by John Platko wrote:
While I think you fail to understand the broad way the trickle down term is used I have no interest in bickering over terms so I will once again modify my comment and replace the term trickle down with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats." Which is simply not true. And there's no reason to believe that it works any better to help people in desperate economic positions.
Sorry John, but no - you're just wrong.
First you tried to pin something on that didn't stick, now you've made up a new version. Neither are correct from an economics perspective. Your argument now is effectively that a bigger, more robust, and more diverse economy cannot translate to improvements in the living conditions for the people in that society. It's just nonsense.
John Platko wrote:However, we do seem to be having some communication difficulty and if you're attempting to communicate to me that your comments are about helping people in India who are already well educated and can fend for themselves being given a subsidy to improve their lives further, or provide for their pet projects, and in no way refers to the very poorest, then I'm not really interested in that discussion.
Well, fortunately that's also nothing to do with anything I said. It's almost like you're reading from another script.
John Platko wrote:
Oh my, I gather that your position is that the issues of poor people in India have nothing to do with anything pertinent in this thread. Do I have that right?
Goodness no - please at least try to respond to what I post. Clearly poverty has something to do with this thread as its in the OP.
What I've really very clearly been saying, and which surely can't be difficult to understand, is that the space program has nothing to do with poverty in India. How many times have I said "it's not either/or" - perhaps if you could respond to my points rather than ones you think I hold, we'd make some progress!
John Platko wrote:
Ahh perhaps a bit of education on the subject will clear up this misunderstanding.
Ahh now I understand what's going on here - you're purporting to be in a position to lecture!
The fact that you entirely misrepresented everything I wrote, tried to dismiss my position by reference to an erroneous notion of economics, then fabricated a new one to maintain that argument even though you'd effectively got the whole thing wrong... and now you're going to give me an education on the space shuttle!
POP!
John Platko wrote:Once upon a time we went to the moon and brought back some rocks. Everyone was all excited and proud for while, but as with many things, the excitement quickly wore off for most. Then the credit card bill arrived.And to most it seemed like a lot of money for a bunch of rocks, cool as they might be. To many, space travel didn't seem worth the $$$$$$$$$. NASA and its contractors were very
until they got an idea. They figured that it was costing so much $$$$$$$$$ because we threw out the space vehicles after using them just once. So they came up with a mostly, partly, sort-of, reusable space vehicle that would make it more like driving a truck into space. It could haul a lot on each trip and best of all would be reusable. Fly it, bring it home, send it through the wash and off it goes again. Cheap, reliable, no need for aircraft carriers and such to fetch it out of the ocean. What a plan .... To make a long story short, it didn't work out that way at all. There were a lot of unforeseen costs in making a reusable space vehicle with the capabilities touted. And while the technical achievements were impressive, they pushed the possible to the limit and that required a lot of expensive maintenance - engines, heat shields, etc.. To make things worse, the pressure from unmet expectations of the program put so much stress on NASA and its contractors management that they started to make bad decisions- and people died
Absolute bollocks. Your tailor made story is far from an education, except in make-believe. Do you think that passes muster here? And the nasty pseudo-accusation there shows that your motivation isn't in educating, but in promulgating cack.
Brought back some rocks? FFS, how lacking in vision are you?
The bit with the 'long story short' - try expanding it there if you want to put forward a coherent argument that doesn't seem to have just been displaced from your navel.
John Platko wrote:
There is international cooperation in many aspects of life, commerce, military, education, religion, etc. space cooperation is just another flavor of the same phenomenon.
It's the flag-ship for international cooperation.
John Platko wrote:Spearthrower wrote:John Platko wrote:
I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.
??
No, I can't follow your argument at all.
On the one hand we have an actual real achievement of humanity, on the other we have one which still eludes us, which is extraordinarily complex, which is not a single issue but many, and is present in numerous sovereign nation states. How is the one (to go with the simplistic notion of it being a singular problem) we haven't achieved better than the one we have?
Is the eradication of poverty desirable? Yes.
Is it connected to space flight? No.
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere. That's an excellent summary of the problem. There is a desire to eradicate poverty and space flight (well at least Mars space flight) is not connected to that goal. Ergo, money spent on Mars could be better spent.
And as you have been informed countless times, the notion that it is either/or is a fundamental misapprehension. We can do both. Your simplistic notions of economics are what keeps leaving you repeating the same erroneous argument over and over.
John Platko wrote:
But it's not an all or nothing type of situation. Feeding how ever many people $76m will feed means that many less people going hungry, and that matters- especially to them. Is this not obvious?
This is an awfully boring conversation when you are so ill-versed in the topic and you keep trying to be authoritative.
I already cited numbers. 400 million people. Do the math, John - stop talking out the wrong end of your digestive tract. $76m dollars for 400m people is a few dollars each.
So how long, would you estimate, that a few dollars would feed a person before they were hungry again?
And when they're hungry again the next day, we do it again, right? And again and again and again - that is not a solution to poverty, John - it's dealing with the symptoms, not the causes. And money will run out long before people stop being hungry.
Perhaps it has now sunk in. From what I've seen so far, I doubt it.
John Platko wrote:
We used Hitler's rocket team to help us get to the moon in a very big way and their track record for abusing people is well documented. It's a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.
Well, at least you've shown your crackpot hand now John.
What a load of nonsensical wank. I can't believe you even find this site suitable when your arguments are so poorly conceived. Argumentum ad hitlerum! On the space shuttle! As a corollary to eradicating poverty!
Well, I never expected that one, I have to say!John Platko wrote:
Well, for example, if collectively scientists and engineers ignore risks and warnings which might put lives at undue risk because their character is such that they can't take the pressure put on them by other people due to their personal or collective character failures then people might die an avoidable death. And this happened at NASA, and it is well documented.
No, it's make-believe. You've cited not a thing in support of any of your contentions. Further, the people who worked on the design of the original shuttle were not those involved with the two shuttle disasters. You are fabricating a revisionist account of history.
And it still has nothing whatsoever to do with eradicating poverty.
John Platko wrote:And Von Braun and his cronies cared more about rockets and space then they did about the thousands who died building their designs in horrible conditions.
Your responses are pitiable.
John Platko wrote:Spearthrower wrote:
What does the nationality of some of the scientists have to do with it?
Not a sausage or even a bratwurst.
It's not the nationality, it's the specific Germans who were center stage at the Saturn V development.
I'm rather fond and amazed of the Germans who immigrated to the US and designed an built the early Martin steal string guitars. I could tell another little story if you require a history lesson on the early US space program and WHO did what and
WHO they were and WHERE they came from and WHAT they did there.
What wonders of fiction are in store for us next?
Your response was not a response.
John Platko wrote:
One could make that argument about anything that is unknown. I'm simply saying, let's get our priorities right. Feed, house, educate people, give them a decent standard of living with known resources or at least far less speculative resources than Mars might have and when our earthly house is in order, by all means, go explore Mars or wherever. (Although, I'm open to there being real measurable benefits from India's Mars program, like kids really cracking the books and getting interested in core math and science skills that can actually improve their lives and the lives of people around them- that is, as long as they don't grow up and want to use these skills on even bigger boondoggles in space.)
Our priorities are right. You have failed to make a case to the contrary. You don't understand economics, and you've bought into a crackpot account of history. That's what you're basing your argument on.
John Platko wrote:
I'm not sure how many people were inspired by the space shuttle program, certainly that's true of the early space program and the moon landing. US interest in the space shuttle rolled off pretty fast for most people. I doubt if most people knew when launches were taking place. Technical people were thrilled of course.
Launches were and still are watched all over the world, John. They're a source of considerable national pride for technical achievement.
John Platko wrote:And that reminds me of a course that's available on line which talks about all aspects of the space shuttle in depth with many of the actual people involved in the development. We're lucky to have this kind of information available, however there are other views on how "successful" the shuttle really was.
Of course there are other views, valid views too - not the crackpottery you've subscribed to and presented here.
Thanks!
