I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Bad Guy NASA? [Pic]

Hits: 10787 | Rating: (3.7) | Category: Misc. | Added by: B-diddy
Page: 13 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
broizfam
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
 2189 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:10:46 PM
@Squrlz4Sale,
"You've entombed yourself in a sarcophagus of sophomoric cement that no pickaxe can hope to penetrate."
Damn! That was impressive!

broizfam
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
 2189 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:06:55 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:57:55 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.

Nickel2
Male, 50-59, Europe
 3947 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:41:31 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.

Nickel2
Male, 50-59, Europe
 3947 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:27:21 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.

Stormith
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 543 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:24:00 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:31:37 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:17:54 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22038 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 7:14:08 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?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:42:07 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:36:32 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.


lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1804 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:28:15 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?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:22:03 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:08:56 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:00:49 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.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2305 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:51:51 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.

Nickel2
Male, 50-59, Europe
 3947 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:07:52 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)

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22038 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:32:15 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!)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:46:29 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22038 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:25:21 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22038 Posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:10:27 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 11:22:14 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.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 11:12:52 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)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 11:12:31 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)

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16148 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 11:08:40 PM
Draculya: "Burn the Church. Not a church, the entire religion"

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


Page: 13 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.