Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

space.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–337 of 337 posts

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#331

Post by vxNsr »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #234
vxNsr wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well that's new.... I was there back in 2017 and everyone I spoke to was very against it, and I remember when I looked up the stats they also showed the majority weren't for it. Still looks like it's a close issue, statehood is a big deal and affects everyone dramatically, kinda feel like it should have overwhelming support, not 51% of 52% of ppl... that's actually only 26% of eligible voters voting for it.

Would you believe, almost exactly the same proportion of the U.S. electorate that voted for Donald Trump in 2016?

What’s the relevance of that stat?

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#332

Post by perryizgr8 »

andrepd wrote: post #106
skuhn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem (partly) is that the F-35 program puts money into 307 congressional districts in 45 states [1]. These insanely expensive defense projects are wealth transfer programs that make contractors like Lockheed and their many sub-contractors rich, and also create jobs in these communities. That a fighter plane may or may not come out the other end is only nominally important, the key is to spend the money. The mo…

I wish we could just simply hand the money over and skip the part where we create the demand for eternal wars and the killing and maiming of millions of people.

Better yet, don't take the money in the first place. Let people keep more of their legitimate earnings.

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#333

Post by VikingCoder »

splintercell wrote: post #329
VikingCoder wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that I think there are programs that are good and beneficial, and others call them "evil, wealth redistribution." Well, if that's the majority view in a state, and that state also takes in more Federal dollars than its residents puts in, then maybe for Defense spending they shouldn't be able to take money from another state. They can self-fund it. And if they can't maybe it makes more sense that the jobs t…

Yeah but you don't get a say. Only all of us as a collective gets a say. That's in the fundamental nature of taxation. My alcoholic racist uncle who beats his family receives welfare check for his disability. I am clearly paying into the system and he hates me extra for being an in interracial marriage. I don't like to have my money go towards him, but guess what? Same here. You don't like that your money is being sp…

> You don't like that your money is being spent on people against your wishes?

No, I'm fine with it. But there are entire states run by dinks who HATE IT, and yet they take it, cursing me and people like me all the while.

I think it's possible we could trick them into agreeing to laws or even a Constitutional Amendment which would prevent them from benefiting from a system they say they hate.

I honestly think that in principle it would be easy.

"Should wealth be redistributed from one state to another?" "No!" "Wow, that was way easier than I thought."

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#334

Post by m000 »

nickff wrote: post #207
AlexandrB wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is an example of the broken window parable[1] writ large. Sure it created a bunch of jobs, but that same money could have created a similar number of jobs while accomplishing something useful. I often wonder what the eventual consequences of this kind of resource misallocation will be for the US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Well, many influential economists don't believe in the broken windows fallacy, or that it applies here. Joseph Stiglitz has said that he was in favor of literally paying people to dig holes then fill them back up as a form of fiscal stimulus.

Actually we may already be paying them, only the holes aren't literal. The phenomenon also has a name: Bullshit Jobs [1].

How about paying people for 4 years to get a college degree on whatever subject they like, instead of having them grinding on a bullshit job?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#335

Post by curryst »

skuhn wrote: post #102
mumblemumble wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the F-35 makes jobs... I wonder about that. It's been a while since I studied, but the phrase "deadweight loss" looms large in what I remember of the one economics class I took in college. So I wouldn't be surprised if the program is actually a net negative for job creation. Only that doesn't matter, either, because the point is not to create more jobs; the point is to influence job creation in a way that benefi…

I haven't really looked into it all beyond a superficial level, but I certainly think that things like the F-35 program are a net negative to society when viewed at a distance. As another example, I wonder if Wisconsin's sweetheart deal with Foxconn actually had a negative impact on employment. Clearly Foxconn's promised jobs never materialized, but the threat of them coming to town to spend big money may have had a…

> Back to the F-35 program, the jobs it creates may be deadweight, deadend careers that don't produce real value. And then you can't just have these people unemployed and starving, so I guess we'll need an F-35+1 program for them and their descendents. And so on forever, until we break this cycle.

This is a big part of the problem. If you give the F-35 program $1 billion and you give the NSF $1 billion dollars, the F-35 program is going to directly generate more jobs. They pay people less, and they need more unskilled labor. The NSF needs very little unskilled labor, relatively speaking. Scientists are expensive. Machinery for science is crazy expensive (although so are a lot of F-35 components). Machinery for science also often involves buying foreign parts, such as the replacement cables for Arecibo that were coming from Germany.

One way for the NSF to address that is by requiring parts to be US made like the DoD does. It will increase the price, and it will often result in less effective parts (as it often does for the DoD), but you can make an easier argument that cutting NSF funding will take away jobs. I don't know if that's a net win or not, but it would probably get them more funding.

Re: Arecibo Observatory Collapsed

#337

Post by cbkeller »

mulmen wrote: post #302
cbkeller wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSF budget increased dramatically between 1951-2008 -- but when accounting for inflation in the figures you linked, has declined by about 10% in real terms since then. (That is, the 2010 NSF budget of $7.045 B in 2010 is in real terms equivalent to about $8.413 B today, about a billion dollars more than the real 2020 budget of $7.066 B, using the inflation calculator at [1].) [1] https://www.in2013dollars.com

The linked budget summary says it is in "Millions of Current Dollars". I interpret that to mean it is already inflation adjusted.

That is what I would have interpreted that to mean as well, but the numbers in the far right column don't really appear to be inflation-adjusted relative to the actual primary sources.

Here, for instance, is the actual appropriations bill for 1998 [1]. As you can see,

> "There are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation $3,505,630,000 for fiscal year 1998."

For comparison, the value in the aforementioned table for FY1998 is $3,430.63 M. This is a bit off, presumably because in contrast to the bill the values in the table are " after supplemental appropriations, transfers, and reprogrammings".

I had missed, though, that the appropriations for the last two years were actually higher than the request, so some signs of recent growth.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/1273...

Post reply on HN