Image: Scott Brundage
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Last year, after a lengthy, circuitous journey through the solar system, a NASA probe known as MESSENGER entered into orbit around Mercury. No spacecraft had visited the innermost planet in more than three decades, and none has paid an extended visit. With MESSENGER's arrival, NASA and its international counterparts now have spacecraft stationed at Mercury, Venus, Mars and Saturn—not to mention Earth and the moon. Two more NASA craft are en route to Jupiter and Pluto; yet another ought to reach the dwarf planet Ceres in 2015. Humankind's presence has never stretched so far.
It could stretch farther still, with robots spying down on bizarre moons that might harbor alien life or on the little-understood outermost planets. An even more novel campaign would ferry Martian rocks back to Earth for analysis. NASA had been on track to begin such an ambitious project, but alas, political maneuvering recently forced the space agency to scrap its plans.
The president's proposed budget for 2013 includes drastic cutbacks to planetary science of more than 20 percent that could derail many future missions. Such erratic handling of NASA threatens the nation's steady progress of solar system exploration, which is hypersensitive to the vicissitudes of budget politics.
Sending robotic missions out into the solar system requires years of preparation. Interplanetary probes depend on cutting-edge technologies that are developed and tested over time. And flight plans often demand a well-timed launch during a brief planetary alignment. Nurturing these complex missions calls for patience and a steady hand. That is why a group of planetary scientists draws up a blueprint for exploration every 10 years or so under the auspices of the National Research Council. This advisory panel issued its most recent report last year, which prioritizes the missions and objectives that will yield the most science per dollar. Shaking up the planetary science division now, for a relatively meager savings of $300 million, would force NASA away from these sensible, well-defined goals.
The most severe cuts were to Mars exploration, long a U.S. specialty. NASA was to begin the process of returning samples from the Red Planet during a joint 2018 mission with the European Space Agency (ESA). That campaign, perhaps the most important flagship project this decade, appears to be dead. With the release of the president's budget request, NASA had to concede that it would withdraw from the 2018 Mars mission, as well as from a 2016 launch, also in collaboration with ESA, of an orbiter that would have sought out the origins of trace gases in the Martian atmosphere. Both missions would have made significant progress toward answering the question of whether Mars was ever habitable.
The budgetary ax also threatens to push other top targets for exploration further into the distance. Foremost among them is Jupiter's moon Europa, which scientists suspect holds an internal ocean that could harbor life. The ice giants Uranus and Neptune have only been investigated in fleeting flybys. These worlds will remain unsolved puzzles without a reversal of regressive policies.
In a fraught fiscal climate, NASA should focus on what it does best and on what offers the best return on investment. Solar system exploration meets both criteria: the U.S. has long led the interplanetary charge, and the resulting scientific benefits have come at a relative bargain. This year NASA's planetary science program cost about $1.5 billion—less than what NASA spent designing a congressionally mandated rocket, the Space Launch System, which appears more likely to satisfy aerospace contractors than to aid the cause of space exploration. Such directives from lawmakers all too often land in NASA's lap without the funds to carry them out.
A mere fraction of a cent from every tax dollar seems a small price to pay for the extension of humanity's robotic reach to distant worlds—one of our greatest accomplishments as a nation, not to mention as a technological species. If planetary science must suffer, the reduction should be phased in gradually so that scientists can try to soften the disruption to long-term plans.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentYour article bemoans the loss of NASA's funds. You say, <i>"A mere fraction of a cent from every tax dollar seems a small price to pay for the extension of humanity's robotic reach to distant worlds. . . "</i>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSad for a science magazine not to understand a fundamental of economics: A Monetarily Sovereign government has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency. The U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign on 8/15/71, and now has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the dollar.
That means it does not need to ask anyone for dollars, not you, not me, not the Chinese. And that means <b>federal taxes do not fund federal spending.</b>
If federal taxes were $0, this would not affect by even one dollar, the federal government's ability to deficit spend. It could increase NASA's budget ten-fold, and not ask taxpayers for one cent.
Because you and other media parrot the popular (obsolete) wisdom that taxpayers pay for federal spending, federal support for science always will be limited. You argue against yourself.
Assuming you would like to see more federal support for science, learn Monetary Sovereignty, and then print the facts.
A beginner's article is at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/
I would be glad to guide anyone who is interested in learning.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The President proposes and the Congress disposes by holding hearings to monitor investments, craft laws to help or hurt various business practices and fund R&D. Suddenly this Congress cannot fund Health care, Social security, Education, NASA or many of the other endeavors that were beacons of the greatest nation on Earth and now are being handled by Europe, Russia and China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronic that these ideologically different regions can cooperate to uncover new frontiers while US leadership has gone AWOL. Can anyone name a branch of government that has not left you cringing with embarassment instead of beaming with pride?
I predict historians will seet this as a "Lost Decade" where the US government failed its leadership test. It was unable to capitalize on fiscal strenght relative to the rest of the world, failing to invest in a smartgrid to enable alternative energy projects, ceded technical physics leadership to Europe, forced the best biology to Asia while American leadership stood on the sidelines and waged a war between rich and poor.
Just what part of the word 'broke' does everyone not get? Until (if) we can get our fiscal house in order, many key infrastructural programs must be cut, in order to feed a 'government' that has grown to be a tumor in every sense of the word. And, while some point to a 'lack of leadership'; I say that we still have great leadership... it's just that said leadership no longer serves We the People, but rather an increasingly rouge government whose ability to properly regulate and lead are dropping inversely to the square of a rise in National debt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericans, for decades have abrogated both personal and state sovereignty to the all knowing men and women on Capitol Hill. Now, when it's more than likely too late, we've all begun to awaken to the fact that our future and the future of Greece will be as one.
On 8/15/71, the U.S. government became "Monetarily Sovereign." The science of economics explains that a Monetarily Sovereign government cannot go "broke." It has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, in this case, the dollar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the extreme case where all federal taxes were eliminated and federal spending tripled, the U.S. government easily could continue paying its bills.
By contrast, you and I are monetarily non-sovereign. We do not have the unlimited ability to create dollars. We can go broke. The same is true of Illinois, Cook County, Chicago and Greece, all of which are monetarily non-sovereign.
Unfortunately, Scientific American, despite being a magazine devoted to science, never seems to contain articles that would explain this fundamental difference to its readers.
Despite Congressional and popular ignorance on this subject, the U.S. government could support all NASA missions.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
To some, cutting and cutting and cutting is what will repair our system, but that doesn't get to the root of the problem. Our system is broken because our priorities are skewed by lawmakers (both sides) catering to special interests. Any cuts that are made will be similarly skewed and will result in nothing more than making a few people happy and at the expense of the rest of us. Look at the current debates. The GOP screams about deficits, but protects insanely high defense spending. The Democrats similarly protect wasteful social programs and want all the cuts from defense/business priorities. Until we replace the polarized pols with people willing to actually manage this country, nothing is going to change, and neither new revenues nor massive cuts will help us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe root of the problem is not understanding the difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEconomics is a science, and intuition does not always lead to the right conclusions.
NASA budgeting is a FARCE. NASA originally estimated the cost per Shuttle flight as 21 million...it ended up at 1.7 BILLION per flight. Then there is the BILLIONS over budget on the ISS... the J. Webb space telescope, etc. Did I mentioin the recent BILLIONS in over costs wasted on cancelled return to the Moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a space nut but NASA has zero credibility spending tax dollars. They are a joke and not a funny joke.
This article has a tone like the naive cheerleading of a junior high essay...not journalism. All that's left out is a line about saving the baby seals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA does not spend tax dollars. On 8/15/71, the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create dollars. So, it does not spend tax dollars. It merely creates the dollars to pay its bills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American should explain the difference between a Monetarily Sovereign nation and a monetarily non-sovereign nation. Even if federal taxes fell to $0, the federal government would have no difficulty paying all its bills.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
@Forsythkid: The point of this op-ed is that the savings acquired from gutting our Planetary Science program are negligible compared to our actual debt. The savings are $300 million/year, compared to our current annual deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is, is this a smart way to address our debt? Is destroying a small, unique, and highly successful program a worth a 0.02% reduction in our total yearly deficit?
Space exploration is not the cause of our deficit, nor is it even a large contributor. During difficult financial times like these, we have a duty to shepherd our crown jewels of scientific and technological achievement through destructive and unfocused budgetary cuts so we can preserve our leadership in these and related fields for the future.
Are you sure the federal deficit is too high?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFederal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Reducing federal deficits reduces savings.
daphonz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Space exploration is not the cause of our deficit, nor is it even a large contributor'
it doesn't matter what the 'cause' of the debt is. If you ran up a $20,000 debt from restaurant meals, it is still owing and you need to find savings elsewhere to pay for it. That means cutting out the $25 a month spent to go to a movie.
The USA owes 15 trillion dollars...it's going to take nickels and dimes cut everywhere to make any dent. Ignore the debt and in 5 years there will be ZERO money for space exploration.
@geojellyroll, "I'm a space nut..." we'll you're partially right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this". If you ran up a $20,000 debt from restaurant meals, it is still owing and you need to find savings elsewhere to pay for it." because the US economy is as simple as a restaurant bill. Straw man fallacy.
"Ignore the debt and in 5 years there will be ZERO money for space exploration.", if you cut funding to the sciences where is your innovation going to come from - Ron Popeil? Where is your knowledge and expertise going to come from? What kind of idiot thinks that the best way to fix the economy is to stop investing in the future? What kind of idiot thinks the best way to deal with unemployment is to cut jobs? The kind of idiot that got us into this situation in the first place, the right wing nut job who thinks the US economy should have one focus, to fill his personal pocket. Capitalism, just like communism has failed. It's time to give up ideology and instead see the variety of social and economic policies as tools to create the societies in which we want to live.
To all the right wing fanatics that are incensed that Obama hasn't fixed the mess they made yet, my advice is to stop starting wars and start paying taxes. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to pay for your mistakes.
"To all the right wing fanatics that are incensed that Obama hasn't fixed the mess they made yet, my advice is to stop starting wars and start paying taxes. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to pay for your mistakes'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo late. the money is owing NOW. 15 trillion dollars. Left/right, etc, is irrelevent. Folks 'just don't get it' and won't until their own particular life is impacted...library hours cut...incresed fees for school lunches...fewer police on the street...higher property taxes...and, yes, less money for NASA, and EVERYTHING else. The national debt cookie jar is ALREADY stuffed with IOUs...they are being added to daily. There is no money for NASA that isn't 'borrowed' money.
Roger, keep pushing the message. It amazes me how many people believe that we will soon become Greece. These beliefs mainly result from political fear mongering. Republicans spend like mad when they have control. Then when they do not have control they fear monger about debt and deficits. We saw this in the early nineties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica will not become a Greece in our life times as long as we have our own currency (which Greece does not). All the fear mongerers continue to claim we will have high inflation and high interest rates. So far, that has not even happened to Japan and they have double the debt that we have (per GDP).
And this continuous blame of the US government (e.g. NASA) as being the soul source of our problems is ludicrous. As if the private sector is void of any incompetence or any responsibility for our problems. The government needs to be returned to the people, otherwise it is not a democracy. Until then it will remain a plutocracy or corporatocracy.
Geojellyroll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe economics of a household and the economics of a nation with it's own currency are two different things (micro vs macro). When you cut spending in your own personal household, your income does not go down with it. Reducing government spending can actully lead to increase budget deficits as gvmt income declines. That is exactly what is happening in Europe right now. Growing the economy is the best way to reduce deficits because the only thing that matters is the debt/GDP ratio.
In essense US government has never really paid off much of its debt since the founding of our nation. We simply outgrow our debt. And that is the main point of rodgermitchell's message.
Debt fear mongerering occurred in the early 1990s. Newt Gingrich (moon man) was able to cancel the super collider in Texas in 1993. Now the discoveries (and jobs) are occurring at the LHC in Europe. Did that decision to cancel the TX super collider have any impact on our fiscal situation -- NOT A SINGLE BIT.
oops, my comment at 6:02pm was in reply to rodgermitchell, not geojellyroll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Paul Krugman (both his International Macroeconomics textbooks and his layman books/blogs such as "End This Depression Now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe has been consistently correct in his predictions (such as low interest rates, low inflation, etc).
Cramer... what a pollyanish load of drivel. The country is broke and getting further in debt with each passing day. There will be less funding for NASA next year and even less the year after.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf more spending the solution then the 15 trillion in debt would have made the USA a friggin paradise with platinum-coated rockets carrying kid up into space for birthday parties. In contrast it is crippling innovation by funds being sucked up by interest, entitelments, etc.
Geojellyroll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing your microeconomic-personal-finance knowledge to solve macroeconomic problems is similar to using Newtonian physics to solve problems in general relativity.
Rather than make outrageous statements about "platinum rockets," please refute the following (which was written by someone else -- google it if you like):
1. Families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
2. An over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves. This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of GDP, than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.
With Geojellyrolls logic, Eisenhower should not have invested in the interstate highway system and Kennedy should not have invested in going to the moon. We were at higher federal debt-to-GDP ratios through the entire decade of the 1950s than we are today. The only reason this is an issue is because Karl Rove and Company (i.e. the Republican Party) made it an issue for political reasons. It's easy to scare people.
Karl Rove...blah,blah. Republicans this and Democrats that...blah, blah
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishint....time to shed the ideological blinders and get into the real world.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought you would say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're on the right track, except when you said, " the only thing that matters is the debt/GDP ratio."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, that ratio is meaningless. See: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/federal-debtgdp-a-useless-ratio/
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
By the way, the person I quoted in comment #20 was Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics. Your childish response to his comments are very telling. My reference to Karl Rove was in description of your own "ideological blinders." You essentially replied with the childish response of Pee Wee Herman and adapted by Karl Rove: "I know you are but what am I."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI now remember geojellyroll from a couple of years back. There are a half dozen people who continuous post comments here with childish replies. And now I remember why I stopped posting comments back then.
A google search of "site:scientificamerican.com geojellyroll" gives 806 hits. That says it all. Most of those post seem to be about his denial of AGW and other anti-science rants.
The comments demonstrate why Scientific American should publish articles about Monetary Sovereignty. Very few people understand that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Federal debt is different from personal debt. It merely is the total of outstanding T-security accounts.
2. When China (for instance) lends to us, they first deposit dollars into their checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank. Then they instruct the FRB to transfer the dollars to their T-security account, also at the FRB. To "pay off" the loan, the FRB merely transfers the dollars back, plus interest.
The process is identical with you telling your bank to transfer money from your checking account to your savings account, and later telling your bank to transfer the dollars back. No one worries that the bank is "in debt."
3. A Monetarily Sovereign nation (the U.S., Canada, China, Japan et al) has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, so never can be "broke" or run out of money. A monetarily non-sovereign government (Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, Greece, Italy) does not have this ability, so can be broke.
4. MS nations neither need nor use taxes to pay their bills. Federal taxes could be $0, and the U.S. still would not be "broke." Monetarily non-sovereign governments do use taxes to pay their bills.s
I have no idea why Scientific American does not actively seek articles describing these truths. Here is one of many examples: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Your article on debt/GDP ratio refers to ratios of 100% and 200% (US and Japan, respectively). Yes, I agree with you that at those levels debt/GDP ratio will not have any signficant impact on our economies under our current central bank monetary policies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI brought up debt/GPD in a historical context to show there is no reason to believe we are anywhere near an economic doomsday as the commenter, geojellyroll, believes we are. That is, there is no reason to fear our current debt levels.
Cramer, the article is appropriate to all "debt" levels:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The misnamed "debt" merely is the "lender's" money sitting in the lender's T-security account. A T-security account is essentially identical to a savings account. The U.S. government could "pay" a "debt" of $900 trillion tomorrow, merely by transferring the "lenders'" money from his T-security account back to his checking account.
(I use quotation marks to indicate words that have a different meaning for federal finances versus personal finances.)
2. The U.S., being Monetarily Sovereign, never can run short of dollars, meaning no debt of any size, is a burden.
Scientific American would do its readers a service by publishing these counter-intuitive truths.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
I find your theory that a "monetary sovereign" could issue an infinite amount of debt intriguing (as if a debt/GDP of 10,000% has no consequences). It seems to be the extreme opposite position of those like Ron Paul who fear inflation and believe we must return to the gold standard (and therefore eliminating our "monetary sovereignity"). I definitely believe you are more correct, but there does seem to be a middle ground. You seem to be saying that the federal government should be able to print unlimited money and this would not result in inflation. I would think at some point the "bond vigilantes" and/or inflation would become a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, although the government has the infinite power to create dollars, at some point dollar creation would cause inflation. That always has been stated by Monetary Sovereignty. It just has not yet happened.
Further:
We are in a recession and close to deflation, and the Fed has proved it knows how to cure inflation (via interest rates). So while Congress and the public obsess over the debt and inflation, they ignore the real problem: Recession.
Debt/GDP is a meaningless measure: Debt is the total of the balances in T-security accounts at the FRB. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. Two unrelated measures.
Keep in mind, the federal government does not actually "pay" or owe so-called "debt." The "debt" is payed by transferring the "lenders" own dollars from their T-security accounts to their checking accounts.
T-security accounts are essentially identical with savings account.
Instead of talking about the total debt, we would be more accurate to talk about the "total T-security accounts."
Worrying about Debt/GDP is like worrying about
savings accounts/GDP.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
And that was my exact point: there is no need to worry about debt/GDP ratio at its current levels; and I referenced Japan's 200% ratio and the higher US debt/GDP ratio after WWII.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other commenter was obsessed with fear over our absolute levels of debt. My statement on the importance of the debt/GDP ratio was an attempt to get him not to focus on $15 trillion of debt which we will never have to repay anyway. Not to mention that $2.5 trillion of that is T-securities held by the SS trust fund. Another $3 trillion of that is held by the Fed which they can hold that amount forever. Only about $1 trillion is held by the Chinese.
I don't agree that the ratio is meaningless. They are tied together in the fact that government revenues for servicing the debt is tied to the size of the economy. We want the ratio to be relatively stable in the long run. We do not want it increasing to 500%. [And I understand that US gov can issue new T-securities to service the debt -- i.e. servicing debt does not have to come from current gov revenue -- but that ties back into the fact that we do not want the ratio to be on a steep upward trend over the long run.]
We must concentrate on improving the economy, the denominator of debt/GDP.
I think we agree and are beginning to repeat ourselves.
The government does not use "government revenues for servicing the debt."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, servicing the debt merely means that the government transfers the "lender's" own dollars from the "lender's" T-security account to the lender's checking account.
It's what happens when your bank transfers dollars from your savings account to your checking account.
So as you said no need for government revenues. No taxes, right? That simply will lead to inflation and crowding out of the private sector. So, if the gov need not worry about revenues, then I guess it is okay for gov to spend $50 trillion per year in our $15 trillion economy (like for a war effort); and how many years can that go on for -- 100 years? So, essentially, our economy becomes 100% gov spending (due to crowding out). There's a name for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said the government has the power to create unlimited dollars and does not rely on taxes. I did not say all taxes should be eliminated. Huge difference between "can" and "should."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what I recommend. You can read the details and have your questions answered at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/nine-steps-to-prosperity-a-short-message-to-occupy-wall-street/
1. Eliminate FICA
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America
There seems to be a very fine line between your "can" and "should." Based on your statements and policy ideas, they appear to be practically equivalent. You are definitely for a major increase in government spending and and a major decrease in taxes, permanently. And the math is not difficult: Eliminating FICA and corporate taxes eliminates 49% of all fed government revenue. $5000 per capita is $1.5 trillion which is more than the remaining 51% of fed gov revenues. Total Fed revenue is about $2.5 trillion for 2012. I would call that eliminating federal taxes of our "monetary sovereign."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have taken a few macroeconomic concepts -- including money supply and balance of payments -- to an extreme by decoupling those concepts from the underlying economy. Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which include labor and natural resources. There are opportunity costs between alternative uses of scarce resources. You seem to have forgotten the potential of "monetary sovereigns" from crowding out "non-monetary sovereigns." All private entities, especially individuals, can not become "monetary sovereigns."
Claiming there is "Free Money" necessitates claiming there is unlimited supplies of labor and other economic resources.
In today's world market, what cannot be created in one nation is bought from another nation, so when you talk about scarce resources, think globally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdding dollars to the economy does not use resources. People use resources. Dollars merely help make resources available to people, while allowing people to discover more resources.
Which federal spending "crowds out" individuals? Which federal spending crowds out state and local governments?
Based on your philosophy, there should be at least some relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation. Contrary to popular intuition, there is none. See: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/
The world is loaded with untapped resources, waiting for people to discover them. But that will require money.
Malthus was wrong and always will be wrong.
"Think globally???" That is purely a straw man or you obviously have not comprehended my comments. You should have recognized that my entire prospective is a global perspective. That is why I spoke of "'monetary sovereigns' from crowding out 'non-monetary sovereigns.'" THAT IS PLURAL. The US govt is a single sovereign; other nations like Japan are other monetary sovereigns. I also mention "BALANCE OF PAYMENTS" which is purely an international economic accounting concept. My comment #18 also suggested people to read "International Economics" by Paul Krugman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "Adding dollars to the economy does not use resources..." That tells me you do not understand inflation. Inflation occurs when the growth in the amount of money is not supported by growth in economic output of goods and services.
You asked what federal spending crowds out individuals (private spending). Currently, crowding out is not happening because we are not operating at full capacity and we are in a liquidity trap (zero interest rates; negative real interest rates through the 10yr T-note). But under your scenario of increase fed spending (see your points 2,4,5,6,9), crowding out and inflation will result. Think of your point #9: this gov spending takes man power and other resources. More people working as a result of government investments means less people are available to work as a result of private investments (e.g. more people working building highways rather than building factories or working in Intel factories -- having more babies to feed labor markets takes time). This competition at full economic capacity drives up inflation (wages) and interest rates. Also, new technologies to increase productivity and exploit resources take time. I do not agree with Mathusian ideas, but I agree with Keynes, "In the long term, we are all dead." We do not have immediate access to unlimited resources. Inflation from your ideas will outpace the availability of additional resources.
"Based on MY PHILOSOPHY???" This not my philosophy. Read Paul Krugman. I am not telling you to read Hayek or Friedman. I am asking you read the "philosophy" from a nobel laureate ("New Trade Theory") who most conservatives call a socialist or even communist. He calls himself a capitalist who believes in a welfare state.
You read "International Economics" by Paul Krugman. And I will read your book, "Free Money: Plan for Prosperity." I don't think a continuation of this dialogue will be benefitial until we both have studied those books.
Don't read my book. Save your money. Instead read: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrugman's Nobel was one of the biggest jokes in economics. Few economists respect him. He does not even understand Monetary Sovereignty. He still has no viable solution for the euro, though Monetary Sovereignty does.
"Liquidity trap" is a myth that says reduced interest rates stimulate the economy. In fact, there is no relationship between low rates and GDP growth. See: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/low-interest-rates-do-not-help-the-economy/
". . . more people working building highways rather than building factories. . . " You think factories are better than highways? Or Medicare? Or Social Security? Or food and drug inspection? Or research and development? Or global warming prevention? Or exploring the universe? Or the myriad other things the government spends on?
Why?
Your comments show why Scientific American should devote more space to Monetary Sovereignty. The public needs to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRodger Malcolm Mitchell
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response has said it all: You found it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks (of both Prof Krugman and myself) rather than discuss the issues.
YOU brought up Krugman as your reference, and I said why he's a bad reference. I don't recall attacking you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI provided a great deal of data, which you neither referenced nor refuted, but instead complained I wouldn't "discuss the issues."
So, having not one fact to refute what I've said, you now pull the "ad hominem" card -- essentially an attack on me.
I gave you plenty of facts. Any responses to those facts? I assume not.
Meanwhile, this "discussion" is further evidence that Scientific American should publish articles about Monetary Sovereignty. I've published 750 articles at www.nofica.com. Surely one of the 750 is worth discussing.
SA, are you listening?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
AD HOMINEMS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's an ad hominem once you start attacking the person rather than the idea. You attacked a person based on your own perception of the level of their knowledge and/or intelligence. I never brought into question your level of knowledge. Your comments at 7:17pm and 7:19pm are clearly attacks on the level of knowledge of people simply because their own beliefs/ideas might be in conflict with yours. Your comments suggest you believe anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
FRESHWATER VS SALTWATER:
What is very interesting is that Krugman (and myself) are on the same side of the spectrum in economic thought to you -- as opposed to libertarians like Ron Paul. I am sure you are familar with the Chicago school of economic thought (i.e. freshwater vs saltwater economics). Krugman is saltwater. Your ideas are also saltwater. So I find your attacks interesting.
REFUTATIONS:
I went through all your points. I went through your proposed tax policies and determined that you wanted to eliminate/refund more in taxes than are currently be taken in by Fed govt ($2.5 trillion). That is equivalent to eliminating all tax revenue. You did not refute the numbers I came up with (i.e. corporate + FICA is 49% of fed revenue; $5000 per capita is $1.5 trillion = 60% of fed revenue; 49% + 60% = 109%). Instead of refuting what I said you attack my intelligence by implying that I need to be educated (comment 38).
DATA:
What "great deal of data" of yours did I not reference or refute? Did you actually expect me to go to your website? Why would you expect me to go to your website if you are unwilling to even read a widely used textbook like Krugman's "International Economics" which is in it's 9th ed. You have to SELL me your ideas -- and so far I am not sold on your ideas of unlimited fed gov spending with zero fed gov revenue.
WWW.NOFICA.COM:
This is your own website. Anyone can "publish" on the internet. That doesn't mean it is peer-reviewed. The only way your ideas can become a breakthrough in science is that your ideas must be heard and recognized by others. Is SA listening? It doesn't seem so. First bit of advice -- don't attack those like myself you have taken the time to listen to your ideas. I have actually enjoyed finding you. I didn't know there were saltwater people that had such extreme ideas.
One additional note on ad hominems:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI made that statement that your ideas are extreme. My view is about your idea, not about you. An ad hominem would be "this person is [fill-in-the-blank], so his idea is not correct."
Or an ad hominem could be false statements of how "others" view someone: "Few economists respect him." That is not true. It is true that Ayn Randians do not like him (and other conservatives). People can also say that Eugene Fama's Efficient Market Hypothesis is the biggest joke of a Nobel prize. But even so, that is not a reasonable refutation of any thought he ever had.
LIQUIDITY TRAP:
"Liquidity trap" does not "say reduced interest rates stimulate the economy." Milton Friedman's monetarism say that. It actually says close to the opposite because it typically occurs when interest rates are already at zero and reduced interest rates are unable to stimulate the economy. Wikipedia:
"A liquidity trap is a situation described in Keynesian economics in which injections of cash into the private banking system by a central bank fail to lower interest rates and hence fail to stimulate economic growth. A liquidity trap is caused when people hoard cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war. Signature characteristics of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels."
You said, "[Krugman] still has no viable solution for the euro, though Monetary Sovereignty does."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrugman has always said the Euro should not have been create. He said that back in the nineties. He believes each nation with it own government should have it own central bank and currency. I don't believes he calls it "monetary sovereignty."
looks like I made some grammar typos with my verbs: "created" not "create" and "believe" not "believes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this