Maurice: You jumped well off the wagon on your rant concerning the recent failed launches. I commented most of the recent space junk was bought and paid for by the US Taxpayer.
You base your argument around: Dead satellites in space are like refilled holes in the ground. Useless and economically destructive. If we do enough of them, the world will be starving.
Time out big guy. None of the Titans lost (the first, a radar imaging sat; then a DSP, an early missile launch identifier; and finally Milstar, painfully outdated Cold War relic of a communications satellite) had anything to do with providing any 'economic benefits'. All the sats would have been additions to current networks already in place and supporting whatever 'economic benefit' you would like to conjure up. No net loss - period. If anything their loss is an added benefit because the US military will buy replacement satellites and launchers. That provides real 'economic benefits' to the company and the employees.
I also fail to see the logic in your circular statement Money is not wealth. Production is wealth. The USA could double the amount of
money circulating and do it tomorrow, but it wouldn't increase the wealth of the
USA. It will, however, increase MY wealth, because I have borrowed US$
knowing that the government will indeed go on increasing the amount of money they
print, because who can resist the magic money tree which grows more whenever
you want a bit and that will push up the stockmarket and devalue the debt I have.
Is money wealth or not? Perhaps it is only wealth when you have it? If production is wealth, how come producing two or four more military satellites is not?
Did you post that early or late? I get so confused with that date line thing.
Hey it is Friday, have a beer. (or some Sherry?) or is it Saturday there already? In that case, yesterday was Friday, and that explains the post?
Jeff Vayda |
