"The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic"

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

1) I can't imagine why the federal government would need to be in the genome project when it is so expensive. We're BROKE!
2) Is that the same CDC which drug it's feet warning the public of an AIDS tainted blood supply, leading to many unnecessary AIDS infections? Or maybe I've got my agencies mixed up.

The Genome project was an investment. That's very different from spending money on wasting assets. One is justified in borrowing money for investment when the return is greater than the cost, including interest.

In the case of the Genome project, the return has already been hugely greater than the 1 billion cost (I didn't look up the actual cost, that was the original estimate in the 1970s.). When the project was first proposed there were many that said it was a waste of money, and others said it wasn't doable with the technology then in existence. The first group was proven wrong, and the second group, while correct, failed to see how the project itself would push the technology along.

In every generation their are only a few visionaries, the rest of us are followers. We tend to be risk adverse by nature.

The CDC plays a hugely important role in monitoring, disease prevention, and other important functions. Go to their website if you're interested in what they do. Their was a problem with HIV contaminated blood. I don't recall the details. It was years ago. But everything is on the internet these days!

 

[Ricter]

We've been "broke" since 1835.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

It's interesting that the government bailed out many businesses, which would have otherwise failed, yet now those businesses have restructured and returned to profitability. So are bailouts a good thing (business model improved, profits return), or are bailouts a bad thing (violate the laissez fairey purity principle)?

Bailouts are a bad thing. There may be some businesses that returned to profitability after a bailout, but there are many that did not. The government has no business in picking and choosing what companies fail and what ones do not. That is for the free market to decide.

Bailing out GM, for example, did nothing but shift burden to the taxpayers. If GM were allowed to restructure through normal bankruptcy channels, it could have returned to profitability as well, without the taxpayer bill.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Bailouts are a bad thing. There may be some businesses that returned to profitability after a bailout, but there are many that did not. The government has no business in picking and choosing what companies fail and what ones do not. That is for the free market to decide.

Worse yet.

American tax payers bailed out GM... their company, workers, pension plans. So, what did GM do? They passed up the chance to employ American workers and BUILT CAR FACTORIES IN 4 FOREIGN COUNTRIES ON THE TAX PAYER'S DIME!

How's THAT for gratitude??

Shame on GM. Shame on Odumbo, his Administration, and Congress!!

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Bailouts are a bad thing. There may be some businesses that returned to profitability after a bailout, but there are many that did not. The government has no business in picking and choosing what companies fail and what ones do not. That is for the free market to decide.

Bailing out GM, for example, did nothing but shift burden to the taxpayers. If GM were allowed to restructure through normal bankruptcy channels, it could have returned to profitability as well, without the taxpayer bill.

Probably GM could have restructured that way, but it took a crisis to bring them to it. And by then there wasn't time for it. But in the end, last I heard, the government made money from that "investment". Not that all the others worked out so well.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Probably GM could have restructured that way, but it took a crisis to bring them to it. And by then there wasn't time for it. But in the end, last I heard, the government made money from that "investment". Not that all the others worked out so well.

I don't understand the "wasn't time for it". The point of Chapter 11/13 is for creditors to be held off until restructuring can run through BK court. That's what would have happened if it was allowed to do so. The problem is the pols were beholden to union buddies, and knew that BK would probably have invalidated their contracts.

As for making money, I wasn't sure, so I googled it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/19/gm-stock-treasury-buyback/1779191/

That claims the government lost money, and quite a lot of it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

...In the case of the Genome project, the return has already been hugely greater than the 1 billion cost (I didn't look up the actual cost, that was the original estimate in the 1970s.). When the project was first proposed there were many that said it was a waste of money, and others said it wasn't doable with the technology then in existence. The first group was proven wrong, and the second group, while correct, failed to see how the project itself would push the technology along.

You want me to believe an estimate from the 70's as the true cost?
With our governments history of cost overruns?

What was/is the true cost AND what has the benefit been measured in US dollars?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:
Registered: Aug 2004
We've been "broke" since 1835.

NO moron, but you've apparently been drunk since at least August 2004.

 

[piezoe]

In each case, when the government bailed out a private company or bank, either the government bought assets, required collateral, or received an equity stake in exchange for credit. It a fair argument that the government has no business picking and choosing what businesses should fail and what should be rescued. There are also reasonable arguments on the other side. I don't see it as a cut and dried issue the way some do.

There was always someone estimating what would happen if the government did not step in. It was a sort of cost benefit analysis done. In each case there were those who argued that the eventual cost to the government -- welfare, unemployment benefits, lost tax revenues, etc. would outweigh the cost and risk to the government of stepping in. With out all the data in front of you it is very difficult to make a sound determination, and very easy to second guess..

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

You want me to believe an estimate from the 70's as the true cost?
With our governments history of cost overruns?

What was/is the true cost AND what has the benefit been measured in US dollars?

http://www.genome.gov/11006943
In the 1970s the project was, when first proposed, estimated to cost around 1 billion, with inflation, 15 years later, when the project really got of the ground in a big way, the estimate of total cost had grown to approximately 3 billion. It came in at just under that at about 2.7 billion in 1991 dollars , enough to buy twenty new fighter aircraft.

Or looked at it another way, we would have to squeak by with only 2480 new F-35s instead of 2500 if we diverted enough from the fighter project to fund the genome program. (actually Its a few more fighters than 20 because I did not do the calculation in constant 1991 dollars.)

The reason this project took so long from first inception was that at the beginning, none of the rapid sequencing methods that would be essential if the project were to be completed in a human lifetime, had been invented. Thus there was a long induction period while these methods were developed with NIH support.

Lucrum, all of this information is available to you via google. I don't know why I bother to look it up for you. I'm just your slave, I guess.

The total benefits are incalculable, of course. But obviously, they are incredibly large. See the above link for ideas..