Category Archives: Economics

The Obama Economy

He’ll be the first president ever to never see a year of 3% growth.

Despite all the Democrat hype about “X months of job creation,” the jobs don’t pay that well, and there haven’t been enough of them to keep up with population growth. This nonsense about “saving the world from a depression” is just that — no one knows what would have happened without the Democrats bailing out the public-employee and auto unions. It’s a counterfactual. But one can trace the nation’s economic problems to 2006, when the party that hates economic growth took over Congress.

[Update a while later]

As GDP flat lines, Obama brags about his economic record.

As noted there, both he and his supporters are delusional.

The Latest From The Lexington Institute

“Why is the USAF trying to destroy the launch industry?”

I may fisk this later, if I get time, but what a load of bull.

[Wednesday-afternoon update]

A response from Jim Knaupf:

Daniel Gouré’s op-ed “Why Does The Air Force Want To Destroy The Struggling U.S. Space Launch Business?” is inaccurate and misleading.

You don’t say.


Mars 2018?

SpaceX dropped a news bombshell today, via tweets from Elon and other sources. Here’s the story from Eric Berger, Alan Boyle, Sarah Fecht, Loren Grush, and Jay Bennett. It’s a sample return from Mars using a “Red Dragon” (Dragon 2).

My thoughts: 2018 is ambitious, but not undoable. It depends on getting FH going this year or next, and what else they’ve been working on behind the scenes. I assume that 2018 is the next window that they think it’s possible to be ready for.

I’d like to see details. For instance, will Raptor be involved, or will it be an all-kerosene mission? The CONOPs chart at Popular Mechanics shows it as dual FH launch. I’d bet that they could do it with a single one if they bought a Centaur from ULA, but SpaceX doesn’t like to depend on others for space transportation. I assume this is part of the larger announcement they’ll be making in Guadalajara in September.

In other Mars news, NASA has just released what looks to be an interesting document on advanced technologies for Mars settlement. None of which are seriously funding (including the Senate cutting funds for Mars landing technology this week so it could shovel more good money after bad at SLS).

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s the relevant Space Act Agreement between SpaceX and NASA, including how to deal with planetary protection protocols.

[Update a few minutes later]

Eric Berger notes the irony of the Senate cutting the tech budget for Mars landing in the same week as a private Mars-landing announcement. So it can fund a giant rocket that isn’t needed to go to Mars.

[Another update]

But wait! I thought private companies couldn’t afford space exploration!

[Update in the afternoon]

Here’s the story from Christian Davenport at the WaPo.

[Update a while later]

And here’s the story from Alex Knapp.

The Anti-Trump Vote

gets serious.

Naturally the Trump campaign is bellowing its disapproval of the Cruz-Kasich deal. But there’s nothing unfair about enabling the anti-Trump majority, if it exists, from stopping the nomination of a candidate it believes would be disastrous for the party and dangerous for the nation.

Finally. I hope it’s not too late. Of course, “bellowing” is what the Trump campaign does best.

[Update a few minutes later]


I Regret Voting For Donald Trump

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) April 26, 2016

nt-at-the-destruction/” target=”_blank”>at the destruction:

As a result of this profound success, whatever the differences between the two major parties may have been on other issues, these two fundamental bedrock principles underlying the creation and continuation of the post-1945 world order have remained uncontroversial among serious political leaders for the seven decades ever since.

Unfortunately, this has now changed. In both major parties, powerful figures have arisen who are challenging this long-held consensus. Among the Democrats, the chief usurper is the Marxian socialist Bernie Sanders. Among the Republicans, it is the national socialist Donald Trump. Both would gut the Western alliance. Both would wreck the system of global free trade. Both would cause a global depression. Both would unleash the dogs of war. While their rhetoric is quite different, on the central issue of defending or betraying the Pax Americana, the program of both is the same.

It is to be expected that a rabid left-wing socialist like Bernie Sanders would support such a program, and one must be thankful that the remaining Atlanticist forces within the Democratic Party appear to have him and his faction in check – at least for this election year. But what can one say of the Republicans and allegedly “right wing” radical Donald Trump? National Review founder William F. Buckley used to say that conservatives should support the most conservative electable candidate. Hillary Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s deleterious liberal policies for four more years. So she is certainly no conservative. But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy. On the basis of that comparison, if the two were to face off in November, as incredible as it may seem, William F. Buckley would have no choice but to vote for Clinton. Surely we can do better.

Unfortunately, the problem with Clinton goes far beyond per prospective policies. She would be the most corrupt president since, well…the last time we had a President Clinton. Though Obama’s been no slouch in that regard, either.

[Tuesday-morning update]

Why I regret my vote for Trump.