Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Low BP

Most of my life my blood pressure has been rather low even though I'm a very big guy. These last two years it's been running high, but today it stayed very low. It can get very scary when I'm too weak to do very basic things.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Never read it myself

Point 9 from art of the deal.... Deliver the goods
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."
Rand appears to have misconstrued the hyperbole?

Murder by thought

Wrong ideas kill people. That makes them evil.

It's obvious that resources are finite... obviously wrong!
However, there was 1 billion people at the time of Malthus and they had the equivalent in today's dollars of GDP $180 per person. Malthus made the case that there was finite resources and we had to stop population growth. But now there are 7 billion people with the equivalent of $9000 GDP per person. 7 times the population, 50 times the wealth (7 squared) and 350 times the total wealth (7 cubed)
Where did this wealth come from? Bill Whittle explains.

"Space age hasn't begun yet"

If we ever get serious about it...


Also: Flying car in 3 years using EM drive?

BA1500 - 50% larger than I.S.S. in one launch

At less than one per cent the cost.

Drilling 2km for water on mars.

What could you do with a red Dragon?

Thursday, December 15, 2016

I planned to live 41 more years

I was 10 years old, sitting in a barber chair in Tacoma, discussing my future. I was the oldest of 6 and said I would be the last of my siblings to get married. The barber disagreed but I was right when I finally got married in Feb. 2002 (and divorced a bit over 3 years later.) I also told him I planned to live to 98 which seemed reasonable at the time.

So much for plans. That's why god doesn't plan. He purposes. His name actually means he causes to be. His promises can not fail. Unlike plans which fail all the time.

Last year my kidney specialist told me they were functioning at 30% which is fine since they have over capacity. But my latest blood test puts them at 15% which is near dialysis territory... and I will not do dialysis which means my mars retirement plans are out the window!

I was really looking forward to all the heads exploding during the next 8 years of Trump. But who knows? I now plan on a long slow painful agonizing death while I go blind, but hey, my erratic blood pressure could shorten that plan as well.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

It's time for extinction

The left are evil deluded children. The left believes they can destroy America, but they will be spared. They have no clue, but they know how to project.

These articles (here and here) are examples of their mental illness.

We have a republic if we can keep it. The evil party is more so now than ever. The stupid party isn't going to wise up. It is up to the deplorables to save this country. We must destroy the evil party threat once and for all. We may never get the chance again.

We are at a historic inflection point that could go either way. The losers will do anything and are mad... as in psychotic and lawless. We will not get a second chance to get this right.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Unity crap

What does light have to do with darkness the bible asks? What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? This call for unity is the same old trap. This country doesn't need to unify. It needs to destroy the enemy within. We will never get this chance again.

We need to destroy their funding which is mostly thievery from the taxpayers funneled through lawless organizations as project Veritas and wikileaks has shown. We need to destroy their flawed philosophy which they pump out with a stranglehold on the media and education.

Update: yes, what goes around comes around and this is a perfect opportunity to destroy the democrats and media fighting against Trump.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

A brilliant solution.

I just heard this suggestion on fox... let colleges make direct student loans and get taxpayers off the hook.

If colleges believe they are teaching something with real value why wouldn't they make direct tuition loans?

Sarah is right again

Which is why Trump should put her in charge of the VA.

He can trust her to fix it.

While Sarah is right, Donald can get it right in the future. Saving jobs is an important goal. A level playing field should be the end result, but to get there might require playing favorites on occasion.

That's because it isn't a level playing field when only one side is playing fair. Tit-for-tat is a proven to work in the most effective way strategy.

Trump's plan to lower taxes across the board is a level playing field strategy that can be relied on as momentum builds. Until it has its chance, targeting may be required to get that momentum started.

Update: Another reason Sarah is right: Trump is opening himself up to being played. A company, with no actual intention of doing so, might announce they are moving jobs out of America to get the admin to get them concessions. This would probably be realized rather quickly, but it does create a window of opportunity right now.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Will Dems turn CA red?

California, which has more undocumented immigrants than any other state, offers them driver’s licenses as well as financial aid for college. 
From January 2014 to September 2015, California released immigrants considered deportable under federal law in more than 11,000 instances.
CA may want to secede, but what they've been doing is purging themselves of businesses. As Trump's rally in San Jose demonstrated, the bureaucracy is anti-American. That's the purge that's coming.

Update: They are also trying hard to get 8 years of a Pence presidency after 8 years of Trump.

Are there any more Scalias?

Scalia ridiculed the idea of a "living Constitution" and maintained that the only valid jurisprudence was one that assigned law-making not to the judges but to legislatures.
Being 'conservative' isn't enough. Law has to be blind.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Friday, November 11, 2016

I am a huge fan of Bill Whittle

But anon is saying the same things in defense of Trump as I have said and thought in regard to defense of Trump. He is being slandered and principles require us to come to his defense even when our first PC inculcated response might be to go along with some condemnation...



Sunday, November 6, 2016

Confirmation

That Comey has been obviously compromised (likely by blackmail.)


"Them's da rules"

Isn't that what they were saying when Trump won a primary but Cruz got the electors? Then completely discredits himself by claiming Al Gore won.

Friday, November 4, 2016

I'm going to be in their faces

He hasn't spent a day in office, but we're supposed to believe Trump is already a failed president. This from some of the same geniuses that gave Obama a Nobel peace prize. Trump will be a great president.

This is rich considering what they did to governor Sarah Palin.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

When the gloves have to come off...

...When there's enough smoke to indicate a fire. Is Bret Baier being unfair? Considering the true situation none of the news media is being 'unfair enough.' Hillary is an unindicted criminal that makes Al Capone seem like a choir boy. Her crimes are magnitudes greater and decades longer. Her lie and deny, corrupt and intimidate, tactics have been successful in the face of evidence that would convict an intimate friend of Satan under signed demonic contract.

Bret is on target and those attacking him are suspect. This is how you destroy the enemies radar! (Assuming you pay attention.) Why do the good guys never have an enemies list when the bad guys always do?

Being too kind to Hillary

Is a real problem when dealing with evil.

Clinton Crime Network

Is wider and deeper than any of us imagined and it's about to unravel.

Shit hitting fan

This is the feeling of the deplorables.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Amazing events

Somehow the Clinton foundation had $1.8b to move to Qatar. Why now?

NYPD raid Clinton home involving Hillary in pedophile sex slave ring which may involve many in govt (and others?) Hillary took lolita express almost as much as Bill?

Obama and Bushes may also flee the country?

Police are making voter fraud raids and gathering evidence?

Router may indicate Huma forwarded 650,000 emails to Saudi Arabia? Where is Huma?

What do actresses that had Hillary staring at their tits think now?

Update:
...there are at least 6 members of Congress and several leaders from federal agencies that partake in the pedophile ring, which they say was run directly with the Clinton Foundation as a front.
I'd like to know names.

40 untouchables go after largest corruption in American history.

Treason? Follow the router!


We ARE a banana republic!


Alternate view

Monday, October 31, 2016

Voting software

Is Hillary smiling for the same reason as Al Capone did during the untouchables movie trial?

This means paper printouts do not guarantee your vote.


Obama violates election fraud protection


Voting machines owned by Clinton Foundation and Soros.

Since before the second election of Obama.

"You didn't build that!"

The best way to lie is to mostly tell the truth. Consider, 'the pencil':


Lie #1. It's existence is too improbable for any one person to comprehend.

Lie #2. No single person could make a pencil.

Lie #3. Without a connection to everything in the universe a pencil couldn't exist (using absurdity to make my point. This is the title argument.)

Lie #3A "Ancestors of the pencil."

The most insidious is... There is no mastermind and economics adjusts the mix. Insidious because it is absolutely true, but said in a way to support the lies.

Economics is all about alternatives. Listening to 'the pencil' we are strongly encouraged to believe that only a very narrow range of alternatives exist, otherwise the pencil couldn't exist.

Let's get rid of the ancestors argument first. Everything does have ancestors, but they aren't any fixed set of things. Whatever they are or aren't has no direct impact on building or not building a pencil.

You do need the materials and tools to build a pencil, but none of these things must come from the far reaches of the world. They only come from the far reaches of the world because economies of scale make it so. If we can grow wood locally and were suddenly cut off from the cheaper wood from remote parts would we stop making pencils or use the wood we have? The same is true of all other materials. So much for the implication that the pencil requires a world economy.

RE: #2. Why not? Single craftsman make complicated things all the time. How is a pencil any different? Again it's about alternatives. It may make sense for many people to specialize in making elements of a pencil, but that is not a requirement. If those specialists are not available it doesn't mean you can't build a pencil. You may certainly lower the price of pencils over time but that's true of everything.

RE #1. A fabrication to support this house of cards argument. A single person could completely understand all the elements required to produce a pencil. Just because they normally don't need to does not make it unfathomable (which is why they throw in the entire universe as ancestors to make their false point. It's like Zeno's paradox. You can't build anything because the universe is unfathomable and you can never beat a turtle with a head start.)

Economics will always adjust the mix. That's why we have pens.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Can we guess your highest grade level quiz.

PhD
Congratulations - you got your doctorate! It's clear that you've put in some solid years in grad school.

Actually I'm a drop-out. Started my life at 16 with a red dodge rt and $50.

It matters

Read it.

Those that ignore the big picture deserve the results.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Monday, October 17, 2016

They can do it to you.

They cut wikileaks off the internet.

Is Fox news any different?

Glimpse of the Hydra


The Reader's Digest version...

...of this video, edited to it's essentials, should be Trump's campaign ad. right up 'til voting.

TREASON!


Back home

It's good to get back to my apartment (only an hour after when I was scheduled to be.)

Next time, instead of spending 5 days at the hospital I have the option of having the nurses visit me here. I've got some new meds and a monitor.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Not only was Trump right...

I remember seeing Muslim's cheering on 9-11. I also remember American's having righteous anger but not taking it out on Muslims except for a very few incidences. While listening to Coulter's audio book (part 3, last post) it recounts Stephanopolis accusing Trump of being a liar.

The story is even worse. Muslim's were waiting beforehand to watch it happen with models of the towers! more. more.

Snopes and politifact lied about it.

He's our vulgarian

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Considering this... how is it a horse race?

It isn't. The media is lying to us with false polls...


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Hillary must lose


Woman that are on to the media


Grow the fuck up

Regarding Trump's vulgarity:

Nobody defends it, but it's time somebody understands it from an adult perspective.

Trump was speaking privately to a guy that chuckled at his humor. Has anyone ever heard of Lisa Lampanelli or Bill Burr? People laugh at vulgarity and some crave those laughs.

What happened immediately after? Did Trump act improperly? No.

Dean Martin used to sing, "you can't get arrested for what you're thinking" (watching girls.) What happens when a mind reading machine becomes available?

Men and woman are vulgar. Without the male libido the human race would go extinct.

It is the responsibility of adults not to pursue thought crimes, but punish real crimes.

Plus Trump was not wrong! Rich celebrities do get away with things. Gold diggers do throw themselves at men. Men like touching women. To deny these things is idiocy.



Going to hospital

My blood pressure has become quite erratic so I'm going to spend a few days in the hospital to try to get my medication to the right level. 252/130 is not so good, but the fact that it varies as it does every few minutes is much worse. As my friends when I was a kid used to say, "the worst thing that can happen is you'll live through it." I expect I'll be out in a few days.

Update: It looks like I'm scheduled to be here until Monday. We shall see. I've got to get a BP cuff from the drug store which is about $50. They're talking about me lowering my medication per dose, but more frequent which is why I need to get the cuff. I drove myself to the hospital, but had to call 911 to get somebody to come out with a wheelchair. I really hate being decrepit. I'm too young to be such an old man. Then again, I stopped being young at about 5 years of age. Even in high school, people older than me would call me sir! I used to go to bars and casinos with my [step-]dad when I was 16. I remember one time, when I was 16, my 18 y.o. GF got carded and I didn't. The drinking age in CA was 21.

Sometimes it seems I'm living my life backward, like Merlin, but obviously that's not quite right. It really has been too weird to believe. No, I can't write a book. I wore a suit to the 1st grade. [Step-]dad called me little lord Fauntleroy.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

No intent is required

This is national security where people die.


Hillary loves oppo

Trump must take her out in the opening of the second debate by saying he is not a man easily humbled, but running for president has been a humbling experience. He must include an apology to his supporters and his running mate. He should also carefully include that being a rich celebrity is a bit like a kid in the candy store and everybody knows in their heart it's just a fact that a lot of candy is out there. He was even with another woman when he met his wife. Then he needs to apologize to individuals starting with his family.


Then he needs to relentlessly attack Hillary without mercy making the case that she's the true victimizer of woman.


Black holes don't exist!?

They say the math is conclusive.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Trump is a jerk

There's no denying it, but he's also not wrong. Rich celebrities can get away with up to murder. Everybody knows this which is why he gets a pass that would destroy others.

Trump is vulgar. He's not alone. He thinks he's a comedian. He isn't.

But he's not wrong on a range of subjects.

He's magnitudes better than the only other real choice.

Illegal votes

I read of one county in PA with confirmed voting by illegals and felons. Then I hear that immigration is fast tracking immigrants so they can illegally vote.

If allowed to continue these are the country's last days.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Reporters abandon logic for bias

I was reading about Trump taking some time off campaigning to prepare for the next debate. So they're asking Pence if Trump is for banning all Muslims. Do you realize the logical ignorance in that question? Trump has also called for 'extreme vetting.' Which these reporters should certainly be aware of. Knowing that, the banning all Muslims question logically answers itself since if true, it would require no vetting at all!

The obvious conclusion, assuming the reporters are not just stupid, is they believe this question embarrasses Trump and suggests the racist narrative they continue to falsely promote.

Discouraged by Musk

Elon's vision and business acumen is making a multiplanetary future closer to possible. But it isn't his job to figure out everything. However he is in a unique position to guide the discussion but isn't really fit for it. His strength is his integrity to his vision. His weakness is his inability to lead/inspire/explain a movement.

Elon himself admits his architecture is wild, but it is a direct result of the numbers associated with his design goals. Some refinements are obvious, such as launching fuel to orbit first before sending crew to orbit. His 100 crew at a time is a claimed requirement to get a large population to mars in a reasonable time, but the real metric to focus on is cost per crew which a large quantity at a time contributes to.

Ironically, bringing cost per crew down too fast might even hurt the colonization of mars (more ahead as to why.)

Admiral Grace Hopper is famous for the expression, "it's better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission." To colonize mars this thought will probably be essential because there are forces lining up to keep it from happening. Planetary protection is one kind of idiocy that could hold us back, but the biggest issue is the fundamental world view.

Who owns mars? Who will? How does that impact the future? Does it matter?

Is there a connection between these questions and the elephant in the room... funding?

Does it affect the quality of life and growth rate of the colony?

I  believe so. I think the social issues are magnitudes more important than the technical issues. I believe the faith in top down planning will do more harm to colonization than any other single issue. Musk's focus, while understandable, on bringing down cost per crew may be his downfall. Why and how? Because he's really a very traditional business person at heart and is trying to jump past a historically essential element of growth. Things always cost more at the beginning and will in this case as well, but that has good implications for growth.

Colonists will have a certain mass of personal property that will have more value precisely because of the high cost of transportation. Lower that cost too fast and you've robbed those earlier colonists of their assets. Trying to get the colonists to pay for their tickets (inside the box thinking) will limit the number of colonists. Provide them all with free tickets (by thinking outside the box) and the focus correctly goes to those willing to take on the other risks to be colonists.

Mars has all the assets required to pay for every colonists ticket for the first million colonists. All that is required is to realize it. Musk hasn't, nor have any others (even though they have absolutely no argument to reject it.) The only thing they can say is it will not work because people don't believe in it. That's the only thing they get right. But people would believe in it if someone like Musk, who has earned the credibility with his hard work for over a decade, would support it. That's my disappointment.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Dissecting Mike's great illustration.

From his comment...
Out west somewhere, in the 19th century, is a spot of desert ground where there is absolutely nothing. No one lives there, nothing grows there.
Sounds like the start of a good mars analogy.
Along comes a prospector and finds gold. Within weeks a town has spring up. There are prospectors and miners pulling spendable gold out of the ground.
As long as we don't get hung up on precious metals, I'm with you so far.
There are stores supplying their need, for mining equipment, food, clothing, liquor and entertainment. The owners of those stores mostly borrowed the capital to establish them.
Let's consider this in the context of mars. So we've got some martians that choose mining as their profession and they are successful. We've got other martians that choose to be shopkeepers and are willing to trade with the miners. Where do the shopkeepers get their inventory? There are only two sources: mars and earth. Most of their inventory they will get from other martians that choose to be ISRU manufacturers because that makes the most economic sense, but some things will have to come from earth until martian industry is up to supplying that demand. There are two ways of getting things from earth: direct import/export which is prohibitive, and trade with newly arriving colonists (those trades being initiated before those colonist leave earth, but with transactions finalized directly on mars.)

What about the borrowed capital? That could have happened before or after the shopkeeper left earth, but most lenders will only make a loan if they have collateral on earth providing security. It sucks, but that the reality of the lending business. The good news is the type of things miners need will probably all be producible locally on mars (including basic electronics.)
All those goods, which can not be manufactured on site, are being shipped in in return for the gold which is being shipped out and sold for profit.
This is where the analogy fails. mining equipment, food, clothing, liquor and entertainment will all be produced locally because they can and only that makes economic sense. Some entertainment consists of data which may be imported at a low enough cost to make economic sense. Mining equipment is mostly iron, hydraulics and some electronics all of which makes the most economic sense to produce on mars. No gold export required. The gold stays on mars.
Eventually, the local veins of ore are tapped out. This happened in many places.
Of course, then the miners have the normal economic decisions to make. Search for more minerals or find another means of employment. Since mars industry will have demand for mars minerals perhaps forever, most miners will probably continue with perhaps a focus on other minerals they may find. Almost anything they find will have some demand.
When that happened, the miners and prospectors, no longer able to produce wealth with which to buy the things they needed, moved on, leaving the storekeepers behind.
Nonsense. The single biggest advantage martian miners will have is that almost everything is in demand. Lowest on the list being martian iron which they can't even avoid finding.
The storekeepers could get by for a while, trading with each other, but their main market, and the source of the actual wealth, is gone.
Let's examine that premise a little closer. Would the shopkeepers have miners as their main or only customers? Not likely.
First the ones selling mining equipment close up, absolutely no demand for that.
Do you remember the general store from your history books? Inventory moves through the store and changes over time to reflect changing demand. It would be a really stupid shopkeeper that didn't consider future demand.
Then the others, without the spendable gold coming in, are no longer able to service their debts and obtain new credit to bring in additional goods, not that there is anyone to sell to anyway. So, one by one, they close and move out, leaving a ghost town behind.
The mistake here is the premise. Having a limited source of a high value export is not the correct analogy. Ghost towns are created because of a focused economy. They are avoided by having a diverse economy. To equate mars with any boom town is ridiculous precisely because export is so prohibitive. As the doctor says, "don't do that!"
It is every bit as empty as it was before. No one lives there, because there is absolutely nothing of value to bring people there. Well, that is Mars.
Only true if gold mining is what brought them there. It certainly will not be. That is not the reason people will go to mars precisely because it wll not work. This is known as the false choice fallacy (also a bit of strawman.)
There is absolutely nothing, no thing, that can be produced on Mars and shipped back to the earth and sold at a profit.
Let's agree. That just means that will not be the motivation.
There could be ingots of pure, refined gold just sitting there and they could not be recovered profitably.
Absolutely true with regard to exporting it to earth.
Thus, without an economic basis for its existence, the colony will ultimately devolve into people sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the next supply ship, until Earth decides not to spend any more money endlessly sending supplies and getting nothing in return.
You have not shown a lack of economic basis. Earth doesn't need to spend a penny. The colonist pay their own way if the ticket price comes down enough and there is another way if it doesn't. My plan pays $5 million per ticket at no cost to the earth or the colonists. It is paid for the way development is always paid for, by the free will of speculators.

The problem with your argument is you're right only if you make assumptions that aren't actual constraints.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Answering Michael

Michael
September 29, 2016 At 6:35 AM
Let’s say that the first group of colonists rip a space suit and need a new one. Space suits are expensive, transporting them to Mars isn’t free. These colonists do represent a market, but in order to supply that market, they have to produce new wealth to trade for that space suit. Even if there were pure refined gold just sitting there waiting to be scooped into bins, you could not bring it back to earth and sell it for a profit. How are the colonists going to pay for that space suit, or anything else they need?

Great question Michael and the answer is simple.

A colonist damages his (or her) personal spacesuit beyond the ability of martian industry to repair. He contacts a colonist on earth preparing to leave for mars arriving perhaps a year in the future (a 3 month trip available every 26 months.) They discuss what the martian needing the suit can produce on mars in that year to trade for that suit and come to terms. That colonist doesn't have to personally produce these items since they can trade for some or all of those things with other martians. Meanwhile what suit does the colonist use? There will be spares that he can borrow or rent during that time. But being like most martians he may not even need a suit for that year because martians usually live in a comfortable shirt sleeve environment throughout the year. They also have the option of moving between such environments in sealed vehicles.

Where does wealth come from? Understand that export is not required.

Anyone thinking this isn't workable doesn't seem to realize this is already how it works on earth. If you can't afford the cost, you do without.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Elaboration on the mars economy

See this first.

The following is of course simplified:

Suppose we have 100 colonists on mars. Each can produce a certain amount of various products. Products essential to life support include energy, water, food, breathable air, etc. These must be produced on average above 100% of the colonies requirements (above because dips below 100% means some casualties. A safe reserve must always be maintained.) Other items will also be in demand but could be produced at less than 100% of demand without loss of life.

Planners determine that each colonist needs X solar panels and storage batteries for there energy needs. If a colonist produces less than 100% of their life support needs they will have strong demand for more, meaning they will be willing to pay more for it. If they produce 100% they will still have some demand for more but will be price sensitive. If they produce more than 100% of their life support needs some will be available for industry and some for resale. The labor requirement for producing energy will be low; mainly the result of how many solar panels (or other means) they deploy. Any profits they have may be reinvested to produce an increased rate of production.

Unlike energy, food comes in varieties that encourage more trade opportunities. Some food is more storable while other food is more perishable. Basic farming using Zubrin's example would require about an hour of labor per day to produce more than 300% of the colonies needs. Even though colonists could produce more than 100% of their needs demand and trade will be strong due to the desire for variety. As farming becomes more efficient a lower percent of the colony will be engaged in it.

Supply, demand, labor and such will be similar for other items. The invisible hand, a principle that can hardly be denied, will insure that production meets need. Note that exports have not been mentioned because none are required for this model to work.

Suppose items A and B are essential and items C and D are not. Colonist zero spends various amounts of his time during the day producing 50% of A, 20% of B, 10% of C, and 40% of D. Note these are percentages of the colony's average individual demand. This is not 120% of the individuals production capability. It may be more like less than a quarter of that.

Colonist zero must buy 50% more of A and 80% more of B. Zero keeps 5% each of C and D and sells the rest. Assume zero has a reserve of A and B that are not part of this calculation.

The colony overall produces 120% of both A and B. It produces 50% of demand for C and D.

The price for A and B will be relatively low and kept there by competition. The demand for C and D means the price will be somewhat higher and those producing it will have an incentive to produce more.

In this situation colonist zero will have 99 potential customers (though not all for all products because some will obviously be sellers rather than buyers of some items.)

What happens if production of items C and D rise to meet demand so that colonist zero can no longer sell enough of C and D to pay for what he must have of items A and B? Either he will sell his labor or start producing item E (assuming s/he is already producing as much of A and B as s/he is capable.)

The bible principle is very simple... if they don't work, let them not eat.

Sunshine is money

This post is dedicated to Jerry Pournelle, who got it right almost 50 years ago, and all those that continue to get it wrong today.


Reagan once famously said, “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” This truth isn't limited to liberals. The intellectually insecure and lazy are often unwilling to test their assumptions. The assumption that I will prove isn't so, using just basic math, is that mars requires exports to be economically viable. It doesn't. That is not to say mars will have no exports because information, in forms from research to entertainment, will certainly be a mars export. But this only enhances mars economic viability. It is in no way required.

Let's start with a given... economic viability requires that income be greater than expense. Can we agree on that? Expense includes everything required to live. If some part of income above expense is retained this eventually leads to wealth. What are the details?

What Pournelle got right is that viability starts with having enough energy. Energy is the primary critical requirement. The useful energy must not only be enough for life support but also enough to manufacture a means to acquire more excess useful energy over time. Industry requires it.

Sunlight, converted into useful energy, is one very important income source. Just like on earth, this commodity can be traded among martian colonists for other assets. It is money. How much is produced by each colonist and how much is purchased by each is an economic choice like any other. That energy isn't just that which is converted to electricity. It is also the energy stored in plant growth. Plants are also money. The options of what to grow and trade makes for a very robust market. Do I have to continue in saying that minerals are also money. To be viable they simply have to be worth more to other colonists than the cost of extraction.

Where does the money to buy things come from? You missed it, didn't you? Read that last paragraph again, except with some insight.

Any martian that can produce anything another might want has produced wealth. Pieces of paper are not money. They are a convenience. Barter is an inconvenience that money cures. That's mainly all it is. So let's get even more basic...

Mars is economically viable if the life of each martian is viable. So let's take a closer look at that. You will note that no export to earth other than possibly data will be mentioned.

A martian starts out on earth buying a ticket to the surface of mars. That money comes from each ticket purchasers savings. No mystery involved. Elon Musk says to make this work the trip will send a lot of people at a time on a quick 3 month trip every 26 months. That ticket will include provisions consumed during the trip and personal property once they arrive (including a space suit.)

There will be a bootstrap period for the first colonists where abundant presupply will have to be sent first, but we are going to focus on the colonist that arrives later on mars with a spacesuit and just a few hundred kgs. of personal property. They have just enough consumable provisions to meet up with colonists that have been on mars for at least 26 months.

Some things can be made on mars and for some time other things will not be. Life support comes in a variety of forms. The lander will have life support as will a spacesuit (although of a shorter duration.) These are both subject to damage that may be difficult to repair. So the first order of business for our new colonist is to trade for a habitat that uses locally repairable life support components. That habitat is a trade good those on mars for the last 26 months or more can produce with just local labor and materials. That habitat could be paid for immediately with some items from earth or over time as part of a labor or some other agreement. The early colonists will have an advantage over later because there will be so many unique things they can import from earth (just in plant varieties alone) that they may be able to hold onto monopolies for some time. Unique skills will also be a valuable import.

Those habitats may or may not be completely self contained. Either works. If not, then the person living there must have tradable skills to make up for any deficiencies. That will not be difficult especially early in the life of the colony. Even basic labor alone will be in great demand. Beyond that, a colonist may have skills in short supply that raises their value even more. Is this really so difficult to imagine and note it involves zero export to earth?

Now for the simple math I promised. So simple it doesn't even require numbers!

Each colonist will have the ability to produce. How much and what is totally up to them but the invisible hand will be hard at work. Their market will be every other colonist. Known as a one to many relationship that applies to each and every person.

Can a colonist produce all of their own needs? It doesn't matter. What does matter is, can they produce some things in excess of their own needs. Of course they can. Each colonist willing to put in the effort can therefore produce wealth. If each colonist can produce wealth, so does the colony.

It's not that complicated. Put away your economics books and equations and just think.


Over time, industry will be built. Earth can participate in this wealth creation the same way we do in any other foreign stock market with zero export required.

Roboto





Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Trump's lost opportunity

"Hillary, you're lecturing us on cyber security? How many of our operatives had to flee for their lives or lost them because of your felonious handling of our government's secrets?"

Trump-Clinton debate transcript SCORED

The transcript.

HC: We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women's work. (-2 issues that only win with ignorant voters.)

DT: they're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing. (+1)

DT: We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States (+1)

DT: I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies (+1 this is not a tax break for the rich. This is a tax break for consumers in any competitive market.)

HC: the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. (0 DT's last plus one covers this.)

HC: I believe is the more we can do for the middle class... (-1 because she's lying. She wants to raise taxes on the middle class.)

DT: When we sell into Mexico, there's a tax. ...When they sell into us, there's no tax. (+1 free trade is only free trade when both sides use the same rules. Reagan pointed this out.)

DT: She's been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn't she made the agreements better? (+1)

HC: Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, "Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money." Well, it did collapse. DT: That's called business, by the way. (+2 Trump)

HC: Some country is going to be the clean-energy superpower of the 21st century. (-3 This is the definition of govt. policy disaster.)

HC: Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real. DT: I did not. I did not. I do not say that. (-1 Trump. This is a very weak response by Trump. He should have just let it slide.)

DT: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. (0 Trump is right but should have included details.)

DT: The Obama administration, from the time they've come in, is over 230 years' worth of debt, and he's topped it. He's doubled it in a course of almost eight years (0 Trump is right but said it in a way that destroyed its impact.)

DT: For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions. (+2)

DT: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry. HC: Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion. (+1 Trump.  Hillary's response is weak.)

DT: you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down (+1)

DT: You called [TPP] the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.

HC: No. (-1 She lied again.)

DT: ...you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence. (+2)

DT: I think I should -- you go to her website, and you take a look at her website. (+0)

dt: She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much. (+1)

HC: I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened. DT: Why not? (+1 Trump. Reinforces the idea that Hillary has had decades to fix things.)

HC: $4 billion tax benefit for your family. (-1 Wow. Hillary just claimed Donald pays a lot of taxes!!!)

DT: Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn't work. (+1 This should have been Trump's theme for the entire debate. He should have even complemented her on how well she talks lie a politician.)

DT: Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions (+1 A simple powerful declarative statement which is what he should have stuck with.)

Releasing tax returns (-2 DT needed a prepared, succinct answer.)

HC: when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax. DT: That makes me smart. (+1 DT)

HC: So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. (0 channeling Elizabeth 'You didn't build that' Warren.)

HC: It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that. (As long as she isn't held responsible.)

DT: That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely (0 He keeps talking which weakens his point.)

DT: I am very underleveraged. ... I have a tremendous income ... It's about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money. (0 would have been +2 if he said it w/o the parts I ellipsed.)

DT: ...it's one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything's in great shape... (+0 He didn't finish the thought clearly.)

DT: it's politicians like Secretary Clinton that have caused this problem. (+1)

HC: you wouldn't pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do...  DT: Maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work... Which our country should do, too. (0 But Trump made a reasonable point.)

DT: I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I'm running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that's what I do. (+1 It can't be said any plainer than that.)

DT: When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy. The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country. (+1)

Everybody agrees racism is worse since Obama took office (-3 DT because he didn't make this plain point.)

 Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York (0 Trump made the point it's used effectively and is law in other places but did it ineffectively.)

DT: Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what's happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it's very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen. (+1 This resonates with those experiencing it.)

DT: ...the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, see ya later, I'll see you in four years. (+1)

Birther issue (-2 DT because he continues to allow this issue to linger.)

HC: he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed. (+1 racist is a dog whistle, but effective.)

DT: last week, your campaign manager said it was true. So when you tried to act holier than thou, it really doesn't work. (+1 Classic winning Trump.)

DT: we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country -- it was a federal lawsuit -- were sued. We settled the suit with zero -- with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do. (0 Hillary uses this to successfully paint Trump a racist with some, but Trump has the correct response.)

cyber security (0 Trump blew his chance for a knock-out punch.)

DT: She's been trying to take [ISIS] out for a long time. But they wouldn't have even been formed if they left some troops behind (+1)

HC: the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq... (-1 the only way???)

DT: ...we've been working with them for many years, and we have the greatest mess anyone's ever seen. You look at the Middle East, it's a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent. (+1)

DT: you were secretary of state when [ISIS] was a little infant. Now it's in over 30 countries. And you're going to stop them? I don't think so. (+1)

nuclear weapons in the hands of other countries (+2 HC. Trump could have used Ukraine as an example. The US negotiated nukes out of Ukraine's hands allowing Russia to annex Crimea. The point can be debated, but the left would rather use the issue as a club.)

DT: The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your -- your president thinks. (+1)

DT: Russia has been expanding their -- they have a much newer capability than we do. (0 An important post debate topic.)

DT: I would certainly not do first strike. (0 Lost in the noise.)

DT: It was actually $1.7 billion in cash [to Iran.] (0 Again lost in the noise.)

DT: All of the things that she's talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let's say, while she had great power. But they weren't taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won't be taken care of. (0)

Stamina (+2 HC. Her poise during this debate gives her the win regardless of the point count. Trump, if he can, needs to do better.)

DT: We have made so many bad deals during the last -- so she's got experience, that I agree. (+1)

HC: [Donald has said] women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men. (0 A missed opportunity for Trump. His response should have been, "So you're suggesting they should get equal pay even if they don't do as good a job?")

DT: ... $200 million is spent [by her campaign], and I'm either winning or tied, and I've spent practically nothing. (+1)

Trump won on points but Clinton won on presentation.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

More biased reporting

They can't even pretend to be unbiased. From the title I thought it might be a neutral article.

Here's the authors take on a Lauer interview.
Trump has very little idea what he's talking about and when pressed on a clear contradiction he starts making up new nonsense to avoid addressing the question.
Is that right? What Trump said is he has a good chance of becoming president. Correct. In that case, unlike Obama, it would be stupid to inform ISIS of his plan. Correct. Lauer falsely accuses Trump of having no plan. What Trump is clearly saying is he will listen to his generals. There is no contradiction.
Trump is extremely ignorant when it comes to public policy.
Trump is not a political wonk. He has an average business persons understanding of the issues, but with the executive ability to look deeper into things and listen to expert opinion. The farce is to believe a chief executive is suppose to have detailed knowledge and polished answer for every conceivable question. It's a stupid f%$&^g game the press plays that does less than no service to journalistic integrity.
it's usually pretty obvious he's just making things up.
This is the no win scenario. He doesn't generally have polished prepared answers like a politician would. This is actually a good thing. A real journalist, not looking to just antagonize, could actually use this fact to do their job better. Trump's other option is to tell the journalist he needs to defer his answer until after he's given it more thought. How well would this perfectly reasonable response fly with these antagonists? No win possible.
I think it would be highly advisable for Clinton to confront Trump on birtherism.
Why? Because of the authors biased hope that this non issue could harm Trump.
If [Hillary] can deliver a strong performance which cuts against perceptions.
True perceptions that she's a liar and a crook that used government to enrich herself even if it meant treason against this country, risked American lives and kept the poor in poverty (See Haitian relief.) Being careful not to raise expectations this 'reporter' can't help slobbering.
Absent a teleprompter, Trump has shown no ability in eighteen months to be anybody but himself in public.
Think about it. Trump can't win with this guy. He's basically admitting that Trump can give a good prepared speech. He's also suggesting Trump would do better if he actually was a con man. He's saying Trump is real. All the while implying this is a bad thing. The media hasn't just attempted to blind us, they're completely clueless themselves. I will be glued to this first debate.

The catastrophic collapse of all of the political pundits’ predictions.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

It takes a very high level of intelligence to be this stupid

Whenever I hear the word ethics I know it's verbal camouflage for an onslaught of bullshit. Here's a good example.

The implied argument is we shouldn't colonize mars now, but without the courage to actually say it. Then in too many words the authors says... How we colonizing Mars will determine its success, but without defining success which would seem to be the important part?

In my opinion, when has a huge impact on success which in this context I would define as a thriving independent group of humans capable of continuing life and growth even if all life on earth were lost.

This is revealing, Hawking doesn’t acknowledge that the disasters he names are human-made, that's true because that has no relevance to his argument. Extinction is extinction regardless of how it comes about. It's revealing because it goes with other arguments that assume human bad/nature good as if humans were not part of nature.

...are we setting ourselves up for a long-term future of planet hopping from one ruined world to the next? Give me a freakin' break. YES, let the havoc begin!

...stripping the planet bare. O.M.G. How can we take anything else seriously after making a statement like this? If we could suddenly transport a billion people to mars and it was their sole intent to rape the planet, they couldn't do it in a thousand years... but let that not dissuade the mindless fantasy about evil humans. How could this level of self hatred even exist?

Let's have a clue about sustainable practices, if they aren't sustainable they self regulate! No effort required. No planning required. Sustainable isn't just a football for kicking around your self loathing. It has a meaning and associated implications. The arrogance of thinking you can decide how things should be, over ruling those that would actually live on mars is beyond astounding. It's practically a case study in this form of lunacy.

If there is life on Mars, then I believe we should do nothing to disturb that life. Just more extreme bullshit. If disturbing life is a problem caused by humans we should just kill all humans because that's the only way to stop it. Of course, my definition of success would argue otherwise. We sterilize martian probes to protect possible martian life. Let me rephrase, we kill existing life to protect possible life. At this very moment our immune systems are murdering millions of life. Killing ourselves is the only hope for these poor microbes (who would then cease to exist because they wouldn't have us to feed upon.) Mars is a planet. It would be impossible for us to kill it.

Zubrin’s approach touts practicality to the exclusion of other considerations. Yeah, let's not be practical or have the least bit of common sense. Let's all hug a rock. Or better yet, beat you senseless with it. Too late, you must first have sense before you can be beaten senseless. Let's apply a single braincell to the question of... the magnitude of the irreversible disaster that could be caused if we are wrong. By definition, we don't know what we don't know. So there is no basis for inaction. Action or restraint from action has to have a basis in knowledge, not ignorance.

What if inaction or even just delay causes our extinction? This isn't hypothetical. We know that disaster is waiting for every basket and we need to be in other baskets to survive. If survival is the definition of ethical then arguing against is the most unethical position.

Then comes the ethics of ownership. Without belaboring the point, denying ownership to a broad base of people is not just unethical but just plain evil. I'm not going to argue it here.

How we colonize will determine success. Individual freedom is success and requires individual ownership.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

With friends like these...

ET farming research.

Here's the problem...
“We must regard a plant as a piece of technology and understand exactly what happens to it first. All chemical, microbiological and physiological aspects (of plants in extraterrestrial conditions) needs to be understood and mapped... We cannot take risks.”
Because colonization "is not a priority" to this guy.

Solving the dust problem

Make a mars dollar equal to one kg. of pure iron. Mars banks can each establish their own exchange rates for other elements. ATM cards will handle all mars dollar transactions. Collecting and refining mars dust will clean up any inhabited area while the wind becomes a direct source of profit. Anyone wanting to corner a market just has to set up the right exchange rate.

Update: Reply to Jefff...

Wow. That was a great comment Jeff. I hope my reply can do it justice.

Your definition of economics is missing something important that Thomas Sowell felt so important he repeated it several times in his books. You said, "economics is about the production and distribution of goods and services" which is true while leaving out an absolutely essential ingredient that I may have to paraphrase if I can't find the actual quote...  found it: "Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." This definition is important because it highlights what most people get wrong about economics because of their rigid thinking. They fall into the trap of thinking economics must work a certain way when the definition is saying economics is all about adapting to the true situation rather than claiming the situation is some kind of economic problem.

So we don't crosstalk I'm going to try to understand the rest of your comment in light of your definition (doing so I can perhaps understand your point. I'm not there yet, but hopefully before I finish this comment I can get there. I will provide feedback as understanding dawns.)

As for spacious dwellings: I think it a no brainer for several reasons. It's safer (allowing what DenBeste once called graceful failure modes in engineering.) It's really rather cheap because they will have plenty of space and basic construction equipment (2 remote control tractors could fit on a single Dragon lander and do the work required for several dozen colonists.. They will not need to dig wearing spacesuits with pick and shovel. One way they could go about initial construction would be a relatively fast trench (a week of digging at most) covered by a brick arch (they will need water and a sealed tent to make the bricks.) The arch ceiling takes some skill but for those so trained it shouldn't take more than a few weeks per habitat. When vacationing in Greece my folk's landlord did similar brick construction by himself in a single week. The machine that cranks out compressed bricks produces them faster than they can be used (it could be a tractor attachment using the tractor's PTO.) Once the trench is dug and covered it can be sealed just by spraying the walls with water (although better options are available in time. Once sealed they can take their time finishing the interiors. They can use mars iron for airlocks made in clay molds but will probably need to bring tubes of gasket material from earth initially. None of this is very high tech., including the life support equipment which is gaslight era chemistry. The environmental monitoring equipment shouldn't be high tech either. No electronics will be needed to keep it functioning (an important reason for big habitats. Whatever fails, which has 100% probability of happening, should fail slow enough they have days to fix from stored replacements.) But habitat's are a bit of a side issue. Let me get back to your points.

The kickstart: First of course there should be abundant presupply to a single site which can take as many years as required to give the first colonists safe margins (4 to 10 tons per colonist should do it before the first arrive. Every colonist thereafter only needs about one ton each because the bulk other than their spacesuit will come from local mars production (this means a wide range of things will simply not be available to early colonists, but what will be is more than you would first imagine.) The first 26 month window should get at least a dozen colonists on mars. Any fewer will not provide enough labor even with heavy equipment to do their job which is not science or exploring. Their only job is to learn how to survive and get essential production rates up to a level suitable for the next group of about 3 or 4 dozen colonists. Four dozen colonist are about the minimum you need to have the skills for a full basic industrial ecology. That's not going to be the same level as thousands or millions, but 48 skill sets can produce a surprising diversity of stuff. A single machinist can produce almost anything, just not in quantity (although each could produce enough for a dozen others. Look at occupational percentages of any large city to get a closer approximation.) You need two or three machinists for every chemist. What you don't need initially are doctors but first aid training should be for everyone.

I haven't yet mentioned energy which should be presupplied to about four times what we think they need (solar is fine to start but backup methane powered generators would be a good idea. Designed to be simple to make or repair on mars. Lubricants will initially come from earth.) Having too much energy allows industrial growth (including producing higher energy rates.) Having too little is deadly.

Benefits to Earth: The easiest way to see benefits to earth is to look backwards from some future. Is the earth better with or without adding a martian economic component? I think the answer is clear if mars is independent. The problem for most people is they can't see that as possible. I say it could be very easy in four parts. 1) Existing market. 2) Intrinsic import. 3) Transportation. 4) Investor speculation.

1) The existing market of supply is the time, materials and skills of local martians. They have the time to produce valuable supplies which only need to be distributed to demand on mars. Most of this increases wealth on mars which is the only place it is absolutely required but some percentage of this will also make it's way indirectly to earth (not in products, although that isn't totally out of the question, but in ownership. Capital transfer does not require transportation of mass. It just requires transfer of ownership data. If a person on earth buys stock in a mars company that value has been transferred to earth and that capital can be used to finance that martian companies growth.)

2) Some level of import will certainly be required for mars but can be completely provided by the personal assets of mars immigrants which also contributes to their individual wealth.

3) Transportation is the first economic issue most consider which is also the simplest. The transport company sells tickets at a profit in competition with other companies. This is very traditional and should be simple to understand. The rub is, we can't expect enough (or perhaps any) colonist to come up with that ticket price and we shouldn't if we really want mars to be colonized.

4) So the last issue is how to finance migration? Anyway that works I say. To me the simplest is to auction off plots on mars and use all that money for passage (with constraints that make it work.) If you don't like that (which should completely pay for the first million colonists and distribute title to many and any small speculators on earth even if sold as a novelty... which it isn't since it should be actual title to a plot of land which they can give to their kids or resell.) Then you are free to figure out your own method of financing.

I haven't fully addressed the issues in your terms, so... Production will grow as population grows. Because the population grows slowly it will never outstrip production. The only thing is product and service diversity will expand over time.

Distribution is local. Nothing need be distributed off mars, which is not to say some things may not be. If ships are returned to earth for reuse that opens up marginal cost cargoes... but they are not at all essential. Rigidly thinking we need some sort of spice trade is just flat out wrong. Not bad to have but not required. Because the delta V to LEO is lower from mars than from the earth and mars by virtue of a growing population will grow industries, some profitable trade from mars may develop but in competition with infrastructure development in other places.

What would a billion dollar mars development entail?

I would build incremental profitable businesses that vertically get me to mars. I would not develop the technology because others are already doing that. I would develop a series of different profitable businesses that all contribute to the final goal. The first thing is putting a refuelable ship in earth orbit. That becomes a leased asset. It doesn't have to go anywhere, but will have enough delta-V when fueled to go between earth and mars orbit. That should cost about $200m to $300m to LEO with life support for 12 (using a free return trajectory to mars. Which means 8 mo. rather than Musk's 3 mo. plan. Mine will leave sooner because Musk will need more than a billion dollars before he can go. Leasing those ships in earth orbit should produce about $600m per year (see Bigelow's Alpha station business plan.) Allowing me to send a dozen to mars each window. $450m for landers to mars orbit and $300m for fuel to earth orbit.