Print 76 comment(s) - last by voodoochile123.. on Oct 3 at 10:01 PM

Rendering of Chinese Tiangong-1   (Source: MSNBC)
Two years from now other modules will launch

China is looking to make itself into a technology, military, and space power over the coming years. China wanted to be part of the ISS, but NASA would not allow the country to participate. Rather than sulk in the corner, the Chinese have set about building an ISS rival and the first section of that rival space station has now been launched into orbit.

The first section of the Chinese space station, called Tiangong-1, was launched into orbit successfully. The Tiangong-1 module lifted off aboard a Long March 2FT1 rocket from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. MSNBC reports that the module is about the size of a boxcar and is in orbit 217 miles above the Earth.
The Chinese say that the module will be used to survey Chinese farmland using special cameras and will conduct an experiment that involves growing crystals in space.

After the launch of this first module, China plans to launch an unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft to practice remote controlled docking procedures with the orbiting module. The Tiangong-1 name means "Heavenly Place-1" and it will stay in space alone for two years. After the 2-year window, China will send two more modules up for more tests and then the actual space station will be launched in three sections in 2020 to 2022.

"This is a significant test. We've never done such a thing before," Lu Jinrong, the launch center's chief engineer, was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency.

The launch of the module was delayed for a year due to technical issues with the launch rockets. The Long March 2C rocket failed to reach orbit kicking off an investigation into the cause of the failure.

As the Chinese gear up to launch their space station, NASA is looking to deorbit the ISS after 2020.

Source: MSNBC

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hey U.S.
By Sazabi19 on 9/30/2011 1:08:25 PM , Rating: 5
Remember how we used to be on top of the world... with the way things are going, never again.

RE: Hey U.S.
By jimbojimbo on 9/30/2011 1:11:31 PM , Rating: 5
We seem to be going backwards while China is going forwards.

RE: Hey U.S.
By mcnabney on 9/30/2011 6:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
When the #1 priority is tax cuts it is little surprise that we stop doing bold, expensive things. The wars broke the bank and nobody is anxious to write checks to cover big projects.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Ringold on 9/30/2011 6:35:55 PM , Rating: 1
Eh, while the wars were expensive, they were one-off expenses, where the things that truly break the bank are long-run, constant entitlement expenses; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Having skipped Iraq wouldn't of changed where the US would be fiscally by 2030, or 2050, ie, bankrupt. Afghanistan is something priced in the billions, not the untold trillions in unfunded liabilities.

But sure, something intellectually easy to grab a hold of and try to make an example of.

RE: Hey U.S.
By augiem on 10/1/2011 3:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
I meant for my post which I accidentally posted under mcnabney's parent post to be under this one. Oops. Scroll down a few messages...

RE: Hey U.S.
By johnsmith9875 on 10/2/2011 6:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
Wars are NOT "one-off" expenses. That's why congress has to continually re-budget for every war we are in, plus every war generates new wounded veterans which costs us in health care through the government funded TRICARE insurance system, not to mention retirement and disability. Wars are never easy to end and linger on, requiring more contracts to be awarded for reconstruction and support. Then of course you have your intelligence budgeting for that war, which does consume a considerable amount of money.

The GOP has managed to use its reality modification machine to turn "Obligations" into "Entitlements". SS, Medicare/Medicaid is not an entitlement, its an obligation. An entitlement is something you get for free like Welfare or LIHEAP.

Wars are entitlements, because they're optional expenditures to assist foreigners. Wonderful, help non-citizens, thats really gonna save us a lot of money.

RE: Hey U.S.
By jvillaro on 10/2/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hey U.S.
By Master Kenobi on 9/30/2011 10:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
The U.S. has been out of the space game for far longer than the past 10 years my friend.

RE: Hey U.S.
By augiem on 10/1/2011 3:29:28 PM , Rating: 5
You can rate him down all you want but first take a look at the US budget yourself.

In 2010, Medicare and SS total $1.494 trillion according to Wikipedia's chart. For simplicity's sake, assume that cost was the same for the last 10 years. $14.94 trillion over 10 years.

Now look at the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Brown University's Costs of War project says the total cost for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion, including a projected $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050 (obviously not yet paid for.)

So by liberal estimates, $3.2-4 trillion, let's subtract the $1t future vet care and round up. $3 trillion for 10 yeras and 3 wars. That comes out to $300 billion a year on wars. Horrible. BUT, look at SS/Medicare -- $1.494 trillion IN ONE YEAR. That is a whopping 5 TIMES the cost of the wars even by liberal estimates, and it will go on ad infinitum and very likely keep increasing every year.

This all jives with the budgets. Look at the pie charts yourself. SS/Medicare is very nearly HALF the entire US budget every year dwarfing the defense department, which incidentally INCLUDES the cost of ongoing war.

So yes, war is horrible and a big cost to bear, but you can hardly blame war for single-handedly bankrupting America. If you dislike math, you may vote me down, but these are the facts without any attempt to color anything. I'm not defending war, just trying to point out the figures.

RE: Hey U.S.
By augiem on 10/1/2011 3:38:51 PM , Rating: 3
Correction: Wikipedia states - "Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been funded through regular appropriations bills, but through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. As such, most of these expenses were not included in the budget deficit calculation prior to FY2010. Some budget experts argue that emergency supplemental appropriations bills do not receive the same level of legislative care as regular appropriations bills."

So my point is invalid about the direct comparison of the DOD budget and the SS/Medicare via pie chart since the war costs were not included in the DOD budgets until 2010. However it does not chage at all the total cost over 10 years comparison.

RE: Hey U.S.
By johnsmith9875 on 10/2/2011 6:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have to go to war, we have to fund Medicare and SS. I see nothing wrong with budgeting for money that goes directly to our citizens for their retirement and health care.

I do see a problem with military adventurism that ends up benefiting only military contractors and foreigners.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Solandri on 10/2/2011 8:56:47 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, 40 years of thinking like yours has caused SS, Medicare, and Medicaid to grow from about 15% of the budget to 40%.

At what point do we say enough? 50%? 80%? 100%? Right now, Medicare + Medicaid alone are projected to consume 100% of Federal tax receipts in about 60 years.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Samus on 10/3/2011 1:58:34 AM , Rating: 1
Why does everyone say we used to be on top, and China is taking over, because of space exploration...

All they're doing is launching some pods. We did that 50 years ago.

They tried to built a bullet train, and it crashed with tons of deaths within months.

They have huge pollution problems presumably causing massive birth defects and health problems.

The Chinese citizens have literally no rights compared to Americans.

If you eat three square meals a day in China, you're at the top 10% of the population. In the United States, over 80% of the population has the means to eat nutritous meals daily.

Stop saying China is taking over. They are not even close.

Space is a stupid thing to spend money on right now because we lack rocket technology advanced enough to deliver our other advancements. Even Elon Musk said concentrating on "Mars or any mission in particular is wasteful without advancing rocket technology."

Advancing rocket technology in the global private sector will be substantially more successful than the government pouring a few billion into NASA, an agency as financially mismanaged as the military.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Paj on 10/3/2011 7:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Largely agree with this. The expansion of space industry lies with the private sector, to create innovation, drive down prices and create competition.

RE: Hey U.S.
By NellyFromMA on 10/3/2011 8:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
lol, so planned trips to man asteroids and land on Mars aren't amibitous enough? China does something that several other nations have done and somehow we're behind? Holy pessimists. I know things aren't great right now, but give me a break.

RE: Hey U.S.
By ClownPuncher on 9/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hey U.S.
By Sazabi19 on 9/30/2011 1:29:56 PM , Rating: 5
LOl, with today's generation do you really see things looking up? I look at people from my generation and just think what went wrong from one generation to the next to get to this point? The generation that used to hold honesty and hard work above all else is dying off (literally) and today everyone is just trying to look out for themselves and will cheat and lie to get what they want. I am honestly scared for where our country is heading. The proud and hard working generation is all but leaving us and aging, in their wake we have people coming in that just don't seem to care.

RE: Hey U.S.
By ClownPuncher on 9/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hey U.S.
By Sazabi19 on 9/30/2011 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
I usually agree with you Clown but not exactly on this. I would love to change things but America on a whole has become lazy. I use to have tromendous pride and was a huge patriot, but I am starting to lose that now, what have we got left to be proud of? I am 22, not a scholar by any means nor do I have the wisdom that our older crowd has, but I like to think I am a little different from the rest of my peers. People that want change all look like a bunch of radical crazies, or are at least spun to look like it by the majority of the media. It will take time for the average American to actually get fed up with this and start to want to do anything about it, right now though they are all complacent.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you I too am 22 and feel the same. I like the old ways of working hard and earning what you deserve.

RE: Hey U.S.
By bupkus on 9/30/2011 3:13:18 PM , Rating: 5
I'm 62 and in agreement as well.
We've lost the ideal of a work ethic and have come to embrace inheritance as the best way to get rich.
What used to be an inheritance tax has become the death tax and with it the Paris Hiltons and other trust babies need never work again. Even worse, their lack of respect for work molds their treatment of working Americans in their holdings.

Even corporations can fail at producing new products as long as they can tax those that do produce using their warehouse of patents based on fundamentals.

These lazy princes and princesses of the realm appear in the media adored by the youth who dream to be rappers, singers and instant stars on American Idol.

We export pop culture because that is about all we produce.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 1

RE: Hey U.S.
By Samus on 10/3/2011 2:07:00 AM , Rating: 1
I'm 29 and while I agree the 'hard working class' is dying off, I disagree that its the younger generations fault for the way they are.

The hard working class generation focused so much on hard work and making money that they did infact forego family values, which is why the 60's were such a turbulant time.

The baby boomer generation then rode on the financial stability, success and infrastructure of the previous 'hard working class' and did little to improve anything for future generations.

Thus, Generation X and Y are left double-timing it for what the boomers didn't do. The problem is, Generation X is spending so much time trying to fix it that Generation Y isn't getting the proper attention the 'hard working class' generation didn't give the boomers, which caused things to screw up in the first palce.

It's all about the parents. Education, family and success follow. That hard working class generation, anybody still alive above 70, were all awful parents, and anybody between 40-65 are terrible, selfish people.

RE: Hey U.S.
By JediJeb on 10/3/2011 4:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about the parents. Education, family and success follow. That hard working class generation, anybody still alive above 70, were all awful parents, and anybody between 40-65 are terrible, selfish people.

I can't agree with this myself. My parents are 67-66 and they raised me to believe in hard work as the way to get ahead just as it was for them. My parents would give even strangers the cloths off their backs if they needed it and have often allowed people to live in the small tenant house on their farm rent free, the last time when a family lost their house in a fire. Most of the people their age I grew up around are exactly the same. Of course we are from a rural area so maybe the bad parents are just the ones that come from the city, I don't know. I just know that I have not encountered the above situation.

For me it has been the newest generation to start into the workforce here in the last few years that seem to have no work ethic at all. They all want to start with a top salary and think that even a cushy job sitting at a computer is too difficult if you don't allow them to spend over half the day surfing the internet. Plus most of the 20-somethings working for us now, I have to yell at them to get their attention, and then they pull the ear buds out and look at me and say "Huh?" I don't understand why they need to listen to music 24-7.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Aloonatic on 9/30/2011 5:09:01 PM , Rating: 4
And which generation was in charge when the slide happened?

I agree that things might be getting worse, but the younger generation are a symptom of the problems with society, not the cause. The cause is/are the people in the generation(s) that have been making the decisions that got us to where we are today. The generations who have made fast buck selling out to the far east and thinking that the TV can raise their kids for them while they live a life as perpetual teenagers.

Blaming kids for how they behave, their work ethic, their morals is not really useful.

However, it is the easy and lazy thing to do, and might make you feel better in the short term. Where did these kids learn to be the way they are again?

RE: Hey U.S.
By Salisme on 9/30/2011 6:01:40 PM , Rating: 4
Don't understand why you are getting voted down. I'm a father of three, and thankfully my kids have been wonderful. What I don't understand is why I see kids running wild at restaurants, stores or just generally out in public getting in trouble and the parents just sit there with a "meh, don't care" look on their face.

I remember the times when I heard the phrase "wait until your father gets home" and I was truly scared because I got my but whipped for acting up in school, and I never would do it again. Now, parents blame teachers when kids act up in school and coddle the kids with more Xbox games instead of instilling discipline.

Parents need to step up and be parents. And let me be the persona non-grata here and say, if your kids act up, spank the little bastard already will you!

RE: Hey U.S.
By DoctorBeer on 10/1/2011 9:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Hey U.S.
By vittek4 on 10/3/2011 8:13:10 PM , Rating: 2

That's IT?????? What the hell is the freaking clip about?????? Tell us, oh wise one!!

RE: Hey U.S.
By vittek4 on 10/3/2011 8:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
China finally got a spacecraft up the wtf why did it take so freaking long!!!!!!!

RE: Hey U.S.
By rlandess on 10/1/2011 9:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
The generational free fall probably starts with the generation that can remember the great depression. 100 years ago an awful lot of people worked hard everyday, not because of work ethic, but to avoid starving. The depression sharpened that situation. Everyone in the family worked hard for one another, not for their own gain. I'd guess after WW2 we were experiencing a boom in the economy and parents, who remembered the hardship they suffered as a child, were more inclined to coddle their kids a little. All the while parents time with their children is being lessened because of longer hours at work(away from home). The model of the family also changes because just one person has to work to put food on the table. The father has the sole burden of labor so the children are at that point free to become little hooligans in their parents absence. Society catches the first generation because people as a whole have conservative social values that help mold children - they get what they need from school, neighbors, church, etc. But when we get to my generation (28) everyone's out for themselves, social values have eroded, no one knows how to raise a decent kid and very few people add to society anymore. The vast majority probably net zero gain for society and those who work hard and do well, just pay for people who leach off the system.

Blame everyone or nobody.

It could also be said we've been coasting since we learned to farm, I doubt we've been doing much evolving (positively) since.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Aloonatic on 10/1/2011 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
There are all kinds of reasons for "decline". You can add mass, unavoidable psychological battery, also known as commercial advertising, to the list. Influencing people and making them think that they are worthless unless they can afford product x, and telling everyone how great people are who can afford product Y. If you can't afford products X and Y, then why bother trying?

Also, the unforeseen affects of feminism have pretty much destroyed the family unit now that everyone is out at work, expectations have raised so the money is still just as tight as when 1 parent worked, but no one is left to look after the kids. So they have been raised by the TV, and exposed to the affects of advertising from as soon as they could focus on a display and understand the odd word...

Also, lets be honest, most generations think that the next generation are lazy, feckless wasters who don't know how lucky they are etc.

RE: Hey U.S.
By derricker on 10/1/2011 10:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the unforeseen affects of feminism have pretty much destroyed the family unit now that everyone is out at work, expectations have raised so the money is still just as tight as when 1 parent worked, but no one is left to look after the kids. So they have been raised by the TV, and exposed to the affects of advertising from as soon as they could focus on a display and understand the odd word...

Quoted for the truth, also to the TV working as a surrogate parent, add whatever bad influence the kids happen to stumble upon, strangers, teachers, other f****d up kids, which kids automatically look upon to replace their lost parental figures.

RE: Hey U.S.
By ClownPuncher on 9/30/2011 4:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
You can still do that. Why are you kids giving up so easily? Work hard, lead by example. Turn off your TV and make something. How can you possibly think the "USA is screwed, it's too late" attitude isn't just as bad as the lazy entitled people?

If this generation's revolution = giving up, you've shown your mettle already. You played your hand too soon.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have not given up entirely but I feel like my generation doesn't care no matter how hard any tries it just seems like they couldn't give a rat's a$$. I will also try but one man can only do so much unless others will at least put an effort to stepping forward when given the chance.

RE: Hey U.S.
By wordsworm on 9/30/2011 5:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
Hard to blame them. Look at how badly their parents and grandparents screwed up the country. In Canada, for instance, throughout the late 70s up until the end of the Mulroney era, the nation kept on borrowing from the future until the next generation of workers are seeing a huge portion of their taxes going to pay for loans taken out by the ruling generation before it. We had hope while the Liberals under Chretien were in power. We paid down debt, our economy was doing well, but now that we're in another Conservative era, we're back to the crapper.

Other things to keep in mind: back in the 80s when interest rates were so high, a man could easily put aside enough money to buy a house outright. No one could afford to pay the interest on an expensive house. Today, with low interest rates, it's made the value of homes artificially high.

Let's face it, the world that this generation is inheriting has been really mucked up by their grandparents and it's being further mucked up by their parents.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Aloonatic on 10/1/2011 6:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, and wordsworm below.

One thing to mention though, is that there are a lot of kids who are working really really hard, and have not given up. They know that they are not going to inherit a golden future as many of our post war forebears did. They are not going to be growing up in an all powerful west who had almost complete dominance over the worlds resources and competed only within their own boarders.

Now they have to compete globally, and many have stepped up. Of course, we don't hear about those kids too much. We hear about the lazy kids as news broadcasting = bad news/negativity broadcasting.

However, with the weight of a massive legacy of debt, highly competitive jobs market, little chance of buying a home unless they are in a very well paid job, ditto for saving for any kind of retirement (let alone early retirement) and everything else, is it any wonder that many kids have given up?

They days when you could be guaranteed a good life because you lived in the west are gone.

Example. When I was a student (late 90s) I worked in a factory along side a a friend's father. We were doing exactly the same job on a production line, not skilled at all. He was being paid £40,000+ a year, had private health insurance, a great pension plan, lots of holiday entitlement (above statutory minimums) and retired at 55 to live in his nice detached home, with large gardens, big car, 2 kids and a wife who never worked a day in her life. I was paid £6 ph and new people being taken on full time were not being paid much more for doing exactly the same thing.

To live that sort of life now. To buy the house, to have the holidays, pension, healthcare, have a wife (or husband) who stays at home and takes care of your kids so that you can actually spend quality time with them at the end of the day, without both of you being at work and then having t do house-hold tasks, shopping, DIY at the end of the day, and retire early... You'd probably need to have a very good (and now expensive) degree and then get a very good job too, the likes of which there are not many of.

If the older generation take take take and keep screwing over the next generation, what did they think would happen?

RE: Hey U.S.
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2011 3:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah most people in their 20s today care more about getting drunk and who won American Idol than planning for the future.

I had a girl at work get mad at me for pointing out publicly that her tires were bald (didn't know who's car it was so put out a general company-wide message). She had the attitude of "well if you have the money to replace them you're welcome to pay for them". A few weeks later she was talking about how she flew to Ohio (from Charleston so probably about $500-600) to go to an Ohio State game and party. My inner thoughts were "So you don't have $500 to replace your tires but you have around $700 to go back to Ohio to go to a football game?"

Nice girl but screwed up priorities.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know people like that. They will pay for expensive gadgets but won't pay for good food (good = healthy).

I myself and married and am working to buying a house. Would I like a really expensive computer and a tablet yes but I have bills to pay first.

RE: Hey U.S.
By gamerk2 on 9/30/2011 1:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, when you have a country that refuses to invest in itself, focusing on the good of business instead of the good of the people, what do you expect?

RE: Hey U.S.
By HPSwami on 9/30/2011 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
China focuses on the "good of the people"? China's progressing forward on the "backs of the people". It's because China is focused on the good of the business and not the good of the people that it currently affords their spectacular 'public projects'.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Iaiken on 9/30/2011 2:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
His point holds water if you think about it...

China = Quantity over quality.

Even with only 18% of students from China enrolling in higher education at home and abroad, the number of Chinese students enrolled in higher education totals out to over 20 million per year. The United States has only 14 million students per year, this despite its higher percentage (59%) of students going on to enrol in higher education. To hit the same level of gross enrolment, the United States would need 85% of all students. If the Chinese had a similar percentage enrolment into higher education, they would have 65 million university students per year.

But the real point you miss is that the way things are done in china is that 80% of people live in utter poverty and squalor so that around 18% can make an equivalent living to that of the American middle class and the remaining 2% can live lives of lavish luxury.

RE: Hey U.S.
By gamerk2 on 9/30/2011 2:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, I was commenting on the OP's comment about hte decline of the US; I didn't even mention China.

Secondly, it is worth noting that conditions in China are at least improving, unlike here in the US. They have a very long way to go, but the fact they have a middle class at all is a major improvment.

Thirdly, I mearly pointed out that the economy is Demand first, not supply first. Therefor every single economic model in Congress is hopelessly flawed. EVen the much debated Stimulus was rooted in Supply-Side economic principles and not Keynesian theory.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2011 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thirdly, I mearly pointed out that the economy is Demand first, not supply first. Therefor every single economic model in Congress is hopelessly flawed. EVen the much debated Stimulus was rooted in Supply-Side economic principles and not Keynesian theory.

That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

1. Obama IS a Keynesian. The theory that's never actually worked EVER.

2. Stimulus supply side? Supply side economics doesn't even apply to it. In fact the stimulus was the direct opposite of it. Where do you think Obama got the money for the stimulus? His petty cash drawer?

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is the gov't gave all these money but no one wanted to spend in fear the economy would get worse.

Reminds me of the South Park episode.

RE: Hey U.S.
By wiz220 on 9/30/2011 6:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The stimulus bills (the first one and the newly proposed one) contained a great deal of tax cuts. The idea being that more money given to the suppliers of goods and services will mean more jobs and a better economic outlook. This seems like supply side economics to me.

Warren Buffet himself said it right, things won't improve and companies won't hire until there is increased demand for goods and services. The only way to do that in a sustainable manner is from the bottom up, not the top down. Otherwise you're just trying to push a rope.

RE: Hey U.S.
By wiz220 on 9/30/2011 6:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't familiar with Keynesian theory so I read up a little bit. One thing from Wikipedia stuck out:

Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes

I must say, the financial crisis seems like a pretty good example of this. Financial institutions made poor choices and it caused large macroeconomic problems on a global scale. I agree with you that the rest of the theory of using public policy (i.e. monetary policy etc.) doesn't work perfectly. It does seem, though, that this theory was born of necessity and a desire to attempt to end, or lessen the impact of, a boom-bust system that has been shown to exist with no regulation.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Ringold on 9/30/2011 8:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
a desire to attempt to end, or lessen the impact of, a boom-bust system that has been shown to exist with no regulation.

Thats the heart of it, along with a belief that the best way to stimulate a weak economy is via boosting demand rather than aiding supply.

The main problem with Keynesian policy, imo, is that pundits & politicians find it easy to find pet projects to stimulate demand with in bad times, but have a hard time taking the rest of Keynes advice: running a smaller government in a fiscal surplus during boom times. Once the leviathan starts spending, its hard to ever reverse course.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should Watch the hayek vs kenyes on youtube...
It'll probably registure with you finally.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Ringold on 9/30/2011 6:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
You said the economic models of congress are demand first, not supply first, but then say the stimulus they debate is supply-side. How can Congress be demand-first but create supply-first proposals?

I'm fearing you got your economic credentials from wikipedia and CNN, but I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, on another note, it's FAR easier for relatively poor countries (China, India, Brazil) to become middle income countries, though some times difficult for MIC's to progress to the US and Western Europe level of development ("The Middle Income Trap"). The fact that they grow quicker is in itself not an indication of problems in the West, though of course we know there are problems.

Final thing, about America's recent generations being lazy.. I think they've been misled growing up, too. Anyone paying attention to labor markets know that there are more engineering, medical and software jobs (of specific sorts) than can be filled, with vacancies having been open for years in some cases. There's just not enough qualified young people. They didnt seem to think they'd have to WORK for a living, so went to college for BS like History, English, Journalism, Psychology... And 10% unemployment is, along with older people who never updated their skills, the result. In economics circles, I've really heard no dissent over that conclusion, just a lot of hand-wringing over what can be done about it before civil society blows up.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Sazabi19 on 9/30/2011 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, please, tell me when has china put it's people 1st over business? Most of their people's living conditions are what did you say?

RE: Hey U.S.
By gamerk2 on 9/30/2011 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 1
When did I mention China?

I simply pointed out that with average household income declining [now down to an average income of ~$48k] and costs of living rising to all time highs, consumer spending will continue to drop off, lessening GDP over the long term.

Consumer spending, not business, drives the economy. Until Congress remembers this fact, the US will not have any significant long term economic growth.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Think this was meant for the comment below you.

RE: Hey U.S.
By JediJeb on 9/30/2011 4:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Consumer spending, not business, drives the economy. Until Congress remembers this fact, the US will not have any significant long term economic growth.

True, but if business is not doing well, they will not pay the consumers and in turn the consumers will not spend. Make it possible for businesses to pay more to their workers and they will spend more which in turn will give businesses more to pay their workers more and round and round it goes.

Problem is it goes both ways, restrict the funds of business by higher taxes and they will hire less workers or pay less, then the workers have less to spend so they spend less then the businesses have less so they will pay less and down and down it goes.

RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 4:43:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's where greed comes in.

Give more to business with expectations of more going to workers.

Business take money and charge customers more for increase profits while shipping jobs overseas.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Solandri on 9/30/2011 8:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how the other side argues the same thing: Offer money to people, and they'll take it even when they don't need it, while figuring out how to do less work. Everyone exhibits greed, not just business owners.

The key is modifying the end behaviors directly, rather than indirectly. If you don't want companies to ship jobs overseas*, then slap levies on goods imported for resale. If you want to encourage hiring, then offer incentives rewarded for new hirees. If you don't want people to abuse food stamps, then put strict enforced limits on who qualifies and how they're used.

*I'd argue keeping jobs from going overseas is actually a bad thing. Locally (within the U.S.) it's a good thing. But for the world overall (U.S. + whatever country the job gets shipped to), it's a bad thing. The endgame in all this is when wages, prices, and standard of living are more or less uniform throughout the world. Protectionist policies thwart that, and thus increase the amount of time it'll take for the world to arrive at a uniformly high standard of living.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 1:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
What an open ended statement... Does this pass as an intellectual argument?

RE: Hey U.S.
By MrTeal on 9/30/2011 11:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
The US is the top of the world, even when the Chinese send a space station into orbit they do it with America the Beautiful as background music.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/1/2011 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2

China matches an achievement we set over half a century ago. I mean some of you seem to be forgetting just how far ahead we are of the rest of the world. Just because China is starting to catch up to some of our ancient achievements doesn't mean all hope is lost.

We're in trouble, yeah, no doubt. But we have WAY more pressing issues than getting into a space race with another Communist nation all over again.

RE: Hey U.S.
By derricker on 10/1/2011 10:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is, China is going forward, US is going backwards.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2011 1:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah just look how advanced the Egyptians were for their time too! It's amazing what you can get accomplished with what amounts to slave labor.

We have problems and we're not perfect, but I'll take it over the alternatives. Go "work" for China's space program and tell me how it's going :)

RE: Hey U.S.
By PrinceGaz on 10/2/2011 4:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Go "work" for China's space program and tell me how it's going :)

If you've got the skills needed, probably a lot better than the USA's space programme, both in terms of funding and future projects.

RE: Hey U.S.
By derricker on 10/2/2011 9:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
So?? Your point is?? They are going forwards, and US is going backwards, in the long run you will end up being an slave yourself, or enjoying it like you do now with all those immigrants cleaning your toilets and all the others jobs you are now too lazy or too proud too do.

Still, this fact is so evident that you couldn't come up with anything else to refute that fact than some faint poison spurt, china is progressing and your country is regressing, enjoy the fun of belonging to a third world, country.

RE: Hey U.S.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2011 12:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
LOL you're funny.

The USSR was "progressing" too. We'll see just how long China gets before their predictable collapse.

So?? Your point is?? They are going forwards

Unless you're a complete backbirth, my point was obviously that China can do a lot when they only have to pay a 10'th of what it costs us to do. That doesn't mean it's something to envy, however.

RE: Hey U.S.
By vittek4 on 10/3/2011 8:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
The USSR was "progressing" too.

No duh. This would really mean something if there was a U.S.S.R.

This is Russia now, baby. Live in the future!!!

RE: Hey U.S.
By vittek4 on 10/3/2011 8:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing what you can get accomplished with what amounts to slave labor.

Gee. Then what was Abe doing in OUR timeline? The egyptians really could have used him. Then again, maybe the death would be quicker.

RE: Hey U.S.
By vittek4 on 10/3/2011 8:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is , China is going forward, the US is going backwards.

Naw. I thought we cleared that up a million years ago. The year that republicans, Chinese, and Lesbians gave up.

American....Not American't
By bottle23 on 9/30/2011 6:57:35 PM , Rating: 4
I am but an Aussie guy looking from the outside.

What is currently wrong with America?

(1) Lack of genuine, active leadership.

=> You folks need to wise up. Hoping and praying for the next Presidential candidate to fix the problem isn't the solution. You have to rise up at a grass roots level. No, don't be militant. Start small and go back to the principles you have forgotten. Might I suggest the books by W. Edwards Deming. (There is an entry about him in wikipedia to give you an overview.) ...Deming is the guy who's principles were used to form the basis of the Japanese automotive industry. Its quite effective in the long term. The focus is about quality and never ending improvement. You don't blame or excuse. You face problems head-on with honesty. You don't fire people (unless they break the law like fraud), you re-train those to a quality level. No hype. No BS motivational posters that doesn't mean anything. Its about establishing pride of one's work.

Business shouldn't be considered as "Its about making money". Its supposed to be about providing a quality service or product. People should be proud in what they created. ("I made that!") ...The money part is the reward for providing good quality. Businesses should also be sensitive about the community it resides in. (Businesses are also about people!)

(2) Turn off the TV...And read more.

=> The content of your media outlets don't help you or the country. Its endless gossip, reality TV, and other nonsense. At the minimum, learn to be selective in what you watch. (Yes, you have to be picky even on the Discovery Channel as some of their content has reality TV fever.) ...Each of you should also start a library. The objective is to be a serious student of life. To develop wisdom. Never be a blind follower. Ignorance isn't bliss. Its tragic and often results in you getting the short end of the stick.

(3) Education System...

=> From what I gather, your curriculum isn't standardised at the state level. (It seems to differ from town to town.) ...If you want the country to get better, you need to change how the younger generation is educated. Focus on quality education where the teacher leads the student in wanting to learn. Teachers should be rewarded for improving their skills. The key is better quality teachers...It isn't class size or lowering quality of education such that "no kids are left behind". You want the kids to learn by their own initiative.

(4) Re-establishing the manufacturing sector. But focus on high-tech and value added solutions.

=> Your culture seems to play down science, engineering, and the core essence of manufacturing. It seems like its viewed as not being very glamorous. Unfortunately, without a manufacturing sector, you'll kill the middle class. The bulk of the population of the country! You kill its associated links like R&D and Retail industries. Being famous isn't going to help the country. What will turn this country back is putting a price on Carbon emissions and using the money to establish the renewable energy sector and manufacturing. Provide companies the incentive to invest back into America. (See Germany as the example to follow. Their big companies are dropping nuclear power development and re-focusing on improving efficiencies of turbine and solar technology. Its up to the point where such a change doesn't harm their business!)

(5) Greed.

=> China won't be able to destroy America. It will be greedy Americans that will do the job. In fact, China needs America as America needs China. If America goes down, the whole World will be dragged into the disaster. That's just how it is. We're actually all connected in this way. The folks that started the GFC is a clear warning sign that you need to go back to core principles of integrity and character. No, you don't have to be religious, chanting fire and brimstone. (While I'm not religious myself, I see the Bible as a book of examples of what happens if you break some fundamental rules. I mentally remove the "spooky" or "miracle" related tones...I break it down to 'If you do this, you're gonna face this problem.') ...You don't have to be a Ned Flanders. But you have to change your ways.

(6) Impatience and short-term thinking.

=> The I WANT IT NOW! syndrome seems to be a characteristic of most Americans. This very same short-term thinking is also causing your businesses to focus on shareholder value every quarter...That isn't healthy. You need to learn to develop patience, discipline, and long term thinking. We're talking setting up 10 yr plans. (This is how the Chinese think.)

You have a choice: Either face the pain of self-discipline and change on your own accord OR face the pain of regret as the country falls behind others.

Personally, one of the best things about America is your ability to come up stuff that no one has really thought of. In recent times, you've lost your way. Its drifting too far. You as the American people need to steer the ship back. There is still time. It isn't over until its over. You are Ameri can s. Not Ameri can't s. The decision and responsibility is all up to you. It is your future. You decide...You better decide now.

By TerranMagistrate on 10/1/2011 5:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
There's no point. Everything has been invented already; that fellow at the patent office said so a few years back.

Why the worry?
By delphinus100 on 10/1/2011 12:42:38 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, this is a cool and significant thing...for China.

The Russians have done automated dockings since 1968, and that's what China is about to do. (Cosmos 186 and 188). The US may or may not be on the decline, but this hardly proves it.

Or did you forget that we've had an operational space station for some years now? Or that the Soviets/Russians have gone through multiple iterations of them, without dominating the world.

By roastmules on 9/30/2011 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
I bet it's a spy satellite...

By WinstonSmith on 10/1/2011 10:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
Great. Now they can waste their money on Spam in a can looking for a mission in orbit.

Manned spaceflight should give way to AI and robotics. That's much cheaper thereby allowing many more missions for the same budget while it actually develops technologies very useful on Earth, unlike multi-million dollar zero-G toilets.

By Phoque on 10/2/2011 6:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
Why exactly? Protect technologies? Did you really doubted China would get there eventually?

What a great mistake on the US part that China is sure to remember.

By fteoath64 on 10/3/2011 6:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure classified military launches are not exempted, so they would not want much attention. Besides, what China is doing has been done decades ago by Russia and US. If China can afford to BURN money on orbital research, no one is going to stop them.

By voodoochile123 on 10/3/2011 10:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Firefly is already starting to come true.

By larkforsure on 10/1/2011 2:28:34 AM , Rating: 1

[ Review ] How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media

IBM Advised to Treat its People with Humanism in China

Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China

Scandal stricken IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennial

To the US citizens...
By hose11 on 9/30/11, Rating: 0
"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki