Conglomerates wasting money

(Alexander Sheppard) wrote in message . com...

The logical thing to do, which I think stares you
in the face, is kick out the profit makers, use the excess money for
useful projects, and stop adapting the organization to suit their
interests. NASA should control its own resources and have a strong

Holy crap, the fall of the Berlin wall really taught you nothing, did
it?

And here I thought communism and totalitarianism were discredited for
all time . . .silly me.

Tom Merkle

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
m...
(Alexander Sheppard) wrote in message
. com...

The logical thing to do, which I think stares you
in the face, is kick out the profit makers, use the excess money for
useful projects, and stop adapting the organization to suit their
interests. NASA should control its own resources and have a strong

Holy crap, the fall of the Berlin wall really taught you nothing, did
it?

And here I thought communism and totalitarianism were discredited for
all time . . .silly me.

Communists seem to be fairly good at building rockets and missiles.

In article ,
Tom Merkle wrote:
The logical thing to do, which I think stares you
in the face, is kick out the profit makers, use the excess money for
useful projects, and stop adapting the organization to suit their
interests...

Holy crap, the fall of the Berlin wall really taught you nothing, did
it?

No, read it more carefully: he's got a point. The current setup has all
the worst features of *both* systems. It's centrally-planned and there is
little real competition -- keeping both of the Big Boys in the business is
a political necessity, as is regularly throwing lesser business to half a
dozen second-line companies, and no newcomers need apply -- but it's still
constrained to make profits for the stockholders every step of the way.
It amounts to government handouts for the stockholders of a few favored
companies.

Now, the *right* fix is to break up this little faux-free-enterprise
socialist empire. But if you insist that it be maintained, then being
honest about its nature, and eliminating the handouts, would actually be
preferable to the current mess.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message om...
(Alexander Sheppard) wrote in message . com...

The logical thing to do, which I think stares you
in the face, is kick out the profit makers, use the excess money for
useful projects, and stop adapting the organization to suit their
interests. NASA should control its own resources and have a strong

Holy crap, the fall of the Berlin wall really taught you nothing, did
it?

And here I thought communism and totalitarianism were discredited for
all time . . .silly me.


Yeah, why consider facts when you can just yell communist.

If this is our thought level, I guess it isn't really any wonder why
all this waste has continued to persist.

Tom Merkle wrote:

(Alexander Sheppard) wrote in message . com...


The logical thing to do, which I think stares you
in the face, is kick out the profit makers, use the excess money for
useful projects, and stop adapting the organization to suit their
interests. NASA should control its own resources and have a strong


Holy crap, the fall of the Berlin wall really taught you nothing, did
it?

And here I thought communism and totalitarianism were discredited for
all time . . .silly me.


Both the US and USSR had the same framework for a space
program. Central planning. Government subsidized. No
commercial competition. (Or rather, competition to be the
subcontractor to detailed specs, not commercial competition
in lowering price or alternate technologies).

The type of government behind a bureaucracy is pretty irrelevant.
It is the bureaucratic structure that will dominate the program.

Both the US and USSR had the same framework for a space
program. Central planning. Government subsidized. No
commercial competition. (Or rather, competition to be the
subcontractor to detailed specs, not commercial competition
in lowering price or alternate technologies).

The type of government behind a bureaucracy is pretty irrelevant.
It is the bureaucratic structure that will dominate the program.

This is kind of an interesting statement. I do quite agree that there
are some interesting similarities between the economic systems of the
US and the USSR. In the USSR you had rule by the state elite, while
the US you have rule by a state-corporate elite. Nowadays in Russia
you can see one shifting suprisingly (if you believe conventional
lies) easily into the other one.

However, I wonder if you can find an example of a country that has
prospered without significant state support for its industry. The
evidence seems to show that such examples don't exist.

"Alexander Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
Both the US and USSR had the same framework for a space
program. Central planning. Government subsidized. No
commercial competition. (Or rather, competition to be the
subcontractor to detailed specs, not commercial competition
in lowering price or alternate technologies).

The type of government behind a bureaucracy is pretty irrelevant.
It is the bureaucratic structure that will dominate the program.

This is kind of an interesting statement. I do quite agree that there
are some interesting similarities between the economic systems of the
US and the USSR. In the USSR you had rule by the state elite, while
the US you have rule by a state-corporate elite. Nowadays in Russia
you can see one shifting suprisingly (if you believe conventional
lies) easily into the other one.

However, I wonder if you can find an example of a country that has
prospered without significant state support for its industry. The
evidence seems to show that such examples don't exist.

When it comes to consumer goods, there are many examples. At one time US
auto companies did great without government support. Now they're less
profitable. Over long time periods like 50 years, things shift. At one
time, the Swiss dominated the watch market, but they were slow to switch to
upgrade their technology and the Japanese took over. In the distant past, I
read the Competitive Advantage of Nations by Michael Porter (published in
1990). It contains many examples.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Now that the US is outsourcing everything, it isn't clear what we make any
more. I work in health care which is hard to outsource. We can't have
every body working in health care, so the US economy may spiral down at some
point while so-called American companies earn profits elsewhere in the
world.

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...

Both the US and USSR had the same framework for a space
program. Central planning. Government subsidized. No
commercial competition. (Or rather, competition to be the
subcontractor to detailed specs, not commercial competition
in lowering price or alternate technologies).

Not even close. USSR spent nearly 5% of its GDP EVERY YEAR on space,
and accomplished far less than the US did with less than 5% of its
federal budget--which was less than a tenth of a percent of US GDP.
Commercial competition, while subdued due to the tiny size of the
market, existed even in the early stages of NASA. That's why Douglas,
which built the Mercury and Gemini capsules, was disappointed to lose
out on Apollo. It exists even now. As similar as Lockheed and Boeing
are, they are not the same. They compete, and their respective
shareholders take joy in the other's misfortune. Believe whatever you
want.

The type of government behind a bureaucracy is pretty irrelevant.
It is the bureaucratic structure that will dominate the program.

Wrong. the type of government permeates the bureaucratic structure,
not the other way around. if the government is corrupt and poorly
managed, the bureaucracy follows. When the government is well managed,
bureaucracy shifts slightly that way. It's rhetorically neat to equate
the two, but the difference is enormous.

Bureacracy is a necessary outgrowth of system size and is not in
itself bad. Any large system, corporation, or organization will
inevitably become bureacratic. It's the only rational way to manage
large organizations while ensuring against system-wide, catastrophic
failure. (and no, the loss of a shuttle is not a catastrophic
failure--a catastrophic failure would be a third of NASA's budget
found to be tied up in porkbellies to make some middle manager rich,
or a thorough ballistic missile technology transfer to Iran.))

Tom Merkle

"Mike Rhino" wrote in message ...

Now that the US is outsourcing everything, it isn't clear what we make any
more. I work in health care which is hard to outsource. We can't have
every body working in health care, so the US economy may spiral down at some
point while so-called American companies earn profits elsewhere in the
world.

Help, all the jobs are going overseas!

Has there ever been a time in American history where it didn't look
like the end of the world? 1860, cotton prices fell through the floor.
1890, timber prices went through the floor. 1920, textile prices went
thud. 1950, American mining became irrelevant. 1980, American cars and
electronics hit the skids. 2000, microchips went overseas. what's left
to go? The sky is falling!

We can't continue to pay first world salaries to workers with third
world skills or the whole system will collapse. The only sustainable
way is to force people with easy access to education and retraining
programs -- Americans -- to get out of the easy jobs by farming them
out to places where workers don't have access to skilled jobs and so
will settle for lower skill, lower paying jobs.

Our selfish, self-destructive agricultural subsidies alone have
probably caused more suffering in the third world than all the
dictators of the 20th century.

Tom Merkle

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in message
...

Now that the US is outsourcing everything, it isn't clear what we make
any
more. I work in health care which is hard to outsource. We can't have
every body working in health care, so the US economy may spiral down at
some
point while so-called American companies earn profits elsewhere in the
world.

Help, all the jobs are going overseas!

Has there ever been a time in American history where it didn't look
like the end of the world?

Yes. 1950 to 1962. 1999.

1860, cotton prices fell through the floor.

That's just one industry. Currently everything is fair game. The current
level of outsourcing has never been seen before in the history of the world.

1890, timber prices went through the floor. 1920, textile prices went
thud. 1950, American mining became irrelevant. 1980, American cars and
electronics hit the skids. 2000, microchips went overseas. what's left
to go? The sky is falling!

We can't continue to pay first world salaries to workers with third
world skills or the whole system will collapse.

Doesn't the system collapse either way? If we don't pay first world wages,
then American workers won't earn first world wages and we become a third
world nation.

The only sustainable
way is to force people with easy access to education and retraining
programs -- Americans --

At one time, people trained for computer jobs. Now those are being
outsourced. It isn't clear what it is that one should be trained for. If
you are middle aged and switch careers, you may end up starting over as a
beginner. Even if you find a "safe" occupation, you have to compete against
people moving into your occupation.

Jobs are destroyed and jobs are created. There is an element of luck to the
system. If you are lucky, more jobs are created than destroyed. The US has
been lucky, but many other countries have not.

to get out of the easy jobs by farming them
out to places where workers don't have access to skilled jobs and so
will settle for lower skill, lower paying jobs.

Our selfish, self-destructive agricultural subsidies alone have
probably caused more suffering in the third world than all the
dictators of the 20th century.

Tom Merkle