It’s hard to think clearly about our government debt problem: the national debt, the annual budget deficit and future entitlement obligations. On the one hand, the debt problem is so unbelievably huge that we can’t even get our mind around a problem so big. On the other hand, it is not something that we “feel” in any sense in our day to day lives, so we don’t really have to think about it. This write-up is an attempt to reconcile those two different impulses.
First, to quantify it: At the time of this writing (10:00 p.m. on September 25, 2010) the national debt is $13.507 trillion dollars according to usdebtclock.org. If you are reading this note tomorrow it will be more. This number is increasing a little over $100 billion per month, which is about the run rate of the annual budget deficit of $1.360 trillion. This debt comes to $43,524 per citizen, so our family of four has a $174k share. This is a bit worse than it sounds, since many families of four could handle an additional $174k debt, but we have to remember that the analogy is imperfect, since this $174 k has to be paid out from our taxes, not from our salaries.
To put it a different way, the government’s annual revenue is $2.132 trillion, so the debt is six times revenue, and the deficit is 60% above revenue. The comparable analogy would be if a family with $100,000 annual income was spending $160,000 annually and was $600,000 in debt. But it’s here that analogies break down. Any family in a situation like that just described would be in great distress and probably bankrupt, but for the U.S. government, it’s not like that at all. Let’s presume that our debt-ridden family could continue to borrow at interest rates averaging around 2%, and had an unlimited line of credit to continue to borrow all it needed to fund its additional spending. Of course that could never happen for a normal family, but that is exactly the situation with the government.
This is the reason that we don’t “feel” the debt problem. It is not hurting us at all, since we can borrow all we need, and interest rates are so low that interest payments are not killing us. Interest payments are 15% of revenues, but no one is giving us any grief about borrowing all we need to cover those payments. Now I realize the debt is hurting us a little in indirect ways: sometimes a worthwhile program doesn’t get funded due to a surge in concern over the deficit, and economists are concerned that government borrowing has a certain crowding out affect that may restrict some private borrowing. However, for the most part, the economy continues just fine and we don’t really feel the debt.
The problem is that this process cannot continue indefinitely. It is a mathematical certainty. Eventually, we would soak up all the savings in the world and there would be nothing left to borrow. Or if interest rates increase, our interest payments will exceed our ability to borrow to cover them. Of course, it will never get quite that far. More likely is something akin to what happened to Greece this spring, when their interest rates rose to 20% suddenly, they had bills come due, and they couldn’t pay, so they got bailed out. We will not get bailed out because we are too big and no one can do it. Suddenly, we will have to live within our means, and when that happens, the pain will be almost unimaginable. All government programs would need to be cut about in half, including the entitlements like social security. It’s possible that this will occur along with inflation (though I don’t see inflation on the horizon yet), but the effect will be the same; inflation will just warp the way money gets distributed, with some people hurt more and others less.
Some folks have written that our debt situation is even worse, because they look at U.S. government commitments to make payments on programs in the future. For example, in 2030 Medicare will cost a bunch more money. I have chosen not to factor that into this analysis. If the government can’t pay somebody a promised benefit in 2030, it just won’t. They’ll change the law so that they don’t have to.
One final note – I believe the crunch will hit Japan before it hits the U.S. Their debt situation is worse than ours. They have been able to get away with it for a long time because they initially had a high national savings rate and they were able to export into a booming global economy. Neither of those factors is really in play any more, their debt is worse than ours, and their demographics are worse too. Japan will also be too big to bail out. There are other European nations that may be up to bat before Japan in the national debt baseball game, but I doubt the game will go on for too terribly much longer – it won’t be years and years.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The U.S. National Debt
It’s hard to think clearly about our government debt problem: the national debt, the annual budget deficit and future entitlement obligations. On the one hand, the debt problem is so unbelievably huge that we can’t even get our mind around a problem so big. On the other hand, it is not something that we “feel” in any sense in our day to day lives, so we don’t really have to think about it. This write-up is an attempt to reconcile those two different impulses.
First, to quantify it: At the time of this writing (10:00 p.m. on September 25, 2010) the national debt is $13.507 trillion dollars according to usdebtclock.org. If you are reading this note tomorrow it will be more. This number is increasing a little over $100 billion per month, which is about the run rate of the annual budget deficit of $1.360 trillion. This debt comes to $43,524 per citizen, so our family of four has a $174k share. This is a bit worse than it sounds, since many families of four could handle an additional $174k debt, but we have to remember that the analogy is imperfect, since this $174 k has to be paid out from our taxes, not from our salaries.
To put it a different way, the government’s annual revenue is $2.132 trillion, so the debt is six times revenue, and the deficit is 60% above revenue. The comparable analogy would be if a family with $100,000 annual income was spending $160,000 annually and was $600,000 in debt. But it’s here that analogies break down. Any family in a situation like that just described would be in great distress and probably bankrupt, but for the U.S. government, it’s not like that at all. Let’s presume that our debt-ridden family could continue to borrow at interest rates averaging around 2%, and had an unlimited line of credit to continue to borrow all it needed to fund its additional spending. Of course that could never happen for a normal family, but that is exactly the situation with the government.
This is the reason that we don’t “feel” the debt problem. It is not hurting us at all, since we can borrow all we need, and interest rates are so low that interest payments are not killing us. Interest payments are 15% of revenues, but no one is giving us any grief about borrowing all we need to cover those payments. Now I realize the debt is hurting us a little in indirect ways: sometimes a worthwhile program doesn’t get funded due to a surge in concern over the deficit, and economists are concerned that government borrowing has a certain crowding out affect that may restrict some private borrowing. However, for the most part, the economy continues just fine and we don’t really feel the debt.
The problem is that this process cannot continue indefinitely. It is a mathematical certainty. Eventually, we would soak up all the savings in the world and there would be nothing left to borrow. Or if interest rates increase, our interest payments will exceed our ability to borrow to cover them. Of course, it will never get quite that far. More likely is something akin to what happened to Greece this spring, when their interest rates rose to 20% suddenly, they had bills come due, and they couldn’t pay, so they got bailed out. We will not get bailed out because we are too big and no one can do it. Suddenly, we will have to live within our means, and when that happens, the pain will be almost unimaginable. All government programs would need to be cut about in half, including the entitlements like social security. It’s possible that this will occur along with inflation (though I don’t see inflation on the horizon yet), but the effect will be the same; inflation will just warp the way money gets distributed, with some people hurt more and others less.
Some folks have written that our debt situation is even worse, because they look at U.S. government commitments to make payments on programs in the future. For example, in 2030 Medicare will cost a bunch more money. I have chosen not to factor that into this analysis. If the government can’t pay somebody a promised benefit in 2030, it just won’t. They’ll change the law so that they don’t have to.
One final note – I believe the crunch will hit Japan before it hits the U.S. Their debt situation is worse than ours. They have been able to get away with it for a long time because they initially had a high national savings rate and they were able to export into a booming global economy. Neither of those factors is really in play any more, their debt is worse than ours, and their demographics are worse too. Japan will also be too big to bail out. There are other European nations that may be up to bat before Japan in the national debt baseball game, but I doubt the game will go on for too terribly much longer – it won’t be years and years.
First, to quantify it: At the time of this writing (10:00 p.m. on September 25, 2010) the national debt is $13.507 trillion dollars according to usdebtclock.org. If you are reading this note tomorrow it will be more. This number is increasing a little over $100 billion per month, which is about the run rate of the annual budget deficit of $1.360 trillion. This debt comes to $43,524 per citizen, so our family of four has a $174k share. This is a bit worse than it sounds, since many families of four could handle an additional $174k debt, but we have to remember that the analogy is imperfect, since this $174 k has to be paid out from our taxes, not from our salaries.
To put it a different way, the government’s annual revenue is $2.132 trillion, so the debt is six times revenue, and the deficit is 60% above revenue. The comparable analogy would be if a family with $100,000 annual income was spending $160,000 annually and was $600,000 in debt. But it’s here that analogies break down. Any family in a situation like that just described would be in great distress and probably bankrupt, but for the U.S. government, it’s not like that at all. Let’s presume that our debt-ridden family could continue to borrow at interest rates averaging around 2%, and had an unlimited line of credit to continue to borrow all it needed to fund its additional spending. Of course that could never happen for a normal family, but that is exactly the situation with the government.
This is the reason that we don’t “feel” the debt problem. It is not hurting us at all, since we can borrow all we need, and interest rates are so low that interest payments are not killing us. Interest payments are 15% of revenues, but no one is giving us any grief about borrowing all we need to cover those payments. Now I realize the debt is hurting us a little in indirect ways: sometimes a worthwhile program doesn’t get funded due to a surge in concern over the deficit, and economists are concerned that government borrowing has a certain crowding out affect that may restrict some private borrowing. However, for the most part, the economy continues just fine and we don’t really feel the debt.
The problem is that this process cannot continue indefinitely. It is a mathematical certainty. Eventually, we would soak up all the savings in the world and there would be nothing left to borrow. Or if interest rates increase, our interest payments will exceed our ability to borrow to cover them. Of course, it will never get quite that far. More likely is something akin to what happened to Greece this spring, when their interest rates rose to 20% suddenly, they had bills come due, and they couldn’t pay, so they got bailed out. We will not get bailed out because we are too big and no one can do it. Suddenly, we will have to live within our means, and when that happens, the pain will be almost unimaginable. All government programs would need to be cut about in half, including the entitlements like social security. It’s possible that this will occur along with inflation (though I don’t see inflation on the horizon yet), but the effect will be the same; inflation will just warp the way money gets distributed, with some people hurt more and others less.
Some folks have written that our debt situation is even worse, because they look at U.S. government commitments to make payments on programs in the future. For example, in 2030 Medicare will cost a bunch more money. I have chosen not to factor that into this analysis. If the government can’t pay somebody a promised benefit in 2030, it just won’t. They’ll change the law so that they don’t have to.
One final note – I believe the crunch will hit Japan before it hits the U.S. Their debt situation is worse than ours. They have been able to get away with it for a long time because they initially had a high national savings rate and they were able to export into a booming global economy. Neither of those factors is really in play any more, their debt is worse than ours, and their demographics are worse too. Japan will also be too big to bail out. There are other European nations that may be up to bat before Japan in the national debt baseball game, but I doubt the game will go on for too terribly much longer – it won’t be years and years.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Increasing Oil Spill Rates
I’ve seen a bit of angst over the fact that the government and BP keep increasing their estimates of how much oil is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. Hardly mentioned is the fact that the earlier lower estimates may have been correct, and that the current, higher estimates are also correct. This is to be expected.
The pressure at the spew point is about 12,000 psi – very high. When the spew started, the rate at which it spewed was constrained by some choke point – I don’t know exactly where that was, but of course there would be a choke point somewhere in the system. But with oil, sediment, sand and seawater speeding through the choke point, rapid erosion would occur, even if the choke point was made of steel. The erosion would broaden the choke point to allow an even faster rate of spew. This will continue to increase until the choke point is very broad and the pressure decreases a lot, or until they fix the problem in some fashion (capping it, relief wells, etc.) At that point most of the oil in the reservoir will be in the Gulf, unfortunately.
What I don’t understand is why the government and BP haven’t bothered to explain what I just said. It detracts from their credibility for them to keep upping their estimates of the spew rate without explaining why.
The pressure at the spew point is about 12,000 psi – very high. When the spew started, the rate at which it spewed was constrained by some choke point – I don’t know exactly where that was, but of course there would be a choke point somewhere in the system. But with oil, sediment, sand and seawater speeding through the choke point, rapid erosion would occur, even if the choke point was made of steel. The erosion would broaden the choke point to allow an even faster rate of spew. This will continue to increase until the choke point is very broad and the pressure decreases a lot, or until they fix the problem in some fashion (capping it, relief wells, etc.) At that point most of the oil in the reservoir will be in the Gulf, unfortunately.
What I don’t understand is why the government and BP haven’t bothered to explain what I just said. It detracts from their credibility for them to keep upping their estimates of the spew rate without explaining why.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Economic Thoughts
Synopsis of this article: Despite what almost everyone thinks, we do not really have a paper money system in the United States. This fact has implications for our economic future. I don’t think we will have any inflation in the short to middle term future. Part of the reason I am writing this article is that my thinking has changed over the last two years. I used to be pretty sure we would eventually have inflation and maybe even hyperinflation. I don’t think so any more. It is possible that we still might, but the government would first have to act in a totally different manner than what they do now in order to make that happen.
Economists of all persuasions talk as if the U.S. has a paper money system. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said “the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.” [Speech at the National Economist’s Club, Washington, D.C., November 21, 2002] Economists who wish the U.S. had maintained the gold standard bemoan our paper currency, and think tanks like STRATFOR discuss the consequences of the U.S. “printing money.” The context of the discussion of paper money usually involves the idea that if we print too much money we will trigger inflation.
The problem is that we really don’t do this any more. In the past, say in the Civil War, the Union was short on money and began printing “greenbacks”, a paper dollar in addition to the use of gold and silver coins. Greenbacks were printed at the Treasury and paid directly into the hands of Union soldiers. This caused an increase in the money supply and inflation, even though the greenbacks were nominally tied to the value of gold. At the same time, the Confederate States lacked a gold supply and printed even more money, leading to much worse inflation. This really was a paper money system, and money really was created by use of a printing press. The Weimar Republic in Germany did the same thing. Many similar examples have occurred in U.S. and international history. But this is in the past; it doesn’t work like this any more (except for a few out of the way exceptions, like Zimbabwe). People talk about Ben Bernanke tossing money out of a helicopter, but he doesn’t do this. If he did it would be inflationary, but he doesn’t and so the analogy is flawed.
We might get a clue that our money is not paper-based by our own experience. In our recent family vacation to Florida, we spent about $2000 on plane fare, hotel, rental car, food and various fees, yet the amount of greenbacks we used was less than $10. All our other expenses were handled electronically. Furthermore, the money used was never really paper. It came out of a bank account, and I did not put green paper in the bank account. That was done electronically too. The total money supply in the U.S. is now more than ten times the total of all the green paper dollars that exist. The money supply isn’t really paper any more, it is electronic. The paper is just used as a temporary substitute to handle local transactions, especially in places where they can’t takes checks or don’t have card readers (like the coke machine).
Still, what we use for transactions (paper or electronic) is not as important to the economy as how money is created and destroyed. It is not done with a printing press -dollars from the printing press are just exchanged at a bank for electronic dollars to use as convenient small change. Money today is created by fractional reserve lending. See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation for a description if not familiar with the concept. The short version is that the Fed loans money out to banks which in turn loan out even more than they borrowed from the Fed, “creating” money. Since all economists know this, it is a bit strange that they still talk in terms of “printing money.”
Fractional reserve lending in most times has the power to significantly increase the money supply and lead to inflation. Can you imagine if interest rates in the 1980’s dropped to 1%? Everyone in the country would have borrowed money like crazy for all kinds of ventures, purchases, businesses, investments, etc.
However, I believe when debt beast gets too scary, fractional reserve lending and quantitative easing will not succeed in increasing the money supply, because commercial bank loans will just not be made. For example, when a middle class guy is a million dollars in debt and can’t make his payments, he is not going to borrow more money even if interest rates are less than 1%, because he knows he can’t afford it. Even if the guy thinks he can afford it, no commercial bank will lend to him at any interest rate because the bank knows he will not pay them back. Now it’s hard to pinpoint the exact level in an economy where this happens, but I think we are already there. The whole economy isn’t there of course; a bank can borrow at 1% and loan to IBM or AT&T for one year at 5% and still make a profit, but for most of the economy, it is no longer possible to expand the money supply with fractional lending.
Last March the Fed began a major operation of “Quantitative Easing,” in which they bought long term government bonds and also mortgage instruments, probably causing a reduction in long term interest and mortgage rates. They have now stopped after buying a little over a trillion dollars of such debt. However, this is still just an additional form of lending – just of a type the Fed had not done before. Therefore, for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph I don’t think it will increase the money supply either. The guy in California who owes $600,000 on a house that he is trying to sell for $400,000 is not going to borrow money to buy a new home for $700,000 regardless of how low the Fed caused the mortgage interest rates to go.
Finally, the fact that the government is running a huge deficit is no longer inflationary either. The Treasury is not creating money. They are just spending money that is either (1) collected in taxes, or (2) Borrowed when they sell treasury bills or bonds. Eventually, the market will doubt our ability to pay it back, and our interest rates will go up, like what has happened in Greece. But that will not be inflationary either.
The bottom line is that since we don’t really have a paper money system, we are not in our current environment going to have significant inflation. We might even have deflation until the level of total debt in our country comes down to a much lower level.
Economists of all persuasions talk as if the U.S. has a paper money system. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said “the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.” [Speech at the National Economist’s Club, Washington, D.C., November 21, 2002] Economists who wish the U.S. had maintained the gold standard bemoan our paper currency, and think tanks like STRATFOR discuss the consequences of the U.S. “printing money.” The context of the discussion of paper money usually involves the idea that if we print too much money we will trigger inflation.
The problem is that we really don’t do this any more. In the past, say in the Civil War, the Union was short on money and began printing “greenbacks”, a paper dollar in addition to the use of gold and silver coins. Greenbacks were printed at the Treasury and paid directly into the hands of Union soldiers. This caused an increase in the money supply and inflation, even though the greenbacks were nominally tied to the value of gold. At the same time, the Confederate States lacked a gold supply and printed even more money, leading to much worse inflation. This really was a paper money system, and money really was created by use of a printing press. The Weimar Republic in Germany did the same thing. Many similar examples have occurred in U.S. and international history. But this is in the past; it doesn’t work like this any more (except for a few out of the way exceptions, like Zimbabwe). People talk about Ben Bernanke tossing money out of a helicopter, but he doesn’t do this. If he did it would be inflationary, but he doesn’t and so the analogy is flawed.
We might get a clue that our money is not paper-based by our own experience. In our recent family vacation to Florida, we spent about $2000 on plane fare, hotel, rental car, food and various fees, yet the amount of greenbacks we used was less than $10. All our other expenses were handled electronically. Furthermore, the money used was never really paper. It came out of a bank account, and I did not put green paper in the bank account. That was done electronically too. The total money supply in the U.S. is now more than ten times the total of all the green paper dollars that exist. The money supply isn’t really paper any more, it is electronic. The paper is just used as a temporary substitute to handle local transactions, especially in places where they can’t takes checks or don’t have card readers (like the coke machine).
Still, what we use for transactions (paper or electronic) is not as important to the economy as how money is created and destroyed. It is not done with a printing press -dollars from the printing press are just exchanged at a bank for electronic dollars to use as convenient small change. Money today is created by fractional reserve lending. See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation for a description if not familiar with the concept. The short version is that the Fed loans money out to banks which in turn loan out even more than they borrowed from the Fed, “creating” money. Since all economists know this, it is a bit strange that they still talk in terms of “printing money.”
Fractional reserve lending in most times has the power to significantly increase the money supply and lead to inflation. Can you imagine if interest rates in the 1980’s dropped to 1%? Everyone in the country would have borrowed money like crazy for all kinds of ventures, purchases, businesses, investments, etc.
However, I believe when debt beast gets too scary, fractional reserve lending and quantitative easing will not succeed in increasing the money supply, because commercial bank loans will just not be made. For example, when a middle class guy is a million dollars in debt and can’t make his payments, he is not going to borrow more money even if interest rates are less than 1%, because he knows he can’t afford it. Even if the guy thinks he can afford it, no commercial bank will lend to him at any interest rate because the bank knows he will not pay them back. Now it’s hard to pinpoint the exact level in an economy where this happens, but I think we are already there. The whole economy isn’t there of course; a bank can borrow at 1% and loan to IBM or AT&T for one year at 5% and still make a profit, but for most of the economy, it is no longer possible to expand the money supply with fractional lending.
Last March the Fed began a major operation of “Quantitative Easing,” in which they bought long term government bonds and also mortgage instruments, probably causing a reduction in long term interest and mortgage rates. They have now stopped after buying a little over a trillion dollars of such debt. However, this is still just an additional form of lending – just of a type the Fed had not done before. Therefore, for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph I don’t think it will increase the money supply either. The guy in California who owes $600,000 on a house that he is trying to sell for $400,000 is not going to borrow money to buy a new home for $700,000 regardless of how low the Fed caused the mortgage interest rates to go.
Finally, the fact that the government is running a huge deficit is no longer inflationary either. The Treasury is not creating money. They are just spending money that is either (1) collected in taxes, or (2) Borrowed when they sell treasury bills or bonds. Eventually, the market will doubt our ability to pay it back, and our interest rates will go up, like what has happened in Greece. But that will not be inflationary either.
The bottom line is that since we don’t really have a paper money system, we are not in our current environment going to have significant inflation. We might even have deflation until the level of total debt in our country comes down to a much lower level.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The End of the Manned Space Program?
February 1, 2010. Big disasters tend to hit the U.S. manned space program this time of year. On January 27, 1967, Apollo 1 was destroyed by fire during a pad test, killing the three astronauts inside. On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds into flight, killing the crew of seven astronauts. On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, killing its crew of seven. On February 1, 2010, the President released a budget which is likely to end the U.S. Manned Space Program.
The President’s budget cancels the Constellation Program, the NASA Program to build a new manned spacecraft that first services the International Space Station, then returns to the moon, then continues to Mars and beyond. The cancellation specifically includes elements such as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the Ares 1 launch vehicle, and the Ares 5 heavy launch vehicle. As justification, the Constellation Program’s critics assert that it is behind schedule and unlikely to meet its ambitious goals without a substantial budget increase. The President proposed to replace the Constellation Program with increased funding to NASA unmanned programs, commercial space initiatives, and extensive investment in new technology needed for future space exploration.
The Space Shuttle Program is scheduled to end later this year after the five remaining scheduled flights. It is too late to revive the Space Shuttle Program, as assembly lines for such items as solid rocket boosters have already been shut down. The Space Shuttle is a 30 year old program, and the Constellation Program was its logical successor.
With the end of the Shuttle Program and the cancellation of the Constellation Program, the only remaining active manned space program will be the International Space Station (ISS). The President proposes to extend the life of ISS until 2020, a reasonable goal. However, after the Shuttle stops flying, the only way for U.S. astronauts to get to or from ISS will be in Russian Soyuz capsules. The only way to bring supplies to ISS will be on Russian Progress vehicles, or less frequently, on Japanese HTV or European ATV vehicles. In other words, ISS may be a U.S. led effort, but the U.S. will no longer be able to get there without help from foreign countries. The Constellation Program would have eventually flown to ISS, but this will no longer be the case.
When the Shuttle stops flying, the U.S. will lose all leverage in managing ISS activities. We will have to go cap in hand to the Russians to beg for rides (they will charge us), and the Russians will call the shots. The absence of a heavy lift spacecraft may lead to maintenance problems on ISS. In addition, the end of the Shuttle and Constellation Programs will produce a NASA brain drain that may compound the problems. In short, we can hope that ISS will operate until 2020, but we will depend on good fortune and the kindness of strangers for it to do so.
Two private companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have contracts to build commercial vehicles to fly to ISS. These vehicles may be ready in several years. After that, they may be upgraded to carry humans to ISS. The President’s plan relies on rapid development of commercial space activities to fill the void left by the Constellation Program.
There are two drawbacks to the commercial space plan. The first drawback is that commercial businesses require a customer base. If ISS operations end, there will be no clear customer for Orbital, SpaceX, or any other commercial companies who wish to be involved in manned spaceflight. Even if ISS operations continue until 2020, those commercial businesses will only be able to rely on a customer for a short period of time – from whenever they are ready until 2020.
The second drawback to the commercial plan is more severe, and likely to be more important to those with a real interest in exploring space. It is unlikely that any commercial business will ever be able to develop a business plan that supports exploration of the solar system outside earth orbit. Companies build satellites because they are profitable, but at no time in the near future will a moon base or a Mars mission be profitable. Advocates of a commercial-only space program must realize that they are confining humanity to earth orbit for the indefinite future.
The largest new line items in the President’s budget involved research and development in three areas: (1) technology demonstration, including in-flight refueling and storage, (2) heavy lift and propulsion, and (3) robotic precursor missions. Such research and development is likely to be useful. However, research and development is more useful when it has a specific mission focus. Which was more useful, the 1804 Lewis and Clark expedition that explored the Louisiana Territory, or theoretical research into building better wagon wheels to enable exploration of the Louisiana Territory?
My six-year old son loves all things related to space, both fictional and real. He watches Stars Wars and Star Trek and asks when we can go to other stars like they do on those shows. I showed him videos of the Ares 1-x burn test and the Ares 1-x test launch. I explained that this was the first version of a rocket which would eventually take us to the outer solar system and then maybe, someday, beyond. I haven’t had the heart to tell him yet that we have decided not to go.
The President’s budget cancels the Constellation Program, the NASA Program to build a new manned spacecraft that first services the International Space Station, then returns to the moon, then continues to Mars and beyond. The cancellation specifically includes elements such as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the Ares 1 launch vehicle, and the Ares 5 heavy launch vehicle. As justification, the Constellation Program’s critics assert that it is behind schedule and unlikely to meet its ambitious goals without a substantial budget increase. The President proposed to replace the Constellation Program with increased funding to NASA unmanned programs, commercial space initiatives, and extensive investment in new technology needed for future space exploration.
The Space Shuttle Program is scheduled to end later this year after the five remaining scheduled flights. It is too late to revive the Space Shuttle Program, as assembly lines for such items as solid rocket boosters have already been shut down. The Space Shuttle is a 30 year old program, and the Constellation Program was its logical successor.
With the end of the Shuttle Program and the cancellation of the Constellation Program, the only remaining active manned space program will be the International Space Station (ISS). The President proposes to extend the life of ISS until 2020, a reasonable goal. However, after the Shuttle stops flying, the only way for U.S. astronauts to get to or from ISS will be in Russian Soyuz capsules. The only way to bring supplies to ISS will be on Russian Progress vehicles, or less frequently, on Japanese HTV or European ATV vehicles. In other words, ISS may be a U.S. led effort, but the U.S. will no longer be able to get there without help from foreign countries. The Constellation Program would have eventually flown to ISS, but this will no longer be the case.
When the Shuttle stops flying, the U.S. will lose all leverage in managing ISS activities. We will have to go cap in hand to the Russians to beg for rides (they will charge us), and the Russians will call the shots. The absence of a heavy lift spacecraft may lead to maintenance problems on ISS. In addition, the end of the Shuttle and Constellation Programs will produce a NASA brain drain that may compound the problems. In short, we can hope that ISS will operate until 2020, but we will depend on good fortune and the kindness of strangers for it to do so.
Two private companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have contracts to build commercial vehicles to fly to ISS. These vehicles may be ready in several years. After that, they may be upgraded to carry humans to ISS. The President’s plan relies on rapid development of commercial space activities to fill the void left by the Constellation Program.
There are two drawbacks to the commercial space plan. The first drawback is that commercial businesses require a customer base. If ISS operations end, there will be no clear customer for Orbital, SpaceX, or any other commercial companies who wish to be involved in manned spaceflight. Even if ISS operations continue until 2020, those commercial businesses will only be able to rely on a customer for a short period of time – from whenever they are ready until 2020.
The second drawback to the commercial plan is more severe, and likely to be more important to those with a real interest in exploring space. It is unlikely that any commercial business will ever be able to develop a business plan that supports exploration of the solar system outside earth orbit. Companies build satellites because they are profitable, but at no time in the near future will a moon base or a Mars mission be profitable. Advocates of a commercial-only space program must realize that they are confining humanity to earth orbit for the indefinite future.
The largest new line items in the President’s budget involved research and development in three areas: (1) technology demonstration, including in-flight refueling and storage, (2) heavy lift and propulsion, and (3) robotic precursor missions. Such research and development is likely to be useful. However, research and development is more useful when it has a specific mission focus. Which was more useful, the 1804 Lewis and Clark expedition that explored the Louisiana Territory, or theoretical research into building better wagon wheels to enable exploration of the Louisiana Territory?
My six-year old son loves all things related to space, both fictional and real. He watches Stars Wars and Star Trek and asks when we can go to other stars like they do on those shows. I showed him videos of the Ares 1-x burn test and the Ares 1-x test launch. I explained that this was the first version of a rocket which would eventually take us to the outer solar system and then maybe, someday, beyond. I haven’t had the heart to tell him yet that we have decided not to go.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
David - A Political Genius
David, the ancient king of Israel, the shepherd boy with the slingshot, was a political genius. Now the Bible says many things about David - about his faith, his career, his music and his scandals, but it never sets out to teach that David was a political genius. However, a careful reading of the story tells all we need to know to recognize that David may have been one of the most skillful politicians of all time.
Perhaps we should first evaluate David by the results. He began his life as the youngest son in a large non-royal family. When he was crowned king over Israel, they were so internally divided that he initially ruled over only one of the twelve tribes. Israel was militarily inferior to and largely dominated by the neighboring Philistines, due perhaps to the fact that the Philistines had mastered the use of iron and the Israelites had not (1 Sam 13:19-22). Yet by the midpoint of his forty year reign, David had united the kingdom and made it into a regional superpower. He vanquished the Philistines so thoroughly that they never again raised their head. He conquered and garrisoned the kingdoms on the east bank of the Jordan river from Edom to Damascus, and extended his political control all the way to the Euphrates river. He founded a dynasty that lasted either over four hundred years or forever, depending on how one measures it. Certainly, from a political standpoint, he would have to be considered a considerable success, at least. But what was it that made him a political genius?
One unusual characteristic of David has probably lurked in the back of many people's minds as a feature which was effective politically, even though politics is never portrayed as the motivation. That characteristic was David's magnanimity toward his political rivals. Before David became king, he twice passed up the chance to kill King Saul, even though these chances occurred when Saul was hunting David and trying to kill him. David's men encouraged David to kill Saul, but David was unwilling to do any harm to the "LORD's anointed." David showed favor to Abner, Saul's army commander, and to Mephibosheth, Saul's grandson, among others. David's behavior here was counter-cultural, as middle eastern despots, both ancient and modern, usually want to eliminate all their rivals. However, in this case, David's behavior had a unifying influence within his kingdom. And whether by coincidence, by example, or by cosmic justice, Judah lasted several hundred years before a Davidic king was ever assassinated by a fellow countryman.
Next, let us look at two unusual bits that appear in the story of David and Goliath. The first is the basic question of why David volunteered to fight Goliath at all. The Bible story does not say that God told David to fight Goliath. It is true to say that David was brave, but there surely were other brave men in the Israelite army too. None of them volunteered because they knew that they would lose to the nine foot six inch giant, no matter how brave they were. David volunteered because unlike the other brave men, he knew he would not lose. How did he know that? David had been anointed with the promise from God that he would be king over Israel by the prophet Samuel. David was not yet king, so he couldn't lose or the promise would not be fulfilled. David was able to see the implications of this promise and act on it.
The second unusual bit in the story of Goliath is that after David defeated Goliath, he cut off his head and took it to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54). Where? Jerusalem. Why did he do that? Jerusalem was not even an Israelite city. It was a Jebusite fortress city near David's home town of Bethlehem. This shows that David was thinking way, way ahead. David knew he would be king, and he had already figured out where his capital city should be (Israel did not have a stable capital at the time). After David became king, one of his first acts was to capture Jerusalem and make it his capital. The Jebusites living there thought they were so secure behind their 16 foot stone wall that the "blind and the lame" (2 Sam 5:6-9) could defend it, and indeed Jerusalem did go on to be a formidable fortress in antiquity. However, David already knew its weak point - he knew soldiers could get under the wall via a water shaft, and he directed his army to do so. I suspect that David learned of the water shaft when he was still a shepherd boy. The choice of Jerusalem was providential. Not belonging to any of the existing Israelite tribes, it served as a unifying point for the nation, and it went on to be perhaps the most famous city of all time.
While unifying the nation, David had to solve several military problems. Israel had generally been coming out badly in their continual conflict with the Philistines. Before he became king, David spent some time in the land of the Philistines. Perhaps there he learned some things. Certainly, the iron problem that had been an issue before David was never an issue afterward, though whether or not David did anything about that himself is not clear.
One military reform that David instituted was the introduction of shock troops. This was an early example of a sort of Praetorian Guard. David's shock troops included much of the band that followed him while he was on the run from Saul. It included an inner core of his thirty or so "mighty men", then expanded to include a group called the "Kerethites and the Pelethites" (2 Sam 8:18), a total of around 600 men. These men had their own commander, Benaiah, separate from the commander of the overall army, Joab. Some of these shock troops were not Israelites. These forces bailed David out of trouble during Absalom's rebellion. They were influential enough to control David's succession, giving the crown to Solomon as David wished rather than his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to claim it. It is probable that these shocked troops, by serving as a professional core for the Israelite army, raised the overall military prowess of the entire country.
David did not go looking for trouble internationally. He made an enduring and profitable alliance with Hiram, King of Tyre (2 Sam 5:11), though Tyre was not one of Israel's more formidable neighbors. David initially had an alliance with Ammon (2 Sam 10) until their king died and a hostile successor appeared. It is also true that despite David's magnanimity toward his political rivals, he understood the value of deterrence when dealing with potential enemies. By dealing in a harshly memorable fashion with some of his enemies (2 Sam 8:2), he made others afraid to confront him (2 Sam 10:19).
The Bible is a spiritual book and even when it records history, as in the history of David, it does so to teach a spiritual lesson. David is described as being a "man after God's own heart." When we realize how clever David was politically, it should tell us that there is nothing about living a spiritual life which means we have to be politically naive. In fact, doing the right thing, as David did, often turns out to be the best politics of all.
Perhaps we should first evaluate David by the results. He began his life as the youngest son in a large non-royal family. When he was crowned king over Israel, they were so internally divided that he initially ruled over only one of the twelve tribes. Israel was militarily inferior to and largely dominated by the neighboring Philistines, due perhaps to the fact that the Philistines had mastered the use of iron and the Israelites had not (1 Sam 13:19-22). Yet by the midpoint of his forty year reign, David had united the kingdom and made it into a regional superpower. He vanquished the Philistines so thoroughly that they never again raised their head. He conquered and garrisoned the kingdoms on the east bank of the Jordan river from Edom to Damascus, and extended his political control all the way to the Euphrates river. He founded a dynasty that lasted either over four hundred years or forever, depending on how one measures it. Certainly, from a political standpoint, he would have to be considered a considerable success, at least. But what was it that made him a political genius?
One unusual characteristic of David has probably lurked in the back of many people's minds as a feature which was effective politically, even though politics is never portrayed as the motivation. That characteristic was David's magnanimity toward his political rivals. Before David became king, he twice passed up the chance to kill King Saul, even though these chances occurred when Saul was hunting David and trying to kill him. David's men encouraged David to kill Saul, but David was unwilling to do any harm to the "LORD's anointed." David showed favor to Abner, Saul's army commander, and to Mephibosheth, Saul's grandson, among others. David's behavior here was counter-cultural, as middle eastern despots, both ancient and modern, usually want to eliminate all their rivals. However, in this case, David's behavior had a unifying influence within his kingdom. And whether by coincidence, by example, or by cosmic justice, Judah lasted several hundred years before a Davidic king was ever assassinated by a fellow countryman.
Next, let us look at two unusual bits that appear in the story of David and Goliath. The first is the basic question of why David volunteered to fight Goliath at all. The Bible story does not say that God told David to fight Goliath. It is true to say that David was brave, but there surely were other brave men in the Israelite army too. None of them volunteered because they knew that they would lose to the nine foot six inch giant, no matter how brave they were. David volunteered because unlike the other brave men, he knew he would not lose. How did he know that? David had been anointed with the promise from God that he would be king over Israel by the prophet Samuel. David was not yet king, so he couldn't lose or the promise would not be fulfilled. David was able to see the implications of this promise and act on it.
The second unusual bit in the story of Goliath is that after David defeated Goliath, he cut off his head and took it to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54). Where? Jerusalem. Why did he do that? Jerusalem was not even an Israelite city. It was a Jebusite fortress city near David's home town of Bethlehem. This shows that David was thinking way, way ahead. David knew he would be king, and he had already figured out where his capital city should be (Israel did not have a stable capital at the time). After David became king, one of his first acts was to capture Jerusalem and make it his capital. The Jebusites living there thought they were so secure behind their 16 foot stone wall that the "blind and the lame" (2 Sam 5:6-9) could defend it, and indeed Jerusalem did go on to be a formidable fortress in antiquity. However, David already knew its weak point - he knew soldiers could get under the wall via a water shaft, and he directed his army to do so. I suspect that David learned of the water shaft when he was still a shepherd boy. The choice of Jerusalem was providential. Not belonging to any of the existing Israelite tribes, it served as a unifying point for the nation, and it went on to be perhaps the most famous city of all time.
While unifying the nation, David had to solve several military problems. Israel had generally been coming out badly in their continual conflict with the Philistines. Before he became king, David spent some time in the land of the Philistines. Perhaps there he learned some things. Certainly, the iron problem that had been an issue before David was never an issue afterward, though whether or not David did anything about that himself is not clear.
One military reform that David instituted was the introduction of shock troops. This was an early example of a sort of Praetorian Guard. David's shock troops included much of the band that followed him while he was on the run from Saul. It included an inner core of his thirty or so "mighty men", then expanded to include a group called the "Kerethites and the Pelethites" (2 Sam 8:18), a total of around 600 men. These men had their own commander, Benaiah, separate from the commander of the overall army, Joab. Some of these shock troops were not Israelites. These forces bailed David out of trouble during Absalom's rebellion. They were influential enough to control David's succession, giving the crown to Solomon as David wished rather than his older brother Adonijah, who attempted to claim it. It is probable that these shocked troops, by serving as a professional core for the Israelite army, raised the overall military prowess of the entire country.
David did not go looking for trouble internationally. He made an enduring and profitable alliance with Hiram, King of Tyre (2 Sam 5:11), though Tyre was not one of Israel's more formidable neighbors. David initially had an alliance with Ammon (2 Sam 10) until their king died and a hostile successor appeared. It is also true that despite David's magnanimity toward his political rivals, he understood the value of deterrence when dealing with potential enemies. By dealing in a harshly memorable fashion with some of his enemies (2 Sam 8:2), he made others afraid to confront him (2 Sam 10:19).
The Bible is a spiritual book and even when it records history, as in the history of David, it does so to teach a spiritual lesson. David is described as being a "man after God's own heart." When we realize how clever David was politically, it should tell us that there is nothing about living a spiritual life which means we have to be politically naive. In fact, doing the right thing, as David did, often turns out to be the best politics of all.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
How to Beat the Yips
According to Wikipedia, the yips are "an apparently baseless sudden loss of ability in one of a number of different sports." A number of famous golfers (like Sam Snead) have been stricken by the yips on their putting strokes. Baseball players (like Chuck Knoblauch) sometimes suffer from the throwing yips. One professional catcher (I forgot his name) was double-pumping his throws back to the pitcher a few years ago. A number of female tennis players (Anna Kournikova, Elena Dementieva) have suffered from the yips on their serves. Recently, Maria Sharapova served an incredible 21 double faults in her loss to Melanie Oudin at the 2009 U.S. Open - a sure sign of the yips.
I have discovered one way to beat the yips that might can be applied to a number of sports. First, a little background. I started playing tennis in the seventh grade, improving rapidly, so that by my junior year in high school I was the top player on the men's varsity team. However, just before the tennis season in my senior year, I developed a severe case of the yips on my forehand. I couldn't function at all. Sometimes I would hit it and the ball wouldn't even make it to the bottom of the net. I would swing the racket back, then just as I began to swing forward I would fell an incredible tensing up that ruined my stroke. It got to where I was running around my forehand to hit a backhand, and I was even charging the net at bad times just so I could play a volley (which did not suffer from the yips). Needless to say, I lost my top spot on the team. However, by that summer, I had recovered enough to win a youth tournament, and I have never suffered from the yips in tennis again. Since I suffered from the yips at such an early age, I do not agree with the theory that the condition may result from biochemical changes in the brain that accompany aging.
Before I describe what I did to solve the problem, I should also mention that later in life I briefly suffered from the yips pitching in slow-pitch softball, as well as serving underhand in volleyball (One time I actually swung and missed the ball on an underhand volleyball serve - this from a person with supposedly good coordination).
I believe the yips strike an individual when the individual is repeating a particular sports motion in exactly the same way. This is why golfers have putting yips - every putting stroke is the same, but other non-putting golf shots vary - good golfers intentionally alter their swing to hit a hook, fade, etc. In my case, I initially learned to hit a stiff-wristed topspin forehand. I tried to hit them all the same way. I never had yips on my backhand, since I commonly alternated between topspin and slice. I hit three serves: flat, side spin, and topspin, so I never have the yips there. There are certainly some days where the flat serve just won't go in, but I can always change to one of the others.
I needed to learn to hit several different forehands. I eventually switched to a wristy topspin forehand, but I occasionally employ a slice forehand or even a sort of sidespin slap. For me, being able to hit the ball several different ways eliminates the mental freeze that causes the yips.
This principle of learning to make a movement several different ways can be applied to other sports as well. In baseball, you can learn to throw both a curve ball and a fastball, or a regular throw along with a sidearm. You normally want to use a fastball motion for all non-pitching throws, but I believe if you learn to comfortably employ some different type of throw, you will not suffer from the yips. There is no reason a catcher cannot throw a sidearm back to the pitcher from time to time. I solved my softball pitching yips by alternating the pitch so that sometimes I lead with my hand forward rather than ball forward - a sort of backhand. Alas, it will be tough to apply this principle to golf and putting. In that case, you might need to visit a sports psychiatrist after all.
I have discovered one way to beat the yips that might can be applied to a number of sports. First, a little background. I started playing tennis in the seventh grade, improving rapidly, so that by my junior year in high school I was the top player on the men's varsity team. However, just before the tennis season in my senior year, I developed a severe case of the yips on my forehand. I couldn't function at all. Sometimes I would hit it and the ball wouldn't even make it to the bottom of the net. I would swing the racket back, then just as I began to swing forward I would fell an incredible tensing up that ruined my stroke. It got to where I was running around my forehand to hit a backhand, and I was even charging the net at bad times just so I could play a volley (which did not suffer from the yips). Needless to say, I lost my top spot on the team. However, by that summer, I had recovered enough to win a youth tournament, and I have never suffered from the yips in tennis again. Since I suffered from the yips at such an early age, I do not agree with the theory that the condition may result from biochemical changes in the brain that accompany aging.
Before I describe what I did to solve the problem, I should also mention that later in life I briefly suffered from the yips pitching in slow-pitch softball, as well as serving underhand in volleyball (One time I actually swung and missed the ball on an underhand volleyball serve - this from a person with supposedly good coordination).
I believe the yips strike an individual when the individual is repeating a particular sports motion in exactly the same way. This is why golfers have putting yips - every putting stroke is the same, but other non-putting golf shots vary - good golfers intentionally alter their swing to hit a hook, fade, etc. In my case, I initially learned to hit a stiff-wristed topspin forehand. I tried to hit them all the same way. I never had yips on my backhand, since I commonly alternated between topspin and slice. I hit three serves: flat, side spin, and topspin, so I never have the yips there. There are certainly some days where the flat serve just won't go in, but I can always change to one of the others.
I needed to learn to hit several different forehands. I eventually switched to a wristy topspin forehand, but I occasionally employ a slice forehand or even a sort of sidespin slap. For me, being able to hit the ball several different ways eliminates the mental freeze that causes the yips.
This principle of learning to make a movement several different ways can be applied to other sports as well. In baseball, you can learn to throw both a curve ball and a fastball, or a regular throw along with a sidearm. You normally want to use a fastball motion for all non-pitching throws, but I believe if you learn to comfortably employ some different type of throw, you will not suffer from the yips. There is no reason a catcher cannot throw a sidearm back to the pitcher from time to time. I solved my softball pitching yips by alternating the pitch so that sometimes I lead with my hand forward rather than ball forward - a sort of backhand. Alas, it will be tough to apply this principle to golf and putting. In that case, you might need to visit a sports psychiatrist after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
