People aren't supporting Moon Plan

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"

> I would value further insight from you on this alleged
> mismanagement. Of course, we can blame the four year election
> cycle and the generally high gullibility level of the American
> public for the lack of long term solutions. Sometimes I wonder if
> this built in temporal cycle will preclude the U.S. from making
> the leap to space.

R.I.N.O. ( Republican In Name Only) tactics are irresponsible.
Government department spending is growing the fastest since
President Johnson's Administration.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040122-113950-1435r.htm
"Conservative critics say Mr. Bush, in fact, has overseen a nearly
25 percent surge in spending over the past three years the fastest
pace since the mid-1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson passed
his "Great Society" programs while fighting the Vietnam War."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm398.cfm
"The recent Medicare drug bill represents a huge long-term burden on
the fiscal health of this country. It was a massive entitlement
expansion passed with no financing program to pay for it and is
estimated by CBO to cost well over $2 trillion dollars over a 20-
year period. The final check for this program will come due just
when Social Security and Medicare run out of money."

"Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did
under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16
percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional
demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and
rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of
the new spending that has occurred since 9/11."

Just read the links for more details.

The firing of Treasury Secretary O'Neill because he raised alarms
about further tax cuts. The firing of economic advisor Larry Lindsey
for publicizing that the war would cost $100 Billion.

http://www.j-bradford-
delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001211.html

The introduction of the Farm Bill with a price tag of $180 billion.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/WM87.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1538.cfm

The introduction of the Steel Tariff.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/WM81.cfm

Prescription drug coverage in Medicare.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/mm90.cfm

The recent gains in the stock market are not as positive as they at
first appear. When you factor in the depreciation of the dollar the
gains are almost wiped away. If you had simply taken your money and
exchanged it into another currency a year ago and stuffed that money
into your mattress and now went and changed it back into dollars,
you'd be about equal to where the stock investor was.

Ambitious new plans for NASA. You don't need a link for that one :)

The overall strategy seems to be cut taxes again and again, and then
just keep adding program after program. Do these things in order to
appease many groups.

I'm not sure why Democrats are upset with Bush because he spends for
their benefit. (OK, actually I do know why they're upset, but they
should look at how he spends - much like them and many of their
constituency benefits too.) It seems that the Clinton Administration
redefined the Democrats away from the "Tax and Spend Party" into
the "Fiscally Responsible Party" and now the test becomes whether
they can maintain the new philosophy. Their primaries will tell the
tale.

The list could go on and on but these links should illustrate my
point. Unfortunately, I don't see any Democratic candidate that can
do better :(

> I made this prediction because it was so easy. The point is, if
> the global economy is increasing, it is relatively easy to invest
> and get a reasonable return.

My point is that as more capital enters the markets (how many people
had mutual funds 20 years ago?) it becomes easier for competitors to
emerge. Any time a new business niche is developed and the business
earns extraordinary returns that very success will draw competitors
and their presense will reduce the returns earned. OK, classic
theory so far. What usually inhibits, or delays, strong competitors
are barriers to entry. One such barrier is scale of capital
required. With capital awash in the system a viable competitor can
more easily find financing to enter the lucrative niche.

Keep in mind that a stock will go up in price for two reasons. The
first is that the company is earning a profit, and the degree of
profit will directly affect the price of the stock. The second is
that the company is growing in the marketplace (which itself can be
growing) so that the price increase of the stock reflects future
growth prospects. Both of these stock price increases are signals to
competitors that something beneficial is happening in your ecology.
As they enter your ecology your prospects are threatened, and the
very presence of threat reduces your potential. When competitors
become viable within your ecology your potential has diminished and
so your stock price (based on returns or market growth) slows its
growth or falls. There are many instances where too many competitors
enter a market and drive out what were once very profitable firms.
Further, the remaining firms, because of intense competition, are
making minimal returns.

The abundance of capital makes profit-seeking a dynamic short-term
enterprise. The long term buy-and-hold strategy is under attack.
Those that will profit will be the companies that exploit and defend
their niche agrresively and then move on to develop a new niche and
once again repeat the process. They'll have to be smart and nimble.

> >"Alexis de Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure, until
> >politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own
> > money."

> >One person = one vote.
> >
> >You do the math :-)

> Funny, but I hadn't thought it of it like this before... Simple
> but profound statement. I hope it proves inaccurate overall, even
> if it seems to be coming true.

It's long been true and Bush is proving a master of this principle.
The problem really lies with the people who are content to be bought
off as individuals to the detriment of the polity as a whole.

> As far as the verbal sparring, I apologize. Paul caught me in a
> particular mood with just the right material :-). But - as I've
> said before - I value that input as it makes me think hard about
> my own positions, and whether they neeed to be modified. Thanks to
> Paul as well!

No, I was referring to the verbal sparring in the link I provided
and not between you and Paul. Compared to other sites, all of us on
this list are the epitomy of politeness and reasonableness despite
our sometime different viewpoints.

TangoMan