose\n> >\n> > When these kinds of comments come up, I often wonder how many people actually\n> > understand how the US economy works. I spend some time to put together some\n> > view points of how the FED is affecting what's happening and how the \"basis of\n> > the FED\" as a mechanism is not really working to manage the complexities of our\n> > economy. There are things all over youtube.com which are records of senate and\n> > congressional committee sessions, historical videos, documentaries etc. If you\n> > are not really sure how the FED works and what all the \"troubles\" of the economy\n> > in the U.S. and the world (because many countries chose to tie themselves to our\n> > currency system), visible my Google+ post that I've put up and look around at\n> > some of the videos I've linked to.\n> >\n> > https://plus.google.com/110612293771822302429/posts/eG6QC13kgv8\n> >\n> > Gregg Wonderly\n> > W5GGW\n> >\n> > On 8/5/2011 5:39 PM, R Oler wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Trevor...there is not a chance that is going to happen. The US is on the\n> verge of a revolution in space affairs (to mimic Admiral Bill Owens) and we are\n> about to leave a technowelfare program and go into something truly free\n> enterprise. Watch\n> > >\n> > > Robert G. Oler WB5MZO life member AMSAT ARRL NARS\n> > >\n> > >> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:04:09 +0100\n> > >> From: [email protected]\n> > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]\n> > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose\n> > >>\n> > >> Bob, Politicians are the same the world over.\n> > >>\n> > >> I note that some of your Politicians seem paranoid about the USA's biggest\n> trading partner, Beijing. I don't mind betting that in a few years time your\n> Politicians will be falling over themselves to vote billions of tax dollars to\n> the Space program to prevent the US falling into 3rd place behind the Russian\n> Federation and Beijing.\n> > >\n> > >>\n> > >> 73 Trevor M5AKA\n> > >>\n> > >> --- On Fri, 5/8/11, Bob Bruninga<[email protected]> wrote:\n> > >>>>> ,,,it now lists keps for 'Radioscaf-B'. (no\n> > >>>>> ARRISat-1' listing). Will that eventually change?\n> > >>>\n> > >>> I chuckle.\n> > >>>\n> > >>> We in the USA have virtually abandoned manned space. We\n> > >>> have no manned space\n> > >>> flight vehicles because all we do is squabble with the\n> > >>> attention span of 2\n> > >>> year olds in our politics and long term outlooks. All\n> > >>> our politicians do is\n> > >>> worry about their re-election in the next 2 years.\n> > >>> They cannot face the\n> > >>> really big issues that need to be solved without\n> > >>> jeopardizing their\n> > >>> re-election by the me-first, screw-them electorate.\n> > >>> The voters only have\n> > >>> the attention span from one radio talk show to the next.\n> > >>>\n> > >>> So since the Russians are now the only manned space program\n> > >>> that can provide\n> > >>> the ride, I guess they get to call it whatever they\n> > >>> want. Our guys worked\n> > >>> VERY HARD to build it and deliver it against unbelieveable\n> > >>> pressures and\n> > >>> bureaucratic issues, but the only way to get it to ISS was\n> > >>> to give it to the\n> > >>> Russians.\n> > >>>\n> > >>> Sigh...\n> > >>> Bob, WB4APR\n> > >>\n> > >>\n> > >> _______________________________________________\n> > >> Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n> > >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n> > >> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n> > >\n> > > _______________________________________________\n> > > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n> > > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n> > > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n> > >\n", "attachments": [] }