A cut too far.

That's lovely. Now tell me how much it costs to run the same operations from May to September, the season we tend to call "summer"? Why did you only mention the costs for Afghanistan, but not Iraq? How much has it costed on average since the beginning of the Iraq occupation?

Why did you leave out the part about how much more difficult it is to transport the fuel needed for air conditioning as opposed to other uses, where it doesn't need to be transported for two weeks through hostile territory on dangerous, outdated roads?

Where do you get your 70% figure, and does that factor in the costs of fuel transport?

No, the claim that trillions needed to be spent ridding Iraq of its WMD's is what's pure BS. BTW it wasn't me who reported you, in case you were wondering, but good on whoever it was all the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Afghanistan: corruption fears grow as $4.2bn is taken out of Kabul airport in cash

At least $4.2 billion dollars in cash has been raken out of Kabul airport in the past three-and-a-half years, raising fresh concerns about corruption in war-torn Afghanistan.
7:00AM BST 06 Jul 2010

A senior US politician last week blocked billions of dollars in aid for Afghanistan after a report indicated that three billion dollars (£2bn billion) had been flown out of the country over three years.

But a report in The Times put the figure higher, citing a letter from Afghan Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal to US politician Nita Lowey, who suspended the aid.

"Our records show that $4.2 billion has been transferred in cash through Kabul International Airport alone during the last three-and-a-half years," wrote Mr Zakhilwal.

"The amount could be even higher."

In the letter, dated June 30, two days after Ms Lowey angrily blocked the aid, the finance minister also requested American cooperation to determine the money's origins.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fO_csEGv5HXwGlsyg&sig2=P7rj5diN5GhG_gb_k8dBfw

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd suspect just about the same to heat as to cool, but still it shows for 2/3 of the year what our fuel bill is, so the $20 billion is totally bogus.
The pentagon didn't release the numbers for Iraq, but there are roughly the same number of soldiers in each theater, I figured you were smart enough to extrapolate.

And I left out the cost of fuel transportation, because fuel is also needed for the vehicles and the electrical generators and so that cost is going to be there regardless, the friggin air conditioning just isn't that much.

Except it didn't cost trillions to get rid of WMDs. The war was over in just over a month. Since then we have been helping the Iraqis rebuild the nation. You can say that doing so is not worth it, but don't say that this time spent rebuilding is getting rid of WMDs, that's just pure BS.

Why should I believe you?
You lie and nothing happens at all.
I call you on it and I get the warning because the moderator isn't impartial.

Same ol, same ol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well then you probably shouldnt have said this:

Or this:

So maybe you didnt mean to sound like you supported a mission to mars, but you certainly said some such thing. And then you blatantly lied about what the guy said about de-orbiting the space station. And later claimed it was your right to be a liar.

Yeah, same ol, same ol.

 

But, you said the pentagon had the actual figures...

So what were those figures again?

And why wouldnt you consider the cost of shipping the fuel to where its needed?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af8ec7fe3-9db0-4db7-a9ca-b4b03e40e722

And heres a link to the study the article is referring to:
http://www.deloitte.com/us/aerospacedefense/energysecurity

 

Oh BS.
None of those indicate I support a mission to the Mars now.

I said I supported learning to live and work in space on the ISS and I specifically said

Clearly these posts show I DON'T support spending money on a mission to Mars NOW.

LOL

Arthur

 

They did
And they specifically disagreed with the figure quoted.
Because according to the report, in 2008, they spent $16 billion on fuel, 20% of it on Iraq and Afghanistan, and according to their figures they spend ~11% on Electricity, so if 2/3rd of the electricity was spent on AC and they spent twice as much as average on electricity in those theaters as they do in the rest of the world, that would be about $.5 billion dollars. If it cost 10 times the actual cost for each gallon of gas to get it to the troops, that would be ~$5 billion dollars a year.

If you or CB want to prove that it costs $20 billion a year to AC tents in Iraq and Afghanistan, then YOU present the numbers that back up that silly assertion.

Arthur

 

I never said anything about wanting to prove that it costs 20 billion a year for ac. If you had bothered to ask I could have told you that I dont agree with all of what was included to come up with that number. But I would be curious to know how much money and resources actually do go into providing ac to a desert war zone. I would think that a report on the subject from the dod would be insightful.

So what I said was

Again, and for the fourth time, could you please post a link to the report you say "specifically disagreed with the figure quoted".

 

You know it would have saved a lot of confusion if you had taken the time to capitalize the word "eventual" when you were talking about a mission to mars. How are we supposed to know what youre talking about if you dont let us know where to put the emphasis?

 

As I told you many times already, I did and I'm not feeling like feeding my little ramora buddy today.

 

I said Please.

 

I can't write all my posts to your level of reading comprehension occidental, that's just way too tedious.

 

Notwithstanding, Telemachus is correct that JWST supporters live in a world where the opportunity cost of the project is zero. In a world with competing priorities, to make things simple, we must prioritize. We can have lots of guns, we can have lots of butter, or we can have some guns and some butter. We cannot have lots of both guns and butter right now because we know that is not sustainable.

We can cut this project--that is way over budget and unlikely to produce significant taxpayer surplus--and use the resources freed up as a result in a way that does produce surpluses. That there are other wasteful projects out there is no argument for retaining this one. If the government were setting fire to barrels of borrowed cash, that would be a good reason not to borrow that money in the first place, not a good reason to give it to NASA. (It may also be a good reason, to simply not burn the cash...but agaoin, nothing compels the conclusion that the unburned cash should go to NASA.) That is NOT a false dichotomy.

Telemachus focused on social security as a way of making the opportunity cost argument plain...just as economists use the hypothetical "guns vs butter" argument. In this case, the JWST was analogous to "guns" and social security benefits to "butter." Again, guns vs butter is not a false dichotomy, it is a way of explaining economic reality to people like you who live in a fantasy world where spending money we don't have or raising taxes in the midst of a poor economy has no adverse consequences.

There are good reasons to borrow money and good reasons to raise taxes. No one in this thread has made a good argument for the JWST being worthy of either in the present situation where the country faces a massive debt and still suffers from its recent economic downturn. At best, the thread suggests that the JWST is philosophically justified, *even though* it will hurt us and never produce an economic surplus.

(As an aside some argue that investing in basic science does produce an economic surplus, because sometimes we learn new and useful things as a result. That argument fails because it could be said of virtually any program. In fact, our unnecessary wars could be justified on that basis, because the military also occasionally comes up with new advancements--the internet, radar, GPS, jet engines, helicopters, atomic energy--all have significant military roots. Yet I don't think we should write the DOD a check for all the operations it might want because of the just because some useful technology might come out of it as a sideline. In order t make that argument work, one would need to show that *this* bloated and increasingly expensive project has an expectation of yielding scientific breakthroughs that can, in effect, make it pay for itself. The only benefit we can reasonably expect here though are some minor engineering know-how (most of which we've already achieved) and a bunch of pretty space pictures for the nerds to ogle. As a nerd myself, I'm ready to ogle, which is why I hope the Chinese build and launch this thing. Funny thing is, that the value to me would be the same, even if the images come from a Chinese telescope, but then I'd not have to pay the bill to get them.)

 

Good post. I would also add that the tradeoff between debt, taxes and scientific funding is not static, and there may come a day when investment in something like the JWST makes sense. That day just isn't today.

 

The only downside to that is the JWST has already been started and is already over three fourths completed. I do not see why they should put a halt to completing it this far along with the project no matter what it can or cannot do to further space exploration. To see this project just stopped would be a very bad thing to do in my POV but do understand that it was costing more than expected to develop. Perhaps as has already been stated here that the scientists can find ways to get the project completed with what they can come up with that's already available and "jury rig" this into completion.:shrug:

 

Are you really saying that if it did not further space exploration/research in any way, we should spend more on it just because we already spent a lot of money on it? That's a dangerous path to tread; we can justify remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades with a rationale like that.

How about we just put it on hold until we have the money to complete it? That way all that effort isn't wasted.

 

The way I understand it is that the parts have been designed and most of them made already. Those pieces have to be put together and tested to be certain they do as they were designed to do. Then if anything should need redesign because the testing shows that it is needed a new part would be made or that part changed to fix the problem it created. So they are ready for assembly and testing now but the project has come to a standstill because of lack of funding. I'm suggesting that they try to finish what has already been made for this is a significant step forward in the astronomy field of research, not to throw away such a project that is almost completed.

 

Fantasy argument. Please point to any posts here supporting the project that adequately addresses the opportunity cost issue. It is not a strawman to say that you have no grasp of the budgetary issue, it's a fact. The argument is that the telescope is good--and many say only that it is better than other wastes of money--therefore it should be funded.

There is no discussion that details how we get this nation into an economically stable position, while we continue to burn through cash on projects like these.

The bottom line is that this project is the equivalent of a luxury item...no one disputes that it is nice to have such luxuries, but luxury is what one buys when one has cash to spare. We don't. That we are also wasting money on other projects is a fallacious argument, as we should stop *all waste* not prioritize among wastes. Your position is akin to saying that a person living on credit card debt alone may continue to borrow to take fabulous vacations, so long as he stops borrowing to eat at five-star restaurants.

When our budgets can afford it--and making that happen is already politically difficult (if not impossible at this time)--then we can look to being a patron of arts and sciences, not before.

Fantasy hypothesis. First, this is a big waste. A billion dollars is a lot on money. Second, budgetary changes are subject to political constraints that cannot be ignored just because it suits you. Social Security and Medicare reform are bigger issues than NASA budget concerns, but those reforms are also politically infeasible at this time. We need to focus not on the biggest problems but on those that give us the greatest savings that are actually achievable in light of political reality, and ones which can be implemented in the next year or two despite those political realities.

The JWST is already over budget and it is relatively easy to defund the remainder of the project, and realize a significant savings as a result. That you don't understand this is proof that you don't understand the opportunity cost argument.

A perfect example of not understanding opportunity cost. Not all "investments" are created equal. Some have a positive return. Some have a negative return. Among those with a positive return, some have a higher expected discounted return than others...AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO INVEST IN ANY EVENT. We borrow money to survive year to year in this country. If you need to take out loans just to buy groceries, you probably shouldn't be making "investments" except in extraordinary circumstances.

So, as a result, we have to prioritize and invest only in those projects we can afford...and even then, only to the extent that the project's expected return exceeds the interest we pay on the national debt. Why? Because if I borrow money at 3% per annum, and invest it in an opportunity that yield a net 2% per annum, I am losing money. Better that I not borrow that money in th first place. I forego the benefits of the investment (the 2%), but save myself the even greater interest on the debt I would have incurred.

I see no reason to believe that the JWST has a net positive return at all. Even if some great mystery of physics is solved as a result of it (and that is entirely speculative), any practical benefits accruing as a result would most likely take decades to realize. Given the uncertainties involved, on a present value basis, I don't see how one can argue this investment is reasonably likely to have a net positive payout. Even if it does, given that we are not only broke, but dissaving as a nation right now, it seems obvious that we should wait until our finances are in order before proceeding.

The reason--not adequately addressed in any of you arguments--is that the opportunity cost of the project is too high right now. the only way that conclusion could even possibly be incorrect is if I am massively underestimating the return on this investment.

Alan Greenspan, by the way, certainly does want investments in science and technology in the abstract...who doesn't? That does not mean that *all* investments in science and technology are worthy. He wants investment in the ones expected to yield greater economic growth, specifically. It's not clear that this is such a project, or that if it is that there isn't an even better project to which to give they money.

Any investment, JWST or otherwise, needs to have a rate of return of greater than the weighted average interest rate payable on the national debt (about 3-4% per annum). Only if the JWST has a rate of return better than that *and* investing in it would not require that we forego spending money on other matters with an even higher imputed rate of return would the JWST meet the opportunity cost test. Unfortunately, you have not even demonstrated that the threshold condition is met, as it seems likely that the billions invested will not yield, on an expected value basis, results needed to cover its own costs, let alone yield a positive return.