[flagged]
How much of that 37 Trillion is NASA though? According to the article this reduces it to the 1960s, not 2019.
Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
131–140 of 420 posts
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
== If we believed all of these claims, then it would be impossible to cut the scope of government spending== What is the goal of cutting government spending? Most would say it is to balance the Federal budget. The controlling party is planning to do the opposite, so the argument kind of falls apart.
The goal of cutting government spending is ultimately to reduce the amount of resources drained out of the economy through taxes/inflation. Balancing the budget is useful insofar as it reduces the resources that will need to be drained out of the economy in the future to pay interest on our growing debt (currently 11% of all Federal spending).
Tax money isn't drained out of the economy. The money used for NASA goes right back into the economy, since they use it to buy things. Even money to pay down debt isn't removed from the economy since the majority of that debt is held by US citizens who use that money to buy things.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#133Wherever budget cuts are proposed, you can rely upon detractors to present the issue in apocalyptic terms. If we believed all of these claims, then it would be impossible to cut the scope of government spending. Furthermore, if we accepted the premise promoted by some commenters here, then research, which is presented as incredibly valuable - would be unable to be funded or valued in the private market. For these rea…
You think you could fundraise billions of dollars for science from private sources? You're talking about a $100B (spread out over the next decade) bill on the sidewalk. I don't think there's anything less realistic than the idea that there would be that amount of money available for the asking but unclaimed...
Well, historically, we used to have a robust industrial R&D that even did basic research: Bell Labs (astrophysics, semiconductor physics), IBM, Xerox, RCA, Kodak and many other; even Ford had an R&D lab with physicists. Their record was quite impressive, as we all know.
The weird trick that made that work was a tax policy that supported that. IIRC, R&D was expense as opposed to amortization, together with a laxer trust regime that allowed large profits that could pay for all that.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#134Wherever budget cuts are proposed, you can rely upon detractors to present the issue in apocalyptic terms. If we believed all of these claims, then it would be impossible to cut the scope of government spending. Furthermore, if we accepted the premise promoted by some commenters here, then research, which is presented as incredibly valuable - would be unable to be funded or valued in the private market. For these rea…
The sticking point for me is that it’s such a risky bet to assume that something else will fill the gap. Much of the research impacted by cuts is not the type that private industry has typically conducted because it can’t be performed with a specific profitable result in mind. It’s the kind of research that had wound up beneficial in the long run indirectly due to incidental discoveries and unexpected connections. So…
This is a common response here and elsewhere. Generally every state allocation of funds is presented as incredibly vital. This is exactly the attitude I was speaking to in my comment above. It would be rare to find a spending program which the proponents didn't claim was incredibly valuable. Here on HN we have an interest in technology. It fits that we value some of the discoveries of NASA.
Down thread, you'll find others suggesting that defense spending should be cut. It isn't hard to imagine nor would you need to look far to find a hawkish interventionist. These communities will assure us that defense spending is vital, absolutely vital not only to our own well-being, but to support the globalized trading system as well.
Choose a topic. Pick a niche. Under every rock from K Street to Capitol Hill, you will find a bureaucrat, politician or lobbyist to justify more spending. Some may like to spend more here and less there. Others might like to spend more everywhere. Almost all of them will have particular issues for which spending cuts are beyond consideration.
>...research that had wound up beneficial in the long run indirectly due to incidental discoveries and unexpected connections.
This is a good point. What is missing here, are the missed opportunities in the private sector, which would have also been, unexpected. We don't know the things which were not built. We do not know what all of those scientists and engineers may have discovered or built, had they not been allocated into government funded research. For me, this is a problem with the post-hoc rationalizations.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#135[flagged]
NASA's budget is a rounding error. Anyone serious about budget deficits should be focusing on increasing taxes on the wealthy, reducing DOD spending, and implementing a better, more affordable healthcare system.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#136[flagged]
It's all a tradeoff, will we get a better future from these nasa projects, or from spending the money on the currently planned tax cut extentions? I'd argue that the tax cuts aren't as useful as nasa
Before Trump/Vance nuked US reputation the interest on US bonds was low and provided a safe asset to investors. Spending on scientific research was a no-brainer.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a starting premise, we might define "enough" as a balanced budget.
NASA has a positive ROI for the American economy. Hastily making cuts into programmes that generate significant economic and scientific value for your nation is a losers strategy. I'm sure it'll also have other deleterious effects on the economy such as brain drain which would be difficult to reverse. https://www.space.com/nasa-economic-impact-us-2023-report
> NASA has a positive ROI for the American economy.
Citation absolutely required. Amongst other things, NASA has set huge piles of money on fire (literally!) building a rocket program that should probably be shut down entirely. Now, whether or not these particular scientific programs are a net positive investment is a more subtle point that is certainly up for debate, but "NASA has a positive ROI for the American economy" is pure assertion.
Speaking as someone who is generally pro-science -- to the point where I actually went out and got a PhD, in science -- we can't just assume that "science" is net beneficial to society. From direct experience, most science is just useless crap, and a lot of scientific funding is pure political patronage, dressed up in a white lab coat.
I do think it's a situation where the line item is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but in a world where the government is quickly going broke, hard choices must be made, and cutting this kind of stuff will also not be the end of science.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#138These kind of policies and that amortization tax law for software development will probably encourage quite some exodus of talent. Would it be to Europe or South East Asia, though?
USA pays engineers like 3x as much as those places. It's still global brain drain destination #1.
For engineers, maybe. But with immigration restrictions, employers can no longer create a workplace where "work with the best in the world" is an attraction.
Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future
#139Well, yes, that's the point. Authoritarians want to consolidate power and loot wealth, not improve things or make the world a better place.
You're not supposed to take the Democratic talking points about Trump being a "wannabe dictator" seriously. It's just political mudslinging.
I figured that was obvious after Trump and Obama were all buddy-buddy at Carter's funeral.
I mean, typically you don't have a friendly relationship with someone you think is ending democracy in your country.