New Book on Space Colonies

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Obviously you have some experience on this - nevertheless I think
at
> least some of your sources are more biased opinion than based on
recent
> facts (particularly the 1999 "Foreign Policy" article you
reference).

The article is definitely biased, but biase, in and of itself, does
not invalidate an argument. That author marshalled together his
facts and put a different spin on his conclusion. It's point is to
allow policymakers to look at a different reality and to judge for
themselves. As I pointed out that article was a bit dated, but still
held kernals of truth, and it should be given higher standing than
mere opinion.

> The importance of China may be arguable, but its size and high
growth
> rate (in recent years with China's WTO entry the 8%+ figure has
been
> pretty much confirmed)

Microsoft used to have spectacular growth but as it became the
leviathan it is now, it just becomes impossible to continue to grow
at the same pace. Same principle for China. Don't compare its growth
rate to that of the US. They're in two different leagues in terms of
scale. As China's economy grows larger it won't be able to sustain
that rate. Further, it's always easiest to make the efficiency gains
early in the reform game. Squeezing out the same level of gains,
year after year, from the state-run economy will be an ever growing
challenge. Nevertheless, kudos to China for what it has already
accomplished.

Be aware though, that mixed into that 8% gain, are trouble spots.
Such as a building boom that has erected office towers, some which
are in default, some which have no tenants, and many with the banks
holding the bad debt. The actual construction activity is counted
into the economic growth rate, but the defaults and bad debt aren't.
Further, a problem unique to communist countries, are factories that
produce products that nobody wants to buy, and then warehouses these
products. That economic output is counted in the GDP but when you
think about it, such activities are actually a drag on the economy,
but that isn't recorded anywhere in the easily digestable national
economic reports. Like I said, take comunist economic statistics
with a grain of salt. There is truth buried in them but you have to
make your way through the smoke and mirrors.

gives it much more slack than anybody else to
> take on space adventures - if it so chooses.

Well, this is such a broad statement. Who has more slack, a small
company running a 8% profit margin, or a larger company that is
running a 3% profit margin? This can be argued both ways, thus if
the US so chooses, it can cut environmental protection, reduce
defense, and cut health and human services from its budget and take
on space adventures. Of course, even though it could choose to do
this, it won't because of domestic political pressures. So too, with
China; there are compelling competing interests for those funds -
military modernization, banking crisis, worker dislocation,
education, health, etc.

> >Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. Are you countering the
> >prevailing wisdom on these lists that the private market is the
most
> >efficient mechanism to insure sucess in space endeavors by
> >advocating a communist, centrally planned approach. That might
make
> >for some good debate.
> >
> Ummm. I don't know about prevailing wisdom, but the facts are that
> government investment (is all government investment "communist"?)
in
> not-yet-commercializable technology development can greatly
accelerate
> the pace of progress; efficiency is a bit of an issue, but when
the govt
> can spend $10 billion and private investors can only come up with
a few
> 10's of millions, even if 75% of the govt money is "wasted",
you're
> still way ahead. I'd put the "waste" at NASA on the space shuttle
> recently at close to 100%, relative to any useful commercializable
> technology, but that's a bit unusual. Some of the ISS technology
at
> least is partially commercializable.

I don't argue with you on this point. You're right that a society
can marshall immense resources to achieve a goal if it is willing to
bear the cost. China might be willing to bear that cost, whereas the
US would rather please the majority of its citizenry by prioritizing
other budget demands.

Good luck to China, but don't bet the farm on it. :)

Taking it with a grain of salt,

TangoMan