what we really need to go into space

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> > The "current system" is not failing because it is too
capitalist,
> > it is failing because it is too non-capitalist. Every problem
> > you list results from deviations from capitalism e.g. Enron
> > resulted from political interference in the power industry and
> > auditing industry, the space station boondoggle is the result of
> > the taxpayers paying for it and therefore nobody needing to
> > create value for customers etc.
>
> A fundamental problem of capitalism is that any large
> economic entity can rewrite the nations' laws to its
> advantage to sustain and enhance its monopoly power.
> From RIAA through Enron through Halliburton through
> Boeing (lobbying for the space station and airplane
> leasing etc.) through Cell Phones technology in Iraq
> this is still happening, and has happened continually
> throughout the history of the US (telephone
> companies, oil companies, nuclear companies, drug
> companies, electric companies, etc.). What you
> suggest is an aberration of capitalism in
> various special cases, others suggest is the
> fundamental way big money is ultimately made.
> It is much more cost effective to rewrite the laws
> to make stealing legal than it is to provide honest
> value to customers -- and so that is the path
> capitalism ultimately pursues in the quest
> driven by a love of money.
>
But this path is only made possible because the system
is not sufficently capitalist, that is to say that
private property and other rights essential to
capitalism are insufficently protected. Where
the economy acts capitalistically these problems do
not exist.

> >
> >>We need to move beyond this rat race thinking (where the rats
> >>are winning), transcending to something better -- whatever that
> >>will be. People are typically motivated to act by hope or fear.
> >>Yes, hope for profits is motivating, and, yes, fear of earthly
> >>destruction is motivating. But, how about hope
> >>for something better than a society motivated by "the love of
> >>money" or "fear of disaster"?
> >
> > Is there something better? So far societies that tried to
> > not be motivated by money turned out vicious, powerhungry and
> > amoral.
>
> Not to say I in any way I idealize or wish to defend the USSR or
> Stalinism or Central Planning or Secrecy or any of the other bad
> things about that failed experiment (including disregard for the
> environment),
> but did the USSR economy fail because communism doesn't work, or
> did it
> fail because the US spent them into the ground on the military?

The overall rate of USSR military spending apparently did not
change much during the Bush/Reagan era. So it's the former.

> US politicians like to have it both ways -- the USA won the Cold
> War by
> military spending, and also that system didn't work anyway and
collapsed
> of its own accord. Which is it? If that poorly managed
> totalitarian but somewhat altruistic at least in propaganda
> system didn't work at all,
> why did the US need to spend hundreds of billions a year to fight
it?
>
> In any case, Canada, the Netherlands, and various other more
> socialist
> countries all seem to be collectively exceeding the USA across
> the board
> in quality of life indicators (infant mortality, life expectancy,
> lower crime rate, lower prison populations, lower drug use,
> higher literacy,
> etc. etc.) and are doing so with much less natural resources
> than the USA has.

Do not confuse capitalism with the US system.

> But then again, just like in the USSR, the USA leadership and
> majority of the population have come to believe their own (Fox
> Television) propaganda. It is said by Soviet studies professor
Stephen
> Cohen that the biggest thing about Watergate is it showed the
Soviets
> their view of the US system (at the time) was wrong -- because the
whole
> Kremlin thought that if Nixon just cracked down that Watergate
would go
> away. They were very surprised when he was impeached -- showing how
even