The Line Between Jobless Benefits, and Welfare

I just have a few questions about funding NASA, or any government programs.

What is the Return on Investment?

In the 60's we had some return on investments, as well as technological advances, as well as in the 80's.
Microwave Ovens NASA
Corning ware NASA
Communication satellites NASA
But what has NASA done for us lately?

GPS, That was DARPA.
Cell Phones, that was all private business.
Internet, that too was DARPA.

Maybe NASA should quit saying let's go to MARS and the Moon, and start announcing what they have done to improve our daily lives. But maybe they can't since most of the best and brightest are now working for private industries trying to figure out the best rate of return on a investment, or what the next I phone app should be.

We should look at all FEDERAL government spending not what it does for us locally but how does it benefit the nation as a whole.

But then again what do I know...

But then again what do I know... Originally Posted by Rarely Sober

You know where the hottest chicks and cheapest beer are!

Well maybe I got that backwards...but WTF!



* To the mods, I know this guy, I'm just pulling hiis chain. Lighten up on the trigger finger on this one, please. Thank you.

You know where the hottest chicks and cheapest beer are!

Well maybe I got that backwards...but WTF!



* To the mods, I know this guy, I'm just pulling hiis chain. Lighten up on the trigger finger on this one, please. Thank you. Originally Posted by WTF

*To the Mods..I give permission for WTF to give me a hard time. He never shy's away from buying a round.

get a room (I'm guessing one with a well stocked mini-bar)

get a room (I'm guessing one with a well stocked mini-bar) Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You'd been proud of me last night. The Driskill was rocking. Tution is all paid up. I'm spent, drained. The Hubble ain't got shit on me....I made it all the way around the world and never left austin. NASA should contact me.

I will write that cutting NASA is one of the stupidest things BO has proposed.

That depends on what you think NASA should be doing. If you think NASA should be doing military work, then yes, cutting the would be stupid. If you'll recall, there have been many shuttle missions where there is a deliberate, complete communications blackout for several hours. Why do you suppose that is? It's to deploy military satellites without tipping anyone off as to exactly where along the path of the shuttle, the satellite has been deployed. In other words, quite a few of the half-billion dollar per shuttle lauches have been performed for the military.

On the other hand, if you think NASA ought to be the forefront of space exploration, then NASA first needs to develop a clear idea of what it intends to explore before giving it money. I'm a scientist and I'm all for science, but that aspect of NASA has not been its emphasis since the shuttle program began. If cutting the budget to NASA shifts its emphasis back to space exploration, that's fine with me. I'd rather the government wait until NASA develops a plan for what intends to do before it gets funded.

My belief on this subject is that you should have absolute free movement of capital and labor across international borders. That optimizes the comparative advantage of each nation and all workers. Frankly, I don't care about the nationality of the person building my car, writing my software, or cutting my lawn. If they're willing to work, playing by those rules that I consider important (which doesn't include bullshit immigration rules), and do the job well, more power to them. I invest in other countries. I occasionally work in other countries. I certainly do work for companies that reside in other countries. Why shouldn't their citizens be able to invest, or work here? If you think that's clouding my vision, well, I won't be loosing any sleep over your judgment. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Are you more likely to buy a product made in the U.S.?

My belief on this subject is that you should have absolute free movement of capital and labor across international borders. That optimizes the comparative advantage of each nation and all workers. Frankly, I don't care about the nationality of the person building my car, writing my software, or cutting my lawn. If they're willing to work, playing by those rules that I consider important (which doesn't include bullshit immigration rules), and do the job well, more power to them. I invest in other countries. I occasionally work in other countries. I certainly do work for companies that reside in other countries. Why shouldn't their citizens be able to invest, or work here? If you think that's clouding my vision, well, I won't be loosing any sleep over your judgment. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I think they should be documented workers. Background checks with work visas. If you don't agree with that then I would assume you care more about money and services than the country. I can't read all minds over the internet so I don't know what you mean by (bullshit immigration rules)

Are you more likely to buy a product made in the U.S.? Originally Posted by Natalie

Each person can answer that however they see fit but the real proof is in the pudding.

And that answer has proven Adam invisible hand the preeminent buyers of goods.

I don't care where the goods come from. I don't buy USA just because it was made here. HOWEVER (and that is a big however - see it's big- all caps), I do concern myself with the standards from other countries. For example: cotton bought from India often contains poisons in the form of pesticides and the cotton industry in India is killing their farmers. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol9LhGQJQ_w

Also, toys containing lead paint and cat/dog food causing liver failure all from lack of standards in other countries. And don't get me started on child labor.

Each person can answer that however they see fit but the real proof is in the pudding.

And that answer has proven Adam invisible hand the preeminent buyers of goods. Originally Posted by WTF

Agree - proof is in the pudding

Cracks me up when these so-called patriotic "America-first"/tough on immigration folks have an illegal housekeeper or brag about how much they saved on their kitchen remodel, etc. (of course using illegal workers). I'm not talking about high profile politicians; I'm talking about our neighbors.

The attitude seems to be "do as I say, don't do as I do..."

Agree - proof is in the pudding

Cracks me up when these so-called patriotic "America-first"/tough on immigration folks have an illegal housekeeper or brag about how much they saved on their kitchen remodel, etc. (of course using illegal workers). I'm not talking about high profile politicians; I'm talking about our neighbors.

The attitude seems to be "do as I say, don't do as I do..." Originally Posted by atlcomedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8t8DCSP020

Are you more likely to buy a product made in the U.S.? Originally Posted by Natalie

Define what you mean by "a product made in the U.S.". It is not a simple answer. The truth is that most products are "world" products.

I think they should be documented workers. Background checks with work visas. If you don't agree with that then I would assume you care more about money and services than the country. I can't read all minds over the internet so I don't know what you mean by (bullshit immigration rules) Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I don't care where the labor comes from or where the laborer does his work. I don't care about his citizenship. That is a matter of a simple accident of birth. It is, in a word, irrelevant.

And why should it be relevant? The entire point of international trade, whether in goods or labor, is to benefit from comparative advantage. Remember the England can produce wool with so many units of labor and wine with so many units of labor; Portugal does the same with different numbers, etc. If we let Portugal produce all the win and England produce all the wool, we all get more wool and more wine from ECON 1301? Remember comparative advantage? It works in labor markets, too.

Frankly, the entire concept of nationhood is becoming mostly irrelevant in the 21st century. International borders are largely irrelevant and too weak to keep out something as powerful as the laws of economics no matter what laws you pass.

If a Brit (or an Indian) can lawyer in the U.S. more effectively or efficiently than an American, why shouldn't he. He will lower you bill for legal services, force me to lower my rates, or force me to get more efficient. If I can represent a British client more effectively than a barrister over there, what difference does my nationality make? Right now, we're seeing lots of radiology work being farmed out to Indian docs. They are well trained, the films are zapped around the world on the internet, and they work for less. Are you really going to shed a tear for some U.S. radiologist because he wants to make $350k instead of $150k like the guy in India so long as they both read your X-ray equally well?

Why do arbitrary national boundaries, or the accident of where the radiologist (or lawyer) is born matter in this case? Why should it?

I don't care where the labor comes from or where the laborer does his work. I don't care about his citizenship. That is a matter of a simple accident of birth. It is, in a word, irrelevant.

And why should it be relevant? The entire point of international trade, whether in goods or labor, is to benefit from comparative advantage. Remember the England can produce wool with so many units of labor and wine with so many units of labor; Portugal does the same with different numbers, etc. If we let Portugal produce all the win and England produce all the wool, we all get more wool and more wine from ECON 1301? Remember comparative advantage? It works in labor markets, too.

Frankly, the entire concept of nationhood is becoming mostly irrelevant in the 21st century. International borders are largely irrelevant and too weak to keep out something as powerful as the laws of economics no matter what laws you pass.

If a Brit (or an Indian) can lawyer in the U.S. more effectively or efficiently than an American, why shouldn't he. He will lower you bill for legal services, force me to lower my rates, or force me to get more efficient. If I can represent a British client more effectively than a barrister over there, what difference does my nationality make? Right now, we're seeing lots of radiology work being farmed out to Indian docs. They are well trained, the films are zapped around the world on the internet, and they work for less. Are you really going to shed a tear for some U.S. radiologist because he wants to make $350k instead of $150k like the guy in India so long as they both read your X-ray equally well?

Why do arbitrary national boundaries, or the accident of where the radiologist (or lawyer) is born matter in this case? Why should it? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Given your above statements.... can I imagine you're in agreement with Rush Limbaugh, on his potential Costa Rican preferences?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/286856

Giz