All this "Trillion dollar debt", "money", "spending", "cant afford it" got me thinkin

[cupocity303]

Consider this thought experiment. Ever see the movie, "Contact (1997)"?

Suppose we got the blueprints to build The Machine that would change human kind forever. But, this machine would cost hundreds of trillions of "dollars" to build.

Would we look at ourselves like stupid monkeys and not build it just because we didn't have the "dollars"?

[squealpiggy]

We'd start building it, the budget would spiral, we'd drop twice as much on it as expected then a politician would cancel the project to win a few votes.

[-jose-]

how long is this machine going to take to build?

[iLovesoccermoms]

we'd be too paranoid about building, what could be something that would blow us up from a trigger halfway through the Galaxy..

[New England]

We'd start building it, the budget would spiral, we'd drop twice as much on it as expected then a politician would cancel the project to win a few votes.

lol

it's a very complex phenomenon, but i think you've got the outcome spelled out pretty plainly

we'd fail at completing whatever the task is and it would make 1929 look like a ho-down.

i think this is what we'd look like in a remarkly short amout of time. maybe only a few generations of people who lived without civilization and we'd look like this:


the economy doesn't work that way. i think it would end in war. i'm looking at the economy in a very abstract sense to address the question; the state and exchange of goods and services.


are you going to horde resources (time/labor, stuff [energy, logistics, land, infrastructure,], political influence, etc) to complete this project to the extent that it kills people?
you're going to have to if you're talking about the state pooling that much of a chunk of it's resources together.

if you want to put your resources toward something at such a rate you're going to compromise your population.


and i've never seen contact, but what sort of an endeavor are they looking to undertake?
i suppose that's important.

[cupocity303]

We'd start building it, the budget would spiral, we'd drop twice as much on it as expected then a politician would cancel the project to win a few votes.

Probably. Followed up by: "We need to privatize this. If there is a demand for it in the Free Market, it will get made", mantra.

Monkey's. It's expected of them or any animal to keep it petty and fight over their bananas in their animal kingdom/jungle. With all the technology and improvements, we're still just like Monkey's in many ways.

[cupocity303]

lol

it's a very complex phenomenon, but i think you've got the outcome spelled out pretty plainly

we'd fail at completing whatever the task is and it would make 1929 look like a ho-down.

i think this is what we'd look like in a remarkly short amout of time. maybe only a few generations of people who lived without civilization and we'd look like this:


the economy doesn't work that way. i think it would end in war. i'm looking at the economy in a very abstract sense to address the question; the state and exchange of goods and services.


are you going to horde resources (time/labor, stuff [energy, logistics, land, infrastructure,], political influence, etc) to complete this project to the extent that it kills people?
you're going to have to if you're talking about the state pooling that much of a chunk of it's resources together.

if you want to put your resources toward something at such a rate you're going to compromise your population.


and i've never seen contact, but what sort of an endeavor are they looking to undertake?
i suppose that's important.

Well, the fact that you're using Free Market Economist rhetoric regarding something that's supposed to rise above all that, proves my point.

But I was talking about Human's in a general sense, not the State forcing anyone to do anything. Using the "contact" example, this isn't something to be resisted by the people like some bill passed (healthcare?), but embraced. And yet our thinking would still be reduced down to money/economics, trapped in our small minded/small world thinking, on something that's otherworldly.

We should just simply build it. A dollar (or any other fiat currency) note has no value, the only value it has is what we give it. Engineers out of their own curiosity should wanna build this thing for free, only compensation being food, shelter etc,. knowing what they're involved in. The resource providers would wanna give the elements needed to build the machine for free knowing what's at stake, only reward being part of something bigger than our current Earthling issues (religion, politics, economics etc,.). This shouldn't be a project of one private man/company/corporation OR a Government/Dictator/Regime, but embraced collectively.

But that's now how it works, we can both agree on that.

[New England]

Well, the fact that you're using Free Market Economist rhetoric regarding something that's supposed to rise above all that, proves my point.

But I was talking about Human's in a general sense, not the State forcing anyone to do anything. Using the "contact" example, this isn't something to be resisted by the people like some bill passed (healthcare?), but embraced. And yet our thinking would still be reduced down to money/economics, trapped in our small minded/small world thinking, on something that's otherworldly.

We should just simply build it. A dollar (or any other fiat currency) note has no value, the only value it has is what we give it. Engineers out of their own curiosity should wanna build this thing for free, only compensation being food, shelter etc,. knowing what they're involved in. The resource providers would wanna give the elements needed to build the machine for free knowing what's at stake, only reward being part of something bigger than our current Earthling issues (religion, politics, economics etc,.). This shouldn't be a project of one private man/company/corporation OR a Government/Dictator/Regime, but embraced collectively.

But that's now how it works, we can both agree on that.

one of us is looking at the ideals and the other is looking at it pragmatically


we cant just build the thing

tell me who "we" is first, because i honestly dont know who you are talking about, not because i'm trying to be a wise ass or anything
and then tell me how you'd even start.



what do they have to do, anyway?
jodie foster is an all american girl, but i've only seen taxi driver and the lambs and a few others, and not this gem

[squealpiggy]

You really dont understand economics.

Please stop talking

Economics is simple: The "experts" are people who can post hoc frame their lucky guesses in sufficient jargon to make them seem prescient enough to be consulted for the future.

[cupocity303]

Economics is simple: The "experts" are people who can post hoc frame their lucky guesses in sufficient jargon to make them seem prescient enough to be consulted for the future.

There ya go. Everyone think they're an expert now because they've regurgitate cliff notes of youtube economists.