The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 28    Average: 4.5/5]
97 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 10817
Rating: 4.5
Category: Misc
Date: 09/13/13 02:49 PM

97 Responses to Bad Guy NASA? [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of B-diddy
    B-diddy Male 13-17
    460 posts
    September 12, 2013 at 6:35 pm
    Link: Bad Guy NASA? - No. Good guy Jens!
  2. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm
    Good point, well made. The reply that is not the original idiot post.
  3. Profile photo of g3n3r1k
    g3n3r1k Male 18-29
    250 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    haha i laughed when i read the title "no hope for humanity". damn, i thought funding space programs was gonna help humanity.
  4. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    This is a great example of dichotomy in America.

    Some people think spending money on science is bad while spending money on religion and war is good.

    Some people are the opposite.
  5. Profile photo of fuad119
    fuad119 Male 18-29
    186 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    The `lol` at the end was unnecessary..
  6. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:12 pm
    While she`s technically correct that the "money" doesn`t go to Mars, the wealth does. So, to recap, we keep the paper, and Mars gets the rare Earth metals.

    Basically, she`s an idiot.
  7. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm
    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

    -That guy who took us to the moon. AKA, JFK.
  8. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    The "rare earth metals" dont cost 2.4 billion, its the reasearch and manufacturing that costs a ton. Which is people here on earth getting paid.
  9. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    @morimacil123

    Which is people here on earth getting paid.
    I had hoped everyone would understand that by "rare Earth metals" I meant wealth of the vehicle. Since that is apparently less obvious than I had hoped, please allow me to clarify.

    The total wealth of the vehicle, including materials and time, are now on Mars. Time is an asset that has intrinsic value, and, therefore, is a form of wealth.
  10. Profile photo of Tacos4Brkfst
    Tacos4Brkfst Male 18-29
    620 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    Rare earth`s... are only `rare` on earth.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Space & science research always pays off. In 1897 when JJ Thompson discovered the electron they didn`t know 100 years later the world would run on electron-ics. How does that space rover help the little guy on Earth? Here`s how...

    How about the satellites that transmit your cell phone signals? Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the hospitals that detect disease. Ultra sound technologies. The plastics that are in artificial valves and pacemakers. Longer lasting batteries. Navigation in your car.... I could go on forever but you get the gist.

    One of Obombas worst decisions was to gut the space program.
  12. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    @Tacos4Brkfst

    Rare earth`s... are only `rare` on earth.
    OK... and the more we take from Earth and send to Mars, the scarcer they become on Earth. Unless, of course, you`ve figured out the secret to retrieving them from Mars?!

    Seriously though, I`m not sure what your point is.
  13. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 4:58 pm
    Human action are you just really really high? Like really super high? Can I have some of whatever it is you`re high on? I`d really like to be that stupid for a moment.

    Please be high.
  14. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    I love Jens` first comment. The money was spent paying the scientists who design the craft, the manufacturers who built it, the miners who labored to accumulate the raw materials, etc.
  15. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    @Gauddith

    So, do you actually have anything you disagree with and would like me to clarify? Or, do you just disagree and don`t know why you disagree?

    I suspect it`s the latter. Either way, I`d be happy to give you an economics lesson if you`d like.
  16. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    @Gauddith

    Actually, let`s just talk about how "stupid" - as you`ve so tactfully put it - Jens argument is (by extension, your argument).

    Let`s say I have 100 gold bars behind a rock wall. I also have $1000 and you have $100. I pay you $100 to labor through the rock and get the gold bars for me.

    I then turn around and throw the gold bars in the ocean.

    Between the two of us, we still only have $1100 (you have $200 and I have $900); now though, we don`t have any gold bars.

    You call this a net-zero and then call me stupid? Brilliant.
  17. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    You`ve oversimplified this so hardcore it`s actually kind of funny. This is why I think you`re high.

    Protip, I totes know what I think on the matter, I just don`t want to get into a pointless argument on the internet. I`d much rather laugh at your horrid oversimplification of the concept of wealth and how we should be spending it.
  18. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    @Gauddith

    Protip, I totes know what I think on the matter, I just don`t want to get into a pointless argument on the internet.
    Oh, gotcha. How terribly clever of you! Calling someone out without any reasoning and then refusing to justify your own statements - very crafty. If only I were so cunning.

    ProTip: Currency is a tool to measure wealth (think Celsius, Kelvin); by itself, it is not wealth (think temperature). You probably missed that day of Econ 101. No big deal.
  19. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    Screw it let me use your hilarious scenario to tell you why I think you are stupid.

    So now I have $200 dollars, (why did you even point out I had $100 dollars?) And you have $900 dollars, (Because you somehow spent nothing on resources to get the gold bars?) And you`ve thrown the gold into the ocean. Now the gold bars are telling you about the ocean floor, they are taking record of all the possible resources and interesting scientific finds that they come acros. You, being a responsible businessman have take the initiative to make this information available to the general public. Now you are getting money from other people for more information, the promise of further in depth research of something those gold bars found. Now you`ve got $5000 in grants and funding making it so you can employ more people to help you get more gold bars so you can do more awesome things and make more helpful discoveries.

    In the end, everyone wins. Even though the gold is gone we still win.
  20. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    Gauddith nailed it.

    I was about to launch into a primer on the key economics terms *investment* and *research*, but no need. Gauddith hit the nail on the head. You go, girl!
  21. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    @Gauddith

    why did you even point out I had $100 dollars?
    So that we knew how much total money the society (you + me) had to begin with and how much we ended with. We started with $1100 and ended with $1100; you spent time and I spent resources to get us to that point.

    Because you somehow spent nothing on resources to get the gold bars
    They were part of my total wealth. I really think that was clear.

    Now, as for the information, you`ve gone well beyond the scope of Jens statement. I happen to agree that we should spend money researching.

    Jens implied statement, however, was that ALL of the spent wealth is returned to the economy; my argument is that her implication is patently false. Additionally, you`ve made some huge leaps of faith "guestimating" perceived information gains.

  22. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    @Squrlz

    I was about to launch into a primer on the key economics terms *investment* and *research*, but no need.
    Not quite. The original post (Jens statements) had nothing to do with perceived gains from research. They dealt with realized gains and losses; her statements regarding such are completely untrue.

    Speculating is not the same or even equivalent to realized gains and losses.
  23. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    To recap Jens statements (since it seems that some people are incapable of referencing the graphic), Jens says:

    "The money doesn`t get sent to Mars you idiot!"

    This I agreed with. I inferred from this statement that she meant wealth, because she would be stating the obvious by pointing out that Mars does not have billions of dollars of currency now.

    "It gets spent and put back into the economy."
    This is the statement I have clearly taken issue with. It does not say anything at all about research, future projections, or information. She is clearly suggesting that all of the wealth spent is immediately returned to the economy.

    Please reference my previous statements to verify.
  24. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    Also.

    The dollar is no longer based on material worth. It is based on market share and American trade. Both being in decline, where large scientific discoveries tend to bring trade back. Thankfully information is also considered to have value in todays market. Even when you offer it up for free you can make a profit from it.

    The "gold bars" are electronic goods, and we have repurposed to be something more valuable than a useless hunk of shiny metal. I would much rather gold go into my electronics then my jewelry. Or whatever other "Rare Earths" you are talking about. See, here`s the deal my good sir, your concept of economics is clearly from econ 101. Or perhaps it`s right out of your ass? I have no idea, really, but you are coming off as hilariously unknowledgeable about the subject.

    That`s why I didn`t feel like explaining myself to you, I was sure you were either A) Trolling so hard, or, B) Being so dumb.

    OR

    C) So s
  25. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    @Gauddith

    The dollar is no longer based on material worth.
    I`m very excited that you now understand this; up until now, I wasn`t sure that I was getting through to you. Money =/= Wealth. Finally!

    It is based on market share and American trade.
    It`s based on scarcity and demand. Platinum is valuable because it`s scarce and in demand - not the other way around.

    Thankfully information is also considered to have value in todays market.
    Some information has value - not all.

    Even when you offer it up for free you can make a profit from it.
    Usually through advertising, which means that the advertising has value, not the information.

    we have repurposed to be something more valuable than a useless hunk of shiny metal
    You`re doing so good!
  26. Profile photo of Zghost
    Zghost Male 13-17
    152 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    Jens` statements are chronologically backwards?
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    Or whatever other "Rare Earths" you are talking about.
    See below. "Rare Earths" was simply a way to reference the total wealth of the vehicle.

    your concept of economics is clearly from econ 101
    Oh, you flatter me.

    coming off as hilariously unknowledgeable about the subject.
    Please forgive me if I don`t take that as a terrible insult.

    C) So s
    Please, please, please finish this. I`m dying to read your next witty remark.

    Unfortunately, I`m still not convinced you understand. $5 billion is not wealth; it`s a measurement of wealth. Many countries have far more currency in circulation that the US, yet, they are far less wealthy. Why?

    Because currency s not wealth. Wealth is the total amount of assets available. If we destroy all of our resources and print $100 trillion, we don`t suddenly become ultra-wealthy.
  28. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    hey, "genius", Jens is a man`s name, probably Danish. Maybe you`ll take his statements more seriously knowing that?
  29. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    @ HumanAction: Forgive me, but this is beyond retarded. You`ve decided to focus on the value of the nuts and bolts that were sent to Mars and ignore what is foremost in the minds of virtually everyone else: the value of the research *Curiosity* is conducting? Why? Because the Facebook commenter neglected to add a sentence along those lines?

    Uh, go you, then! That`s quite an ... intellectual victory you`re achieving. I guess. LOL.
  30. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    @lauriloo

    hey, "genius", Jens is a man`s name, probably Danish.
    I think you`re addressing me, but I`m really not sure - your statement didn`t make very much sense. If so, I believe I have consistently referenced him as Jens, yet, I probably slipped a "she" or "her" in somewhere along the way. My sincerest apologies. I shall hang my head in shame for days over this unforgivable blunder. I am so utterly embarrassed by this glaring mistake.

    Maybe you`ll take his statements more seriously knowing that?
    Whoa there. I can`t believe you just implied that men are to be taken more seriously than women. You`re a sexist and should be ashamed.

    -_-



  31. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    @Squrlz

    Uh, go you, then! That`s quite an ... intellectual victory you`re achieving. I guess. LOL.
    Forgive me, but it is not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills. If you go back and read through my statements, my intent should be abundantly clear.

    I am sorry that you misunderstood. I understand that it can be frustrating to make a mistake. Please do not take that frustration out on me.
  32. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    No, you guys, HumanAction is right. He wins the discussion. He WINS. His reading comprehension skillz got us so beat. We lost. Because he can comprehend what he`s reading, IT DOESN`T MATTER IF HE CAN ADD IN THE IMPLIED IDEAS. HE COMPREHENDED THE HECK OUT OF IT.

    Also, thank you Squrlz for the little chuckle and also for getting the idea, (not that you need to actually form a thinktank to do so.)

    For reals though HumanAction, stahp...

    Wat are you doin` Humanaction.

    Staaaahp.
  33. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    No, you guys, HumanAction is right.
    ... and finally, she gets it.

    Seriously though - about the Caps Lock - something needs to be done about it; it`s out-of-control. I mean, one or two word, sure... but ENTIRE SENTENCES? My God.

    For reals though HumanAction, stahp... Wat are you doin` Humanaction. Staaaahp.
    This strange language seems oddly familiar to me...
  34. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    So, just to recap here before we wrap this party up:

    1. I make a statement;
    2. You people assume I`m making completely different arguments not at all based on my statements;
    3. I continue to argue with the assumption that assumptions haven`t been added to my original statement;
    4. You all get mad that I won`t accept these new assumptions because I never argued against them in the first place; and,
    5. I insist that we stick to the scope of my statement.

    Man, I wish I could argue like that. It would be so nice to just tell everyone else what their stance is in the middle of an disagreement and then argue with them about it.
  35. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    Okay folks, this is getting silly. There are 2 values to the metal of the spent craft: 1) The value people place on it for it`s utility. While there is no way to replace that resource (maybe it`ll be recoverable someday), it`s actually quite a small amount, in terms of planetary resources. 2) The cost of mining, refining, transporting, and manufacturing it into a working unit. These "costs" all represent money paid to people for doing those jobs.
    Really, very little actual "wealth" is lost to Mars by putting an explorer up there and, if you actually know anything about economics you know that wealth is created by the movement of money through the economy. People are paid and have more money to buy goods. People selling those goods now have more money with which to buy goods from others, and so on. We don`t actually lose wealth by putting an explorer on Mars.
  36. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 7:16 pm
    So there`s an unlike button now? I might have to sign-up one day.
  37. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    @broizfam

    if you actually know anything about economics you know that wealth is created by the movement of money through the economy
    This just isn`t accurate. If money moves around and nothing is produced, then no wealth has been created. If we start with the same amount of resources and money, and end with the same amount of resources and money, then society is no wealthier.

    Perhaps an individual has gained wealth - at least a debatable point there - but society has gained nothing.

    If we spend 100 hours and resources on a project, and then send that project to Mars, that time and those resources are gone. Money has transferred hands but the total amount in society remains the same. However, the total amount of resources and time have decreased.

    This all means that wealth was lost in the process. Meanwhile, opportunity has been gained in terms of R&D.
  38. Profile photo of NOT_A_BEAR
    NOT_A_BEAR Male 18-29
    62 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    @ Suicism

    The "Unlike" button only appears after you have "Liked" something. It`s just an undo button :-(
  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    @ HumanAction: If money moves around and nothing is produced, then no wealth has been created. If we start with the same amount of resources and money, and end with the same amount of resources and money, then society is no wealthier.
    This is incorrect and explains why you`re lost in this discussion. Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith made the observation that a society`s wealth is not simply a matter of its accumulation of commodities and manufactured goods but also a reflection of--key term here--*the productive knowledge* of its people.

    In spending $2.5B on *Curiosity*, our government vastly increased the productive knowledge of the engineers who pioneered new techniques and methods--which will translate to improved technologies at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. That wealth stayed with us even after *Curiosity* was sent to Mars.

    That`s why Jens` observations are largely correct and your observations are largely twaddle.
  40. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 9:21 pm
    @Squrlz

    Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith
    My friend, this is where you`ve erred. You assume that the teachings of a 200+ year old PHILOSOPHER is economic gospel.

    We`ve come a long way in the last couple hundred of years. Expand your reading to Friedman, Hayek, Murray, Von Mises, Rothbard, Haslett, or even Keynes to understand modern economics.

    our government vastly increased the productive knowledge of the engineers
    This is not realized wealth. Unless the knowledge is expanded upon and used to produce real wealth, by itself, it is not wealth. If I know everything but have nothing, I am not wealthy; I merely have a wealth of knowledge.

    Jens` observations are largely correct
    Jens was incorrect - as are you. Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations as hardly any bearing on modern economics.
  41. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm
    @Squrlz

    The problem is that you, and others, assume that knowledge - by itself - is wealth; this is untrue.

    If this were true, Tesla would not have died poor; yet, he did. Why?

    The answer is simple: knowledge is a wealth creation factor; it`s a field multiplier. Increasing knowledge increases your POTENTIAL wealth, not your REAL wealth.

    If, at this point, you are still unable to grasp this rather elementary point, then I am afraid you likely never will. I have explained it in enough ways that I am confident the average person would understand.
  42. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    @ HumanAction: So you believe that if we swapped out America`s population for 314 million illiterates, the country`s wealth would be unchanged?

    Really? And you believe this because, you say, you know more about economics than Adam Smith?

    This just gets better and better.

    I can`t help you my friend. You`ve entombed yourself in a sarcophagus of sophomoric cement that no pickaxe can hope to penetrate.

    Vale. =^.^=
  43. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    wow you should all be teaching economics in harvard LOL
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 10:01 pm
    @HumanAction: I feel your frustration! It`s like trying to tie eels in a knot!

    This .Gif Is For You! :-)

  45. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14652 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    Burn the Church. Not a church, the entire religion
  46. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 10:34 pm
    @ Draculya: LOL. What does *that* have to do with anything? I admire your conviction and enthusiasm, but I`m not sure where you`re going with it.
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    @Squrlz

    So you believe that if we swapped out America`s population for 314 million illiterates, the country`s wealth would be unchanged?
    Again, here you`ve added entire new assumptions and expect me to just go along.

    At the point that everyone was replaced, yes, wealth is the same; it would drastically drop shortly thereafter. Wealth would drop after that moment because the wealth creation factor known as knowledge declined.

    At the moment of the swap, however, the real wealth is exactly the same - only potential wealth has changed.

    Vale.
    Adieu.

    @5Cats

    It`s like trying to tie eels in a knot!
    Either the entire scope of the argument is changing or the definition of "wealth" is changing; it`s akin to asking a 2 year-old to color within the lines.
  48. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 11:08 pm
    Draculya: "Burn the Church. Not a church, the entire religion"

    Apparently we have a heretic in our midst, time for..

  49. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 11:12 pm
    @ HumanAction: *sigh* I`ll take a swing at the sophomoric sarcophagus once more. Don`t say I never did you any favors.

    First, I`ll advise you to reread your Adam Smith, if you ever did read him, because he`s the foundation of modern economics and clearly you haven`t grasped some of the concepts.

    The term is PRODUCTIVE knowledge (my emphasis). Tesla died poor (I`ll take your word for it; I`m no Tesla expert) because his knowledge wasn`t productive. He was ahead of his time and there was no market for the knowledge he possessed.

    CASE STUDY #1
    We have two families, with grown children, equal in every aspect except one family lives in Philadelphia, the other in Riyadh. We wave a magic wand (in actuality, it would involve the expenditure of time and money) so that the grown children now have knowledge of how to make delicious ham sandwiches.

    (Cont`d)
  50. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 11:12 pm
    (Cont`d)

    What has happened to the two families` wealth? The wealth of the American family has just increased because its grown children have obtained *productive knowledge*. The wealth of the Saudi Arabian family has stayed the same because no one eats ham sandwiches in Riyadh. The knowledge cannot be used productively, so it is without value.

    Is a light starting to go on?

    CASE STUDY #2
    But, you say, that`s not realized wealth, you say. That`s just potential earnings. Where you`re erring here is in thinking that productive knowledge has no value--which on the face of it is silly, but you seem to want proof of it, so here we go. Let`s say the American family was a small corporation with public stock. You are familiar, I assume, with the concept of *rational pricing*. Let`s say the Jones Corporation`s stock is selling at $50 a share after the grown children receive their ham sandwich training.

    (Cont`d)
  51. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    (Cont`d)

    Now, for some reason beyond the family`s control, the family MUST move to Riyadh. What happens to the Jones Corporation`s share price? It falls--to $35 maybe. Why? Because what was productive knowledge has now become unproductive.

    CASE STUDY #3
    Similarly, let`s say you own a horse & buggy business in 1850 that you can offer for sale for $1M. That price includes the factory, the inventory, and the employees, of course. What happens when the automobile is introduced? All of a sudden, you can`t expect to get $1M for the business. Not because the equipment has changed: it still works just as well as before; but because the knowledge possessed by your human capital--your employees--is no longer productive knowledge. No one will pay for the skills they possess. Result? Your wealth has just decreased by $500,000. And yet according to YOUR understanding, your wealth hasn`t changed one penny.

    Sorry, big guy, but I think I`ll go with Adam Smith.
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:10 am
    @Squrlz4: Nicola Tesla died poor for a number of reasons, NOT because his ideas weren`t good!
    He invented things like AC Power, Radio and dozens of useful things which are still used today!
    However, he was a terrible "businessman" and invested lots of money into things which simply didn`t pay off.
    A campaign of "legal action" kept him from access to his rightful royalties for decades! Edison & company were jerks.

    I know a fair bit about Tesla :-)

    I haven`t followed the whole debate, but your last 3 posts are FAR from accurate! :-/

    Wealth and capital are similar, but NOT interchangeable. At least not that easily! One SPECULATES on increasing one`s wealth by investing IN capital, eh?
    Wealth and capital are both subject to increases & decreases BUT usually by different machinations.
    Neither are truly STATIC either! That`s just for the textbooks. Adapt or die = economics.
  53. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:25 am
    "Human Capital" you mean assets, yes? Unless you own them like slaves!
    Asset = makes capital increase
    Liability = makes capital DE-crease.

    But liabilities are not all bad! If you have a loan for $100K at 4%? That`s a liability.
    But if that money is invested (in capital, or otherwise) and "returns" 8%? You`re making more money than it costs! It`s STILL a "liability" though, a DRAIN on your capital or wealth, but a well chosen one :-) The FORM you invested in is your "capital" eh? Be it a new business, some stocks, buying new equipment (which increased output while lowering costs) or whatever.

    As for Mars? Hopefully the "overall increase in knowledge" (which is an asset!) outweighs the monetary costs. I think it does in the Mars Rover case.
  54. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:46 am
    @ 5Cats: I`ll make it simple for you.

    HumanAction`s assertion is that all that remains of the $2.5B of wealth that the government spent on *Curiosity* is now sitting on Mars. From his understanding of economics, once that rocket was launched, no value from the $2.5B remained on Earth, and the only possible value connected with it is a possible return from the knowledge gained from the exploration.

    As should be obvious to anyone, yourself included, that is not the case. Much of the value of that $2.5B has remained with us on Earth in the form of *intangible assets*--chief among them, the *productive knowledge* of the engineers who spent a decade working on the program and who developed new skills and new techniques.
  55. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:32 am
    @Squrlz4: That`s not what I`ve "gleaned" from my skimming of the subject.

    @HumanAction SEEMS to say that other things "could have been done" with that money which may (or may not) have had greater benefit.
    + That the "potential" for increased wealth is not the same as actual increase in wealth.

    I think he`s saying that one cannot measure "government spending" by the same rules as "private sector spending" because... you just cannot! They`re two entirely different animals!

    Sure, those "intangible assets" MIGHT benefit the whole of society, time will tell!
    BUT who`s to say that spending that money on other things wouldn`t provide MORE benefits? Or at least different ones?
    Is it the place of the government to flood "the market" with experienced engineers on the taxpayers dime? Who benefits from that?
    (hint: the RICH do!)
  56. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 4:07 am
    Putting aside the `intangible assets` for a minute, let us consider the following:
    To a certain extent, it does not matter what money is spent on. The important thing is that people are employed. They spend their wages in the shop and feed their families. They drive a car made in a factory employing people who buy food. The farmers make a living and feeds their families. They have a washing machine made in a factory employing people who buy shoes. The shoe-makers have a computer made by someone who drinks coffee, etc, etc, etc.
    As long as money is moving it is serving it`s purpose. Gold bars in a box do not feed families.
    Congratulations on spending $100 billion dollars landing a buggy on Mars.
    From everyone who eats food as a result.
    Best regards,
    Agrajag. (telephone sanitiser grade 2)
  57. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 5:51 am
    @Squrlz

    Awww, you stayed up all night waiting for me =). I`m so flattered.

    First, I`ll advise you to brush up on actual modern economics. Adam Smith was brilliant in his time, but his ideas have been built upon and changed significantly over time.

    Now regarding your "case studies", it would appear you are confused. Allow me to expand upon your stocks example.

    Let`s say that I have $1m and spend half on stocks. The next day, those stocks fall in price by half. Have I lost wealth?

    You would have me believe I`ve lost something, but I haven`t. Today, I have $500k and (x) stocks. Tomorrow, I have $500k and (x) stocks. I still have the same wealth.

    Now, if I go and sell those stocks, then yes, I`ve realized (<--- Look into that word) my losses. My potential losses have now become real losses; my wealth has decreased.

    I must say, I`ve always been somewhat found of educating others.
  58. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:00 am
    @Squrlz

    but because the knowledge possessed by your human capital--your employees--is no longer productive knowledge
    This is from your 3rd "case study" and is completely untrue. The value of the buggy was lost because demand fell. Your "productive knowledge" does not alter market prices.

    The factory did not lose well; they lost potential future wealth. Yesterday, they had (x) equipment and assets, and they still have them today. However, the extent to which that equipment can be used to generate future wealth has decreased.

    The difference here is that you seem to believe that unrealized gains and losses should count as wealth whereas I do not.

    Since they are not considered part of net income, I don`t see how they can be considered part of wealth.
  59. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:08 am
    @Squrlz

    HumanAction`s assertion is that all that remains of the $2.5B of wealth that the government spent on *Curiosity* is now sitting on Mars.
    Not quite. My assertion is that the material and time spent on Curiosity is now on Mars. Do you disagree?

    Much of the value of that $2.5B has remained with us on Earth in the form of *intangible assets*--chief among them, the *productive knowledge*
    I agree with this almost entirely. I`m afraid you`ve missed my point.

    I will attempt to clarify further:

    If all of those engineers now do nothing with that knowledge, are we wealthier? The answer should obviously be no. So then, what have we gained? Potential wealth; that is, we`ve built upon our ability to create more wealth.

    Here is the critical statement: until something is produced from that knowledge, we have not become wealthier as a result of it.
  60. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:22 am
    @Squrlz

    Last comment in my little rant - damn this word cap.

    Here is a dramatic example of why your "productive knowledge" is not wealth. Let`s say that the John Smith - nuclear physicist - figures out how to build a cold fusion reactor; he is the only person who knows how. I think we can all agree that his "productive value" is incredibly high.

    However, he hates consumerism and refuses to ever build such a plant. Is he wealthy?

    By your logic, yes, he is incredibly wealthy. His productive knowledge is off-the-charts, which you consider to be wealth. Yet, what has society gained? Nothing.

    Productive knowledge, by itself, is not wealth; it is a wealth creation factor. With it, we increase the potential to create wealth, as opposed to wealth itself. Until that moment where production occurs (goods or services), wealth does not increase.
  61. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:28 am
    "If all of those engineers now do nothing with that knowledge, are we wealthier?"

    Since the entire objective to going to Mars is to gain useful knowledge, it would seem unlikely there would be no use for it. Simply the knowledge gained in accomplishing sending a piece of delicate equipment that far from our planet and now gathering new data has already made us wealthier in intellectual property. By your logic, NO research is worth tax dollars because there`s a potential of no intellectual assets being gained. Since there aren`t enough wealthy people around to privately fund all necessary scientific research, you would have us significantly slow down innovation and potential money/job-generating, life-saving tech. I could argue that some scientific endeavors have more potential than others but to dismiss something like the Mars project as worthless is ludicrous. What if we found a treasure trove of your "precious metals" to mine?
  62. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:36 am
    @lauriloo

    Since the entire objective to going to Mars is to gain useful knowledge, it would seem unlikely there would be no use for it.
    I agree entirely; however, until that knowledge is used for production, then we are not wealthier. We are certainly better able to increase our wealth, but until we actually use the knowledge, we haven`t increased our wealth.

    NO research is worth tax dollars
    I never, ever, ever, have said this. By stating so, you`ve demonstrated a complete failure in understanding my statements. I support research, though I wish it were funded via state coalitions (a different argument for another time).

    dismiss something like the Mars project as worthless is ludicrous
    Again, I didn`t say this.

    What if we found a treasure trove of your "precious metals" to mine?
    My dear, you need to reread my statements.

  63. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 6:42 am
    @lauriloo

    This really isn`t an abstract concept; it is very basic.

    Why do we invest time and money in R&D? We hope that the knowledge we gain will allow us to create more wealth in the future. Therefore, it makes complete sense to invest in R&D.

    However, does the R&D alone create any wealth? Put plainly, do we suddenly have more assets and resources as a result of R&D? Of course not. Until that moment where we use the newfound knowledge to create wealth (See: Produce Something), then wealth has not been created; it has, however, been destroyed during R&D.

    What we hope to accomplish is to create more wealth in the future as a result of the knowledge gained during the initial loss of wealth (See: Investment). To deny that the investment is a short-term loss of wealth, however, is just silly.
  64. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 7:14 am
    @Nickel2: True, BUT the "government" cannot "create jobs" ok? Any spending they do could be BETTER DONE by the Public Sector!
    >>So borrowing money (by the BILLION!) you cannot pay back to "create" jobs that don`t actually HELP the economy? NOT a perfect plan, eh? Possibly in SHORT term DRASTIC cases? But as an opiate for all that ails America? No.

    I LAUGH reading this thread and the one about "cut the US Army in HALF"! LOLZ! The (so called) left & right arguing the SAME topic on opposite sides!! US Army = NASA! Only the Army is 100% NEEDED for the existence of the USA.

    Too much government interference will actually damage & destroy an economy!

    Of course NO ONE is saying "there should be ZERO gov`t"! Gov`t do all sorts of useful things, eh?
    But @lauriloo: We agree that the gov`t should NOT control our lives, yes? "Lemonade Stand Laws" eh?
  65. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 9:17 am
    @ HumanAction:

    However, he hates consumerism and refuses to ever build such a plant. Is he wealthy?
    Oh, good heavens. After all that, you`ve come back to another version of your Tesla example? Please: Grab your Adam Smith and look up *productive knowledge*. (Or go back and read what I wrote regarding Tesla.)

    The problem here, in a nutshell, is that you seem to be mistaking bookkeeping for economics: If a bean can`t be counted, it isn`t wealth. I happen to agree with Adam Smith, who included the level of *productive knowledge* in any equation determining a nation`s wealth.

    Who`s right? Hey, if I have a shoe repair business to run, and I need someone to do my inventory, you`re on my speed dial.

    But if I`m trying to determing whether I consider a country of PhDs who`ve built a Mars rover is wealthier than a country of illiterates, I`ll stand by Adam Smith.
  66. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 9:31 am
    @Squrlz

    Well you`ve left me no choice but to continue brining up examples similar to the "Tesla" one. Even after stating it several times, you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of it.

    How does one calculate change of wealth over time? Take beginning wealth and add net income.

    Net income specifically excludes unrealized gains and losses. So, logically, we must conclude that unrealized gains and losses do not change total wealth. Therefore, they cannot be wealth.

    But if I`m trying to determing whether I consider a country of PhDs who`ve built a Mars rover is wealthier than a country of illiterates
    Notice how you specifically stated that the country of PhDs PRODUCED something rather than they just knew something? So you do understand.

    Sorry, but I think for myself. I don`t need some 200 year dead philosopher to tell me what to think. Think for yourself man.
  67. Profile photo of Stormith
    Stormith Female 18-29
    543 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 10:24 am
    I just imagined a bunch of astronauts shoving $100s into the rover and just rocketing it into space out of a giant cannon.
    For real though, Jens deserves an internet or something for his valiant vanquishing of this vile vaniloquence.
  68. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 10:27 am
    5Cats - I appreciate that no govt. can `create` jobs. My idea of wealth is not so much how much money you have, but what you do with it. I have occasion to argue with my next-door neighbour champagne-socialist about this subject.
    His argument: "look at that rich b*stard spending money like there is no tomorrow,it`s obscene".
    My response: "Look at that rich b*stard buying lots of stuff and keeping people in employment".
    Money changing hands for goods and services is the wealth of a nation. The baseline is food. Research can improve a product, cut it`s cost, feed more people from the same acreage of land etc.
    Stored money is wasted money, with the exception of a little in reserve for contingencies. I do not advocate profligacy, I frown upon wasteful projects. Despite the waste though, employment has been generated and people have been fed and clothed.
  69. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
    Oh, and Nikola Tesla is up there in my pantheon of Top-grade Brainiacs, along with Alan Turing and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, to name but a few.
  70. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 11:57 am
    @ 5Cats and Nickel2:

    True, BUT the "government" cannot "create jobs" ok?
    I am so tired of this conservative nonsense. It`s right up there with "Global warming isn`t happening."

    My neighbor across the street, to the diagonal left, is a Pennsylvania State Trooper. His "non-existent" government job has paid his mortgage, bought him a nice car, and is currently paying for his daughter`s tuition at Penn State.

    But I guess his house, his car, and his daughter`s education are all just illusions because there`s no way a non-existent government job could possibly be paying for them.

    Ditto for everything bought by schoolteachers, firemen, FBI agents, military personnel, postal workers, federal judges, bridge inspectors, federal marshals, government economists, epidemiologists at the CDC--and NASA engineers.
  71. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    HumanAction,
    Stop. Just stop talking about economy. You have no concept of what makes it go. If you`re studying economy, stop. If you`re an economist then, for the sake of the nation, stop. Your argument was lost long ago. Stop. It`s time. Get over it.
  72. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale,
    "You`ve entombed yourself in a sarcophagus of sophomoric cement that no pickaxe can hope to penetrate."
    Damn! That was impressive!
  73. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    @broizfam

    Just stop talking about economy. You have no concept of what makes it go.
    So... you don`t actually have an argument to make, you just disagree blindly then? I love people like this.

    "I don`t know what I`m arguing about but damn it, I know you`re wrong and I`m right!"

    Damn! That was impressive!
    That`s all it takes to impress you? Now I don`t feel bad that you weren`t able to follow along. At least @Squrlz was able to argue his case. You, on the other hand, are content to simply ride his coattails. How very sad.
  74. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    How @broizfam sees himself:



    How @broizfam actually exists:



    Label me a skeptic of your economic prowess my daft friend.
  75. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    HA,
    Already made my point, long ago in this thread. You lost yours long ago. Time to stop. You`re clearly beyond reason, and your last post makes me think, for the first time, that you`re an a$$hole. Stop.
  76. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    @broizfam

    Yea, but here`s the "point" you tried to make:



    Hey, let`s you and I sit down tomorrow and swap $100 bills back and forth all day! Imagine how much wealth we will create!

    Of course, you won`t acknowledge how completely, fundamentally, unbelievably stupid the idea is.

    Wealth increases via production and decreases via consumption. There are simply no other ways to change the amount of available wealth in a society.

    By the way, I actually happen to be an a$$hole - as you`ve so elegantly put it.
  77. Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    HumanAction, I went back and read his post, pretty sure that`s not what he said at all. Not even a little bit.

    I`m in agreeance with broizfam here, in fact, this goes for a few other people too.

    You`re beating a dead horse here, it`s done, anything you say is going to end up a re-iteration of a former argument someone has had in this thread, you have two options to avoid this, attempt character assassination, or you can throw politics into it.

    S`good you guys, everyone wins. Go to sleep or get a snickers.
  78. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    HA,
    Of course I agree that it`s stupid. Not surprised you came up with it. Trading bills is in no way equivalent to trading money for goods which is what makes an economy "go", as they say.
    Every time you post on this subject you make yourself look dumber. STOP. I`ll tell you what...I`ll just start ignoring your posts on this thread from now on. You`ve made some good points on other subjects. I`ll look forward to future comments and try to forget these existed.

    Hey Squrlz,
    You with me on this? I think it would be for the best but I`ll understand if you`re still having too much fun.
  79. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    @Gauddith,
    Thank you.
  80. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    @Gauddith

    This is the phrase from @broizfam`s post that I have taken issue with:

    if you actually know anything about economics you know that wealth is created by the movement of money through the economy
    In this statement, he suggests that wealth is created via the movement of money through an economy; this position is incorrect. Wealth is TRANSFERRED via movement of money rather than CREATED.

    Can someone, anyone, show me an example of how wealth is created by the simple exchange of goods and/or money? I`m all ears. Chances are, at some point in the explanation, you will need to declare that something was produced.

    anything you say is going to end up a re-iteration of a former argument
    With this, I agree entirely.
  81. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    @broizfam

    Trading bills is in no way equivalent to trading money for goods which is what makes an economy "go", as they say.
    Yes it is. Even so, how about this - I`ll buy some wrenches from you and you buy some hammers from me. You allege that this creates wealth? It does not. We still have the same amount of money, the same amount of hammers, and the same amount of wrenches between us. Wealth was only transferred.

    I really don`t know how else to explain this to you.

    I`ll look forward to future comments and try to forget these existed.
    Oh quit being so dramatic. We disagreed about the mechanisms that create wealth - not really a big deal.
  82. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    I`m with Gauddith on this: I think we`ve all beaten this horse to death. Or, to use her words, "just STAHP!"

    (Basically, I`m going to agree with anything that Gauddith says because her homepage features a cute chipmunk.)

    ~Squrlz departs to get a Snickers *and* take a nap~
  83. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    I`ve determined that HumanAction`s way of arguing a totally philosophical point rather than the concrete issue at hand is his special way to mentally ma$turbate (and have circular arguments with people). I do admire his way of avoiding admitting he`s wrong when someone makes a good point by claiming we didn`t understand what he really meant.
  84. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    @lauriloo

    to mentally ma$turbate
    Ooh - sounds naughty.

    have circular arguments
    Not sure you understand the definition of circular logic.

    avoiding admitting he`s wrong
    Please demonstrate where supposed error occurred.

    claiming we didn`t understand what he really meant
    Well now you`re just being silly. Next time we argue, I`m just going to tack on a bunch of assumptions to your statements and argue about them.

    In all fairness, I think it is important for you to know that I hold our little discussions very near to my heart. There`s magic between us, @lauriloo; can you feel it? Don`t lock yourself in a glass cage of emotion.

    Seriously though, I don`t think you made any actual points in your comment other than trying to call me an idiot. Surely there are more elegant ways of doing so.
  85. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 14, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    True, BUT the "government" cannot "create jobs" ok?
    @Squrlz4: Whoops! I meant "wealth" not jobs! As in total wealth or GDP, eh? Obviously "individual jobs and wealth" are created, >>yeah!<<, but by using tax dollars? The Gov`t is simply taking wealth from one pocket & putting it into another. Not real >total< wealth increase.

    Value? That`s an entirely different discussion! Of course police, firefighters & etc are VALUABLE! And without them society MIGHT fall to bits = true!

    But building bridges people never use? Or entire cities without occupants (China)? How does that really DO anything? Couldn`t the money have been better spent?

    @Stormith: For many "government projects" that would be an improvement! I think NASA is really "top notch" however.
    Love the avatar!!
  86. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 8:00 am
    HumanAction

    The government cannot create wealth?

    In 2007 I got an SBA (small business) loan for $10,000 that allowed me to expand my business. Without the government that probably wouldn`t have been possible. I also got student loan backed by the government or I wouldn`t have been able to go to school to learn what I do.

    Since 2007 I`ve generated around $1,200,000 in revenue. I`ve paid employees around $600,000. I`ve developed projects that have resulted in $5,000,000+ in advertising and printing. Not to mention the growth in the sales for my clients.

    Explain to me how that isn`t the government generating wealth?
  87. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 8:36 am
    @HolyGod

    First off, I never said that the government cannot create wealth - @5Cats did.

    All I said (at least, over the last page or two) was that wealth cannot be created without production; simply, that production is the only way to create wealth. Mind you, we`re talking about the total wealth of society rather than an individuals wealth.

    Since 2007 I`ve generated around $1,200,000 in revenue.
    This is where wealth was created. Without the loans, you probably wouldn`t have been able to do this; nonetheless, the loans increased your potential wealth creation, rather than directly increasing your wealth.

    If you had gotten the loans and education, and then did nothing with them, no wealth would be created because your product/service would not have been created. Logically, this means that the loan specifically did not create wealth.

    Right?
  88. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 8:42 am
    @HolyGod

    As for the government creating wealth, most often times, they don`t directly create wealth. Most of the time, they transfer wealth in a manner they hope will allow others to create wealth.

    Now whether the government is the best entity to manage this transfer of wealth (vs. the market), is an entirely different argument.

    However, there are instances where the government produces services and/or goods (USPS for instance) that no other entity could do reasonably. Surely this is wealth creation.
  89. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Agreed here. The gov`t didn`t create your wealth, HG, they made it possible for you to do that. And congratulations on success.
  90. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 11:45 am
    HumanAction

    "First off, I never said that the government cannot create wealth - @5Cats did."

    Fair enough. I thought that was the argument you were participating in. I didn`t go back and read all the comments thoroughly. My bad.

    "this means that the loan specifically did not create wealth."

    Absolutely. It was just a part of the process. By your reasoning then nike doesn`t create wealth by making shoes. The wealth is only created once the consumer buys the shoes right?

    "As for the government creating wealth, most often times, they don`t directly create wealth. Most of the time, they transfer wealth in a manner they hope will allow others to create wealth. "

    Certainly. I agree with everything you are saying. I guess I just disagree with 5Cats. Shocking.




  91. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 11:48 am
    broizfam

    "Agreed here. The gov`t didn`t create your wealth, HG, they made it possible for you to do that. And congratulations on success."

    I agree. I didn`t by any means intend to imply they generated it themselves. But they were an important and necessary step in the creation.

    Without them the wealth may not have been created. That is all. I just mean government can play an important role in the creation of wealth.
  92. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    @HolyGod

    Not necessarily, a bank or someone else could have lent you the money. That way if you failed tax payers wouldn`t be on the hook.
  93. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    Cajun247

    "Not necessarily, a bank or someone else could have lent you the money."

    Well an sba loan is through a bank, but the government guarantees it.

    I don`t think I would have been able to get any loan at that time in my life without the government guaranteeing it.
  94. Profile photo of PhantasmFork
    PhantasmFork Male 18-29
    168 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    Who the hell eat potato chips?
  95. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 15, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    Explain to me how that isn`t the government generating wealth?
    @HolyGod: You didn`t build it! - B.Obama

    LOLZ!
    Yes You Did! YOU did it! Not "the gov`t" OK? There are many ways to get financing WITHOUT Uncle Sam holding the purse strings, OK?
    If some bureaucrat had "invested" that 10K on "Gov`t Projects" it would vanish! PFFT! Gone in a flask.
    The PRIVATE SECTOR (you) did ALL those good things.

    The wealth is only created once the consumer buys the shoes right?
    RIGHT! That is exactly what I said!
    The persons who work for Nike have their `wealth` increased whether or not Nike sells them. Same for the suppliers of materials used.
    But NIKE only "increases wealth" (in reality) after the goods are sold. Before that it`s "potential"...

    You DO agree! :-) How nice!
  96. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6900 posts
    September 16, 2013 at 12:18 am
    5Cats

    "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

    You have to either HATE Obama and look for ANYTHING to attack him about or be a mindless twat suckling on right wing propaganda to watch that speech in context and come away with:

    "You didn`t build it! - B.Obama
    LOLZ!"
  97. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    September 16, 2013 at 1:57 am
    "Mission Accomplished" - GW Bush

    "I can see Russia from my porch!" - S Palin

    Any further questions?

    Obama DID SAY IT (unlike the above "quotes") and his "context" is CRAP. The pathetic excuses and "justifications" of the MSM do not over-rule MY PERSONAL OPINION.

    Got that?

    It`s MY opinion and unless you got some NEW facts to offer? I shall retain it!

    Feel free to disagree! It`s not like I`m trying to convince anyone, I`m just "speaking truth to power" bro! Oh wait, that`s "out of fashion" since Jan 2009 isn`t it...

    American Dream: You Can Do It!
    Obama Dream: You Did Not Build That!

    He ever SPECIFICALLY refers to "a business".

    YOU @Mr.HolyGod did NOT build that business! Why are you falsely taking credit for it? Huh??? (/sarc)

Leave a Reply