katz%uci-750a@sri-unix.UUCP (04/02/84)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>
[Dale.Amon@CMU-RI_FAS]
Regardless of whether there exist more efficient ways of
utilizing money as far as maximizing the multiplier effect, I
would point out that NASA is the only major government agency for
which this holds true. It does not hold for either the DOD or for
welfare. ... (If DOD put up a BMD, I might change my mind about
them a little bit) ... NASA developes and publicly discloses
whole new technologies. ...
I agree with the general sentiments, but the real question is not
whether money given to NASA has a higher multiplier effect than other
government agencies, but why. We can't expect to convince people
that the multiplier effect is real and therefore NASA is a useful
investment unless we give them a logical reason to believe it.
What we need is an economic theory which people can rely on and
believe.
We must balance the effects on an economy of pumping in money: each
dollar spent supports the merchant (who supports the merchants he
shops at and so on) along with long term resources created (e.g.
information), against long term resources used.
For "welfare," each dollar creates very little in long term capital
resources, almost all effects are a trade-off of short term resources
for short term safety and the satisfaction which comes of fulfilling
civic responsibility. There are long term resources generated in
terms of what the person helped gives to our society which that
person could not give to the society otherwise. I am deliberately
ignoring the very real (and very important) humanitarian and ethical
considerations involved.
The argument for DoD is very similar to funds for welfare. The long
term resources generated derive from the safety and continuity of our
economic system. There is also a considerable long term contribution
to the economy due to training. This, plus the normal 2-3 times
multiplier due to support of merchants constitutes a strong economic
argument for support of DoD. Unfortunately, the long term costs of
lost time for recruits, propoganda, secrecy, public fear, training
killers, raw materials which are needed to produce weaponry, etc. is
quite large.
The argument for NASA is quite different. NASA is a research
organization, and exists for a different purpose. NASA fulfills the
training and people support tasks at least as well per dollar as DoD
(I don't know how to compare it to welfare). NASA also fulfills a
considerable long term resource in terms of public safety (support of
DoD in many of its endeavours). Although NASA uses a considerable
quantity of raw materials, NASA repays in long term resources:
information, propoganda, and (in the near future) support of
industrial development.
Even if the DoD developed a BMD system, it still would not change the
nature of the DoD as it relates to the nation at large either
pollitically or economically.