Re: Retooling the Vision for Space Exploration

On Mar 5, 8:02 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:46 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

The United States despite its great economic success relative to the
rest of the world, is growing increasingly fragile.  Eisenhower by
promoting US investment in manufacturing overseas, and undermining US
based manufacturing, removed the basis of US wealth.  We became the
world's largest importer, where we used to be the world's largest
exporter.  This weakened the US dollar, and caused the US to go off
the gold standard.

That´s an absurd analyzis.

No its not.

The years immediatelly following the end of
WW2 were highly anomalous.

No they weren't. Europe and Japan were decimated, all their capital
and infrastructure was destroyed. America emerged in tact and fully
functioning. We had incomes that were 10 to 20 times that of the rest
of the world on a per capita basis because we didn't have bombs
falling on our factories and mines and farms.

We PRODUCED 10 to 20 times the rest of the world per capita for that
reason.

This is true of ANY nation that avoids destruction of its capital base
relative to nations that do suffer from such destruction.

The same thing happened at the end of World War 1.

Only the USA had escaped destructive
effects of the war, and hence US exporst were more or less without
competition.

It was a natural consequence of the way the war was carried out.
Precisely. I wouldn't call it anamalous. Fortunate would be a better
word. Yet, It actually supports my analysis. Eisenhower supported
legislation that promoted US investment in our former enemies -
increasing their manufacturing mining and farming base, and reducing
our per capita rates.

That situation could not have stayd that way,

So? That has nothing to do with what I said. You are saying my
analysis is faulty, but you seem to have missed the point of my
analysis totally. OBviously you are missing my point.

US capital flowed preferentially into Germany and Japan following
Eisenhower';s changes in international banking rules undermining
manufacturing mining and farming in the United States. Had the US
wanted to it could kept the older rules and the US would use its
position to maintain a strong manufacturing base that kept ahead of
the rest of the world and maintain the sterngth of the dollar.

unless USA would have
sought to prevent somehow the economic reconstruction of Europe,

You are missing my point. Capital should be free to flow where it
does the most good. Yet, barriers were erected in the US for
manufacturers and rewards were instituted for those who invested
overseas. This undermined US manufacturing and eventually the value
of the US dollar.

Clearly my analysis is accurate. Your commentary is off the mark
because I am not saying what you claim I'm saying.

Obviously taking advantage of a situation to create the greatest value
with the least investment is what markets are good at. Plainly had
the US at the end of World War 2 allowed the market to decide what was
best, the US would have retained a strong manufacturing base even
while manufacturing was built up overseas. The rules adopted by
Eisenhower cause investors to ABANDON plant and equipment and workers
here in the US and invest those dollars overseas. This UNDERMINED US
manufacturing which create continuing weakness in US economy that in a
rational world would have remained very strong indeed.

which
would have gone against its interests, preciselly opposed to what you
appear to indicate.

You are either very clever at disinformation or cannot read or think
clearly. So, lets recap. My premise is that changes in the banking
and investment and tax rules under Eisenhower caused the market to
DISINVEST in US manufacturing and INVEST in foreign manufacturing,
this caused the US to shift from a nation of liberal democratic
factory workers, to a nation of conservative, republican shop owners
who bought their stuff overseas.

You are saying WRONGLY that I am against overseas investment. I am
not. The only reason you could be saying that is that you cannot read,
or that you wish to confuse my mesage with the asinine notion that I'm
against free markets or think there should be barriers to free flow of
capital. What I am clearly saying is that the rules adopted in the
1950s caused a massive disinvestment in manufacturing mining and
farming in the US and turned us into importers, collapsed the value of
our currency, and made us into the largest debtor nation.

Obviously this is where we are.

The collapse of the curencies in the Great Depression occurred
primarily in Europe following World War 1. Where most of the
destruction took place. After world war 2 - AMERICA - which didn't
lose a single factory to enemy action - was the greatest loser
economically,. Clearly the policies enacted in the 1950s -
overstimulated overseas investment - and were continued for the past
60 years on ideological grounds solely - blinding the powers that be
to the very real risks those policies create to US society going
forward.

Nixon by letting the dollar float set the stage for the collapse of
the S&Ls and end of low interest rates under Reagan.   When the value
of the dollar is not stable, its impossible to have low-interest
loans.  Without low interest loans, its impossible to invest in huge
public works projects, large capital equipment, or have widespread
home ownership.   This changes the character of the nation, and its
ability to take care of business.  This caused the US to change from
the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor nation and
put the value of our currency at the mercy of foreign powers.

The US has retained control of its nuclear and missile technologies
with its anti-proliferation policies.

The US should reverse the madness instituted under Eisenhower, and
seek to bring investment back to the United States, and limit
investment overseas.  It does this very simply by creating compelling
opportunities to invest in space based resources, assets, and
technologeis derived from missile and nuclear technologies.  These
include;

I think you are completelly wrong.

So? Obviously you are not getting what I'm saying. Your comments
above SUPPORT what I said earlier. lol.

For decates USA has been the
country which receives the greatest foreign investment of all
countries.

Got data? Think about it this way. The US had all its factories
operating and had about 40% of its work force in manufacturing at the
end of World War 2. European and Asian factories were obliterated due
to saturation and nuclear bombing. Their currencies were a joke. The
US dollar was the only currency that mattered.

You say that the USA has received the larges foreign investment of all
countires.

So, how did all those Japanese German, Chinese and Indian factories
get built? How did the USA shutter 3/4 of its factories, reduce its
steel output, have only 14% of its people in manufacturing after 50
years - if that were the case?

OBVIOUSLY - that is not the case. The US at some point invested
heavily overseas, and that overseas investment was reinvested to grow
productive capacities overseas.

Exceeding that what China receives quite handsomely.

Please look at real data from 1940 onward. It will support my
statement. Obviously if the US had al the factories and all the
capital at one point - now it does not. Clearly that happened because
US capital was invested heavily overseas. Plainly that capital flowed
overseas because it was rewarded for doing so. Obviously capital
would not have written off assets in the US without a strong incentive
to do so. Its those incentives I'm talking about. Those incentives
need to end. You have mis-stated what I said and wrongly ascribed to
me some sort of anti-competitive desire. That's not true. In fact,
US manufacturing since 1950 was the one that was placed at a
disadvantage - for ideological reasons - which ultimately undermine
the value of the US economy.

This is what happens when you have got an open system like the world
has today.

Don't lecture me about open markets. Capital does not WRITE OFF an
asset unless there is an incentive to do so. We had all the factories
at one point. 3/4 of them were shut down while those people who owned
those factories opened factories overseas. This was done because the
investment, tax, and trade rules strongly favored DISINVESTMENT in US
manufacturing and INVESTMENT in overseas manufacturing. Had the US
not done that, and merely sought to play on a level playing field, we
would have lost some manufacturing overseas, but we would still have
two or three times the manufacturing jobs today than we have, our
economy and dollar would be stronger, and we would likely have had
more Democratic Presidents and Congresses.

Investors seek opportonities wherever they´re to be found.

That's right. So, they are easily manipulated by tax trade and
banking rules that make easy credit available. Low wage rates are one
reason certainly. Low interest loans, low rates of taxation, low
import duties, these are other factors.

You are wrongly making this into an argument about something I'm not
talking about. Maybe you're doing it on purpose. I find it
irritating. lol.

Fact is, you are making my point - and showing that you really haven't
looked at the data that counts.

The only way to radically change it would be to go back to a closed
system whith high barryers against foreign trade and foreign
investment. Naturally that would lead to much reduced wealth.

The US has weakened its currency, its economy, and its future by
promoting the closure of factories, farms and mines in the US and our
dependence on trade and banking. Trading patterns follow
manufacturing patterns. The US had all the manufacturing plants at
the end of world war two. Owners of those plants would seek to get
the greatest return out of their sunk costs before investing in new
capital in unknown markets, and a different culture. There would
have been overseas invesments - absolutely. There would have been a
lot less abandonment of US manufacturing were FAIR rules of trade.
Obviously, on a level playing field, the US with all the capital and
all the factories, would have remained a strong player - if the market
rationally made use of its sunk costs. Plainly, it abandoned those
low-risk well known already paid for assets - because they had a
strong incentive to do so. Whichwas anti-competitive to US.

  (1) global wireless hotspot
  (2) ballistic transport
  (3) lunar, mars, and space colony development
  (4) powersatellite
  (5) asteroidal capture and mining
  (6) nuclear light bulb

In this way the US can restore its leadership position in the world
through operation of the market.  By providing dramatically improved
transport, communication and energy technologies, the US can capture
and hold the leading economic position in the world and control its
destiny using resources within its control.

Hmm, I really think that someone who plans to transform the entire
human experience through his life efforts ought to think more in terms
of the interests of humanity at large.

These sorts of red herring and straw man type statements cause me to
think that you don't really care to engage in an honest conversation.
I never said anything approaching what you said here - that you wish
to characterize what I said in this way suggests that you are not
being honest. I really have nothing to say to what you said except to
say it makes no sense whatever inthe context of our conversation.

USA is only an one nation among many,

Ture.

The USA was a nation that at the end of world war two had all its
factories and mines and farms in tact and was in a position to supply
the rest of the world with product. US capital flew out of the US
following Eisenhower's changes in trade, banking, tax that richly
rewarded overseas investment. THIS IS NOT A LEVEL OR FAIR PLAYING
FIELD. Eisenhower supported these changes for ideological reasons.
Had manufacturing workers voted Republican rather Democrat, these
rules would likely have been restrictive. While moving from a system
that favors overseas investment to one that is even, is a movement
more restrictive than the present environment - .it is not an argument
for restrictiions on fair trade - which you are attempting to wrongly
make this.


the richest and most successful

We're talking about what is best. The US was the richest most
powerful nation at the end of world war 2 because it was the only
power that didn't suffer massive destruction of infrastructure. It is
still coasting on that strength, but it has undermine that strength in
an ideologically motivated series of decisions that are based on the
misbegotten notion that you can control trade and banking without
having a strong manufacturing and mining sector.

That is the USA could be richer more powerful and and sustain that
power over the long haul by ending its rich rewards of overseas
investment, and would be far stronger and more Democractric today if
it never adopted them in the first place.

At present, it was US capital over the last half of the 20th century -
invested overseas - disinvested from US - that has weakened the US
relative to where it might have been.

at the present time, but US interest are not necessarilly entirelly
identical with the interests of humanity.

Yes it is. This is what historians call the Omega point of history.
Where national paradigms are global paradigms. Where seeing the
connection of national interest to global interest makes one far
stronger than before.

Space technology brought that about.

ICBMs brought the threat of global thermonuclear war and brought about
a need for global ban on warfare.

comsats, spysats, weathersats, brought global commuications and a
global marketplace, and a global wareness. - leading to the
environmental movement and the realization that there are global
issues that transcend all national issues. Can an apple grow healthy
attached to a poisoned tree? No. All the apples have a stake in
making the tree they share strong. One cannot create lasting value
for itself by destroying the basis for everyone's strength.


manned spaceflight presented us with the image floating alone and
vulnerable in space - the Earth in its entireity was presented as a
single place - a place we identify with - that transcends national
interests, national boundaries and national concerns.

We have yet to fully appreciate the next paradigm that will lead us
off world.

Crowded House in their song say it best in their song - always take
the weather -

Julius Ceasar and the Roman Empire - couldn't conquer the blue sky!

We can.

Finally, our experience of space travel will inform us in a deeply
religious sense. This is suggested by the David Bowie's song - Space
Oddity. and by the writings of Edgare Mitchell and the Noetic
Institute. This will likely come to complete fruition following the
first successful Mars expedition - which will be very exciting.

The point is, the US if it operated fairly - and worked through issues
openly - and really believed in free markets and free enterprise and
freedom of expressoin - would have promoted labor interests as well as
capital interests, and resovled important issues between capital and
labor. As it stands, the rest of the world is enslaved to the US, and
this undermines its currency its economy, and will eventually lead to
a reversal of fortune for the US, and its ability to shape world
affairs to its liking as we enter the Omega point.


If the entire humanity becomes empowered the way you´d like, then it´s
completelly certain that USA would become only one nation among many.

That's right.

After all there are some nations with greater populations out there.

As we move into space, and make use of off world resources, that age
of the nation-state will pass into history. The nature of the global
culture that arises will be shaped by those who CONTRIBUTE most to the
wealth of the world. The US has the potential to create far more
wealth than it does at present. Its adherence to hurtful policies on
ideological basis only - has hurt it in the past, is hurting it now,
and will continue to hurt it in the future.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Retooling the Vision for Space Exploration
    ... promoting US investment in manufacturing overseas, ... WW2 recovery of Europe, which accompliced two things, i.e. powerty ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Self destruct?
    ... As for our manufacturing there can be few classic industries that are ... European firms account for 70% of direct investment in the US. ... Canturbury thinks that sharia law should be incorporated into UK common ... You are not really a true yank at all are you? ...
    (uk.local.kent)
  • Re: Expect To See More Of This...Unfortunately
    ... being hurt by taxes and regulation. ... This is just loosely related, but do you think making things overseas, ... manufacturing overseas to places that want jobs. ... government favors them over the middle-class folk it should be primarily ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Poll: Should the U.S. Government Help Stern?
    ... The sad thing is - now that manufacturing has moved overseas, ... local paper to actual facts and data about world issues. ... derivatives worth nothing ?! ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: OT: Parasites
    ... country. ... All manufacturing jobs are not equal. ... The lost jobs are at the bottom of the ladder. ... but size of the investment matters little. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)