How would a Communist society look like?

[Rogernomics]

Communism on a soviet model *ahem* state imposed oppression, subjugation and eradication of indigenous/different cultures in an attempt to make a 'soviet culture', and push down of everyone to the level of lower middle class (to pay for the welfare and state programs), with the exception of a government and military elite who live their lives in luxury while everyone else suffers, and if you dissent in whatever place in society you are, expect a timely execution before supper. As for the ideal communist society i.e. a stateless entity ruled democratically by workers, open book as we haven't really seen that yet.

[The Merchant Republics]

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.

I'm not entirely sure what this says, but I'd like to point out that the communal farms implemented by Stalin to replace the capitalist ones outperformed their counterparts.

I'd like to see a source for this, but in the mean time, I'll take your point for granted in order to point out that, whether or not they outperformed the soviet farms were certainly not based on any real "communist" ideal, it was tantamount to slave labour, workers were forced onto soviets and had their food often violently seized from them.

I'm sure if you looked, slave labour was probably capable of out-performing some free producing farms, this certainly does not morally justify slavery. However, I must point out my serious doubts that your information is factual, for several reasons:

1. I trust Stalin Period Soviet Data like I trust a drunk man's word. They have throughout history consistently lied about their GDP growth, energy expansion, efficiency and population health, so I can hardly think that I should trust it except from a third party.

2. New Economic Plan farms outperformed their early Lenin period communist counterparts and even then still were hardly "capitalist" in any way above the surface, command directed, command planned, individually owned, does not capitalist make.

3. The Ukraine Famine occurred during Stalin's reign causing I believe the estimates amount to around 8-12 million deaths, I cannot in sound mind accept someone telling me that Stalin's farms in anyway outproduced their previous counterparts if millions died of starvation after those programs were implemented.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm not entirely sure what this says, but I'd like to point out that the communal farms implemented by Stalin to replace the capitalist ones outperformed their counterparts.

I'd like to see a source for this, but in the mean time, I'll take your point for granted in order to point out that, whether or not they outperformed the soviet farms were certainly not based on any real "communist" ideal, it was tantamount to slave labour, workers were forced onto soviets and had their food often violently seized from them.

I'm sure if you looked, slave labour was probably capable of out-performing some free producing farms, this certainly does not morally justify slavery. However, I must point out my serious doubts that your information is factual, for several reasons:

1. I trust Stalin Period Soviet Data like I trust a drunk man's word. They have throughout history consistently lied about their GDP growth, energy expansion, efficiency and population health, so I can hardly think that I should trust it except from a third party.

2. New Economic Plan farms outperformed their early Lenin period communist counterparts and even then still were hardly "capitalist" in any way above the surface, command directed, command planned, individually owned, does not capitalist make.

3. The Ukraine Famine occurred during Stalin's reign causing I believe the estimates amount to around 8-12 million deaths, I cannot in sound mind accept someone telling me that Stalin's farms in anyway outproduced their previous counterparts if millions died of starvation after those programs were implemented.

Perhaps I can shed some light on this.

The kolhoz created under Stalin were basically collective farms in name only. While in theory the land was held in trust by the kolhoz, and the capital tools belonged to the kolhozniks, the reality is that they served as just another apparatus of the party-state. Overwhelmingly, it was the party that appointed the managers of the kolhoz, preventing the kolhoz from voting in any candidate they did not approve. The kolhoz were also subject to forced grain requisition, below the cost of production.

1. There is reliable economic data on the Stalin period now that the Iron Curtain has fallen. The results of the Five Year Plans were mixed at best. It becomes pretty clear from a reading of the internal party correspondence that the agricultural collectivization was never supposed to be an effective economic policy. It served two major purposes to the Soviet state. First, it used the intense exploitation of the peasantry to requisition grain to sell on the world market to finance the heavy industrial development in the cities. Second, it was meant to destroy the peasantry as a politically independent class by forcing them into industrial proletarian working conditions; in essence, it was supposed to "proletarianize" the peasants.

2. No argument here.

3. Like I said above, it was the grain requisition policy, and the counter-reactions that exacerbated existing famine conditions. On the one hand, the Soviets were successful at rapidly mechanizing agriculture during this period. On the other hand, they never allowed the collective farms to actually function as collective farms due to the grain requisition policies, which existed until the Gorbachev era. As a result, no one wanted to work on the collective farms, and instead poured their efforts into their private plots, because grain produced on the collective plots would just get requisitioned by the state.

[UCUMAY]

I love it in idea. The reality is very different...

[Glorious Homeland]

Interesting talk of Soviet era farm efficiency, but I think it's not really a good example. Interestingly, a better example might be the Israeli Kibutz farms socialist-zionism worked there for some reason... maybe God likes socialists if they're Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz

[The Merchant Republics]

Interesting talk of Soviet era farm efficiency, but I think it's not really a good example. Interestingly, a better example might be the Israeli Kibutz farms socialist-zionism worked there for some reason... maybe God likes socialists if they're Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz

My understanding is that the Kibbutz are in no way self-sufficient being largely dependent on pro-Zionist charities and most labour is provided not by the Kibbutz workers themselves but hired helpers again at the expense of state subsidies and charity, this is coming from some obscure reading I did months ago, so if you can perhaps present some evidence to the contrary I would like to see it.

Of course, in my opinion on the matter of socialism, I have never dismissed the possibility that it could work on a limited scale, such as a farming community. I have seen evidence to suggest it doesn't, but if I were to concede it's possibility it would only be in such a scale with such an agrarian economy.

[Quailtopia]

I'm not entirely sure what this says, but I'd like to point out that the communal farms implemented by Stalin to replace the capitalist ones outperformed their counterparts.

I'd like to see a source for this, but in the mean time, I'll take your point for granted in order to point out that, whether or not they outperformed the soviet farms were certainly not based on any real "communist" ideal, it was tantamount to slave labour, workers were forced onto soviets and had their food often violently seized from them.

EDIT: Origin of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938 (Cambridge 1985) - source

As for whether the attempt was 'justified', most familiar with the concept of revolutionary defeatism would see why it was so. The kulak's were slaughtering animals to not have to give them to Ukranian collectives. They were organizing raids to destroy/sabotage Soviet tractors, so that the people working on the collectives couldn't compete. The claim that Soviets were tearing food away from the common peasants is kind of a joke, and(as far as I know) for every attempt to prove that it happened, it is just as easily proved that the offender was a kulak.

As for the deportation, only kulaks and podkulachniks were sent to the gulag. On slave labour, the US government frequently uses convict labor in production, and most of the various corporate prisons in the US make it standard policy.

All of that being said, I must say that I don't support the process, but it is important to note what was going on at the time. Lenin had implemented a number of capitalist-owned farms because, according to standard Marxist doctrine, Capitalism is the best system for infrastructure development. This lasted for a while until the capitalist farmers began to demand more money for the food they were producing. Now Stalin has a problem(Lenin's in a coma I know, I know, its really serious), and there were three main ways of solving it. 1) He could let Lenin's system continue, and capitulate to the capitalists 2) He could take Trotsky's idea, and just force collectivize, and kill all dissenters(Trotsky was kind of a dick) or 3) He could test out collective farms in the area, to see if they could compete with the capitalist ones. They did, so he came up with the Ukranian plan that led to the issues listed above.

I think I might have messed up my timeline a little bit, so if someone sees something post a fix plz

[Norstal]

Ludicrous? Are you saying Cuba must trade with a capitalist nation like the U.S to solve its shortcomings?

Yes, but then this was never particularly banned in anything Marx ever said.

Then this won't work if America becomes Communist; they will have Cuba's shortcomings.

The irony is overwhelming.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes, but then this was never particularly banned in anything Marx ever said.

Then this won't work if America becomes Communist; they will have Cuba's shortcomings.

The irony is overwhelming.

Workers of the world unite!

but not in that nation over there, we need you to supply us with anything we might just happen to have a shortage of, which is totally not gonna happen but still...

Just a little ironic...

[Quailtopia]

You're obviously quite unfamiliar with Marxist Communism

No, I'm really not.

which clearly states that State Socialism is just a stepping stone to anarchic, classless Communism.

Where?

Marx's historical materialism.

You guys are misunderstanding each other. The socialist stage is what Yootwopia is referring to, and the end goal is the communist stage. While I personally believe that it is possible to achieve, the time it takes to arrive would probably be as long as the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and would require the development of new tech.

[Sibirsky]

It should be private. Government does not belong in any industry. Government belongs in enforcing contracts, providing protection from invasion, protection from fraud, and protecting rights.

The day the private sector produces driver licenses in the U.S is the day I will orgasm endlessly.

However, there are just some industries that the private sector can't have. Remember TVA? Private hands raised the electricity bill waaay too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_ ... rity#1930s

So, I'm not too sure of having all critical industries in private hands.

The TVA was not private. I am positive of having industry in private hands.

[Quailtopia]

Yes, but then this was never particularly banned in anything Marx ever said.

Then this won't work if America becomes Communist; they will have Cuba's shortcomings.

The irony is overwhelming.

1st, Cuba doesn't have any unique non-luxury good shortcomings when you look at it comparatively. Less than 1% of the population lives under the poverty line, compared with the US's 13%.
2nd, Smaller countries don't have the resources larger countries do. The point of the soviet/centrally planned economy is to solve those problems via trade. If there isn't any other centrally-planned economy in the area/outside feasible trade routes, you have to trade with the capitalists.

To extrapolate: I can't honestly think of a industrialized country that would have a problem, except MAYBE the UK. That being said, no one really cares about rev in the west except Trotskyists.

[Sibirsky]

Public schools are more expensive than private schools. If it isn't the best, why do you want it? I want the best of everything.

Source? Anyway, I think poor kids have a right to a basic education as much as everyone else. Not every family can afford private tuition.

I proposed a voucher system. Have it be based on income. The idea is to offer choice so schools compete and increase quality. And you would save money along the way.

Real spending per pupil [in public schools] ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school.

Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

And they would be likely to censor websites.

Touché -.- I'd still like the system in place, but indeed, there's no guarantee censorship wouldn't happen...

It's almost guaranteed that they would.

Virgin Galactic and crew will continue their operations because eventually it will be profitable.

How much profit is there in technology like Hubble? How is looking at distant galaxies, nebuli, and stars going to bring corporations any profit? All Virgin are doing is space tourism - I don't see them doing anything other than space flights for rich folks in the years to come. Eventually we may get a mining operation on Luna, Mars, and maybe even the asteroid belt beyond the Red Planet. But I happen to like seeing outer space, and knowing more about the entire Solar system, galaxy, local group, and beyond. Virgin's not likely to teach me much.

Also, no comment on NOAA/USGS/similar organisations?

I'm not in the space tourism industry. Eventually they will get cost down and it will be very affordable. Remember computers or CD players, or plasma TVs when they first came out?

The first CD player to be sold in the United States sold for about 86% of the average monthly household income. We don't even have that junk anymore. A 32 GB iPod sells for about 6.8% of the average monthly household income. Now that's what I call progress.

What is government most involved with? Education and healthcare. And those costs are doing quite the opposite.

Are NOAA the assholes that always get the weather wrong? The USGS has been studying resources and drawing funny maps since 1879. What is there left to do?

[Norstal]

The day the private sector produces driver licenses in the U.S is the day I will orgasm endlessly.

However, there are just some industries that the private sector can't have. Remember TVA? Private hands raised the electricity bill waaay too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_ ... rity#1930s

So, I'm not too sure of having all critical industries in private hands.

The TVA was not private. I am positive of having industry in private hands.

What I meant was that before the TVA, prices of electricity was high. It was no wonder that the area around Tennessee Valley was not modernized. By the creation of the TVA and cheap electricity, the region flourished.

Course I don't have any sources atm, except for that wiki article. I would point out that Enron too has shady business practices, but I have no knowledge about their downfall.

Then this won't work if America becomes Communist; they will have Cuba's shortcomings.

The irony is overwhelming.

1st, Cuba doesn't have any unique non-luxury good shortcomings when you look at it comparatively. Less than 1% of the population lives under the poverty line, compared with the US's 13%.
2nd, Smaller countries don't have the resources larger countries do. The point of the soviet/centrally planned economy is to solve those problems via trade. If there isn't any other centrally-planned economy in the area/outside feasible trade routes, you have to trade with the capitalists.

1. Cuba has 11+ million population. U.S has 300+ million. I can hardly call that fair or about the same, especially when the difference is .2% (if I did my math right[11mil*.01 / 300mil*.13). Not to mention the poverty line probably differs (unless you're talking about the international poverty line). Though I'll admit, the income equality is great.

2. I'm pretty sure Cuba can sustain its population without food donations. Other kinds of resources however, well, maybe.

[Quailtopia]

Source? Anyway, I think poor kids have a right to a basic education as much as everyone else. Not every family can afford private tuition.

I proposed a voucher system. Have it be based on income. The idea is to offer choice so schools compete and increase quality. And you would save money along the way.

Real spending per pupil [in public schools] ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school.

Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

Let's do separate but equal again, this time with schools!

Cost isn't a factor. We have plenty of money in the United States to provide free university access to all citizens if we cut war spending. I know, I know, the islamofascists won't kill themselves, and we have to do it for them, but this is more important.

Also, your statistic for Pheonix is pretty funny, since Arizona has a voucher system, and almost all of Arizona's voucher money goes to private schools.

Touché -.- I'd still like the system in place, but indeed, there's no guarantee censorship wouldn't happen...

It's almost guaranteed that they would.

*cough*Norway*cough*

[Sibirsky]

Perhaps I can shed some light on this.

The kolhoz created under Stalin were basically collective farms in name only. While in theory the land was held in trust by the kolhoz, and the capital tools belonged to the kolhozniks, the reality is that they served as just another apparatus of the party-state. Overwhelmingly, it was the party that appointed the managers of the kolhoz, preventing the kolhoz from voting in any candidate they did not approve. The kolhoz were also subject to forced grain requisition, below the cost of production.

1. There is reliable economic data on the Stalin period now that the Iron Curtain has fallen. The results of the Five Year Plans were mixed at best. It becomes pretty clear from a reading of the internal party correspondence that the agricultural collectivization was never supposed to be an effective economic policy. It served two major purposes to the Soviet state. First, it used the intense exploitation of the peasantry to requisition grain to sell on the world market to finance the heavy industrial development in the cities. Second, it was meant to destroy the peasantry as a politically independent class by forcing them into industrial proletarian working conditions; in essence, it was supposed to "proletarianize" the peasants.

2. No argument here.

3. Like I said above, it was the grain requisition policy, and the counter-reactions that exacerbated existing famine conditions. On the one hand, the Soviets were successful at rapidly mechanizing agriculture during this period. On the other hand, they never allowed the collective farms to actually function as collective farms due to the grain requisition policies, which existed until the Gorbachev era. As a result, no one wanted to work on the collective farms, and instead poured their efforts into their private plots, because grain produced on the collective plots would just get requisitioned by the state.

This is accurate.

[Sibirsky]

1st, Cuba doesn't have any unique non-luxury good shortcomings when you look at it comparatively. Less than 1% of the population lives under the poverty line, compared with the US's 13%.

Cuba has a shortage of just about everything. Such as basic medicine like Aspirin. The US poverty line for one person is higher than the average household income in Cuba. Adjusted for purchasing power parity.

[Quailtopia]

1st, Cuba doesn't have any unique non-luxury good shortcomings when you look at it comparatively. Less than 1% of the population lives under the poverty line, compared with the US's 13%.
2nd, Smaller countries don't have the resources larger countries do. The point of the soviet/centrally planned economy is to solve those problems via trade. If there isn't any other centrally-planned economy in the area/outside feasible trade routes, you have to trade with the capitalists.

1. Cuba has 11+ million population. U.S has 300+ million. I can hardly call that fair or about the same, especially when the difference is .2% (if I did my math right[11mil*.01 / 300mil*.13). Not to mention the poverty line probably differs (unless you're talking about the international poverty line). Though I'll admit, the income equality is great.

2. I'm pretty sure Cuba can sustain its population without food donations. Other kinds of resources however, well, maybe.

Well, its not really a food donation, its trade... But given that its denied the largest consumer economy, Cuba is doing extremely well, and has education up to post-doc free of charge.

[Eireann Fae]

I proposed a voucher system. Have it be based on income. The idea is to offer choice so schools compete and increase quality. And you would save money along the way.

--snip CATO text--

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

How distressingly enlightening (@link). I haven't read the PDF, but I'm totally gonna check it out.

Anyway, about your voucher system. What guarantees are there that it's going to be based on realistic income/budget numbers? I know a woman in a household that pulls in a combined salary of $50,000 or so for two adults and an adolescent. They live in a trailer they own, paying $350/mo lot rent plus usual bills. Both adults were buying vehicles from the late-90s/early-00s, and recently had to give one up because they couldn't afford the payments. They're barely making ends meet, even though at that salary they should be doing alright. I think $44k is the cutoff for such a family to receive government aid, but they certainly wouldn't be able to afford schooling for the kid. Do they get a voucher, or is it "tough luck, enjoy your job returning carts to shopping centers, kid"?

I'm not in the space tourism industry. Eventually they will get cost down and it will be very affordable. Remember computers or CD players, or plasma TVs when they first came out?

The first CD player to be sold in the United States sold for about 86% of the average monthly household income. We don't even have that junk anymore. A 32 GB iPod sells for about 6.8% of the average monthly household income. Now that's what I call progress. ^[1]

What is government most involved with? Education and healthcare. And those costs are doing quite the opposite.

Are NOAA the assholes that always get the weather wrong? The USGS has been studying resources and drawing funny maps since 1879. What is there left to do?

¹ What does anything to this point have to do with space exploration? I'm well aware that they'll likely be able to get the price of "kiss the black" trips down to a few thousand dollars a ticket in a decade or so, and I even suggested that it'd be economically viable to mine the moon, Mars, and inner solar system asteroids for minerals in the coming years. But who's going to study Andromeda? What corporation is gonna give a shit about Alpha Centuari? What economic benefit will motivate a private corporation to study anything beyond inner space?

According to NOAA, the organization does a lot more than fuck up local forecasts (emphasis mine):

From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

Similarly, the USGS does a lot more than you give them credit for. The Earth is not a static environment. Things have changed a lot since 1879, and things will continue to change.

[Quailtopia]

1st, Cuba doesn't have any unique non-luxury good shortcomings when you look at it comparatively. Less than 1% of the population lives under the poverty line, compared with the US's 13%.

Cuba has a shortage of just about everything. Such as basic medicine like Aspirin. The US poverty line for one person is higher than the average household income in Cuba. Adjusted for purchasing power parity.

On medicine, Cuba has almost the highest life expectancy rating in the region, and its AIDS education program has lessened the impact to 1/6 of the US cases, per capita, and provides generic anti-retroviral drugs for the people.

As for the income, what do you spend money on when food, education, and healthcare is free?

[Sibirsky]

What I meant was that before the TVA, prices of electricity was high. It was no wonder that the area around Tennessee Valley was not modernized. By the creation of the TVA and cheap electricity, the region flourished.

At taxpayer expense. I'm sorry, but a taxpayer in New York, should not be subsidizing someone in Tennessee. And thats how they got cheap energy.

Course I don't have any sources atm, except for that wiki article. I would point out that Enron too has shady business practices, but I have no knowledge about their downfall.

Enron didn't know how to make money legally.

[Quailtopia]

What I meant was that before the TVA, prices of electricity was high. It was no wonder that the area around Tennessee Valley was not modernized. By the creation of the TVA and cheap electricity, the region flourished.

At taxpayer expense. I'm sorry, but a taxpayer in New York, should not be subsidizing someone in Tennessee.

Why?

[Sociobiology]

Source? Anyway, I think poor kids have a right to a basic education as much as everyone else. Not every family can afford private tuition.

I proposed a voucher system. Have it be based on income. The idea is to offer choice so schools compete and increase quality. And you would save money along the way.

Real spending per pupil [in public schools] ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school.

Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

Touché -.- I'd still like the system in place, but indeed, there's no guarantee censorship wouldn't happen...

It's almost guaranteed that they would.

How much profit is there in technology like Hubble? How is looking at distant galaxies, nebuli, and stars going to bring corporations any profit? All Virgin are doing is space tourism - I don't see them doing anything other than space flights for rich folks in the years to come. Eventually we may get a mining operation on Luna, Mars, and maybe even the asteroid belt beyond the Red Planet. But I happen to like seeing outer space, and knowing more about the entire Solar system, galaxy, local group, and beyond. Virgin's not likely to teach me much.

Also, no comment on NOAA/USGS/similar organisations?

I'm not in the space tourism industry. Eventually they will get cost down and it will be very affordable. Remember computers or CD players, or plasma TVs when they first came out?

The first CD player to be sold in the United States sold for about 86% of the average monthly household income. We don't even have that junk anymore. A 32 GB iPod sells for about 6.8% of the average monthly household income. Now that's what I call progress.

What is government most involved with? Education and healthcare. And those costs are doing quite the opposite.

Are NOAA the assholes that always get the weather wrong? The USGS has been studying resources and drawing funny maps since 1879. What is there left to do?

but private schools preform so poorly on average, that encouraging them isn't helping, schooling is one of those things that is impossible to evaluate at purchase since you don't receive the product for many year at which time its to late, but poorly run private schools can advertise and still bilk people in ruining the education of what could be intelligent students. phoenix online but for fifth graders now. one of the most important parts of public schools is standards. How about we enforce that again, say by letting kids actually fail and telling the parents pissing a moaning wont get Timmy a free pass. plus does it really surprise your that a school with 10,000 students spends close to 100 times more than schools with 1000. but I come from the state with the highest rated school system in the country so I might be biased. but I look at countries with better school systems on every measurable axis and they all have public systems, with better funding than ours I might add (and fewer management positions in the school as well).

the USGS budget is tiny and over see;s water table, and mineral rights two large constantly shifting factors. NOAA will always exist since its the weather system the military uses, and the most accurate weather predictions known.

getting off this rock is the only hope humanity has of surviving the next falling rock so its worth a buck a week to me.

PS the biggest problem the Russians had with grain was they had an agriculture director who thought evolution wasn't science and was surprised when cold shocking plants didn't make them grow bigger.

[Sibirsky]

How distressingly enlightening (@link). I haven't read the PDF, but I'm totally gonna check it out.

Anyway, about your voucher system. What guarantees are there that it's going to be based on realistic income/budget numbers? I know a woman in a household that pulls in a combined salary of $50,000 or so for two adults and an adolescent. They live in a trailer they own, paying $350/mo lot rent plus usual bills. Both adults were buying vehicles from the late-90s/early-00s, and recently had to give one up because they couldn't afford the payments. They're barely making ends meet, even though at that salary they should be doing alright. I think $44k is the cutoff for such a family to receive government aid, but they certainly wouldn't be able to afford schooling for the kid. Do they get a voucher, or is it "tough luck, enjoy your job returning carts to shopping centers, kid"?

Does this couple have a lot of debt? Their income is higher than the median household income in the US. Simply doesn't add up. I would go with the average household income, take the average cost of education per student and go from there. I don't know what you mean by guarantees. After all this is a system proposed by some dude on the internet. It all depends on how you set it up.

I'm not in the space tourism industry. Eventually they will get cost down and it will be very affordable. Remember computers or CD players, or plasma TVs when they first came out?

The first CD player to be sold in the United States sold for about 86% of the average monthly household income. We don't even have that junk anymore. A 32 GB iPod sells for about 6.8% of the average monthly household income. Now that's what I call progress. ^[1]

What is government most involved with? Education and healthcare. And those costs are doing quite the opposite.

Are NOAA the assholes that always get the weather wrong? The USGS has been studying resources and drawing funny maps since 1879. What is there left to do?

¹ What does anything to this point have to do with space exploration? I'm well aware that they'll likely be able to get the price of "kiss the black" trips down to a few thousand dollars a ticket in a decade or so, and I even suggested that it'd be economically viable to mine the moon, Mars, and inner solar system asteroids for minerals in the coming years. But who's going to study Andromeda? What corporation is gonna give a shit about Alpha Centuari? What economic benefit will motivate a private corporation to study anything beyond inner space?

According to NOAA, the organization does a lot more than fuck up local forecasts (emphasis mine):

From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

Similarly, the USGS does a lot more than you give them credit for. The Earth is not a static environment. Things have changed a lot since 1879, and things will continue to change.

I was pointing out how the private sector drives costs down, and government drives costs up. If there is money to be made from studying the Alpha Centauri and Andromeda it will be done. If there isn't then it shouldn't be done. Why force the taxpayers to pay for something they don't want? If they did want it, the private sector would do it and it would be profitable.

The weather forecast and related research should be funded by those that want to provide it to the public. It can and should be profitable.

[Sibirsky]

Well, its not really a food donation, its trade... But given that its denied the largest consumer economy, Cuba is doing extremely well, and has education up to post-doc free of charge.

And an average doctor makes $25 per month, and works a taxi driver on the side to make ends meet. If you could convince a court of law that you believe this nonsense, you would be found not guilty by reason of insanity.