Posted by: graemebird | August 28, 2009

An Alternative Way To Blow An Obama-Load Of Trillions.

JUST TO INTRODUCE THIS TOPIC. In some matters we can be blinded to the obvious because of the Zeitgeist we live under. The world of science fiction has given us a socialist version of future technology. But technological development is imbedded in capital update. And we cannot keep going with the current level of science dysfunction that public financing brings. We cannot allow parasitism more generally to continue to grow. Since if we allow these things we won’t have a high-tech future in the first place. A high-tech future presupposes capitalism. It means we will have shaken off or mitigated the current parasitism. So that therefore the socialist science fiction zeitgeist that we have inherited is not our future. Our future is either low-tech. Or capitalistic.

If we continue to advance technology this will mean that we have succeeded in the battle against socialist science and education and against parasitism more generally.

So we have inherited this socialistic Science fiction zeitgeist. And this zeitgeist makes us blind to the obvious. Below is an example of this blindness. That people saw these pictures and did not know what they were immediately. Did not realise that we ourselves would need these things when we set up a profitable industrial outpost on the moon should we ever choose to do so:

“You forgot to mention that everybody would be digging their own roads, we’d all be living in ziggaurats, coal would be the means of exchange, and there’d be a mine under every home.”

See you are just a liar.

Except for the Ziggaurats. Thats probably pretty solid as the way things would develop as a lunar base some hundreds of years hence. And we would definitely have to use retractable covered “roads” that look like giant transparent Vacuum Cleaner hosing. You know those long tubes with metal to stop the non-metal hosing from collapsing in on itself.

We’d need loads of this retractable “roading” which is really not roading but more like an artificial atmosphere to be setting up for purposes of working with less expensive machinery that doesn’t have to take its own atmosphere with it.

It will look a bit like this but while rounded mostly it will be flat on the bottom:

And it will be about twenty metres across to allow two passing vehicles.

When we set up a base on the moon we may not have these. But when we have a FOR-PROFIT industry, actually making a profit, on the moon, for sure we will have this giant retractable hosing. We already know that now because there is no way we could do without this retractable hosing.

Since as I said. Without it we would have to spend huge amounts of money and energy equipping every vehicle with its own artificial atmosphere.


Always blowers and vacuum hoses like this are for one reason and one reason only. When you need the inside atmosphere to be at a different pressure then the outside atmosphere. Currently on earth in manufacturing this sort of hosing is unmistakable. And it never looks any different to this and when you see something that looks like this it is always for the same purpose without exception.

In hundreds of years when we set up an industrial base on the moon… or even if we do it sooner, there will be an absolute economic need for this invention. There is really no getting around this if we would be wanting to run at a profit.

I’d like to say I was the first one to think of this.

But I cannot honestly claim that I was:


“Yeah. Definitely crytal-meth.”

No I”m right. We will need this sort of thing. Its just giant blower hosing. Blower or vacuum hosing. Its all it is. I can go around the factory. Its either blowing or vacuum but in both cases the air pressure has to be different inside then out.

With the blowers the air pressure is more on the inside. With the vacuum hosing the air pressure is less on the inside then the outside. Buts fundamentally the same hosing. And if we set up a base to mine helium 3 and expensive metals for profit WE COULD NEVER SO MUCH AS THINK OF DOING WITHOUT THIS HOSING.

Its just as simple as that. There is no getting around it. If these people could have got by without it they would of but they didn’t and so there.

And it has to be retractable. Like the one on the back of my portable air conditioner.

There is just no possibility of gainsaying the matter since this sort of hosing is only used for one set of circumstances and never another.

Nothing could be more ridiculous then attempting to set up a profitable industry on the moon without this invention. And we don’t want filthy taxeaters stealing off us so they can swan about on the moon anyway.

If we go to the moon to make a profit hundreds of years from now or even possibly 70 years from now we are going to need this sort of hosing. We are going to need this invention.

We are going to need it. We are going to want it. And we ought not even so much as consider going to the moon without these things in mind. Because there would be simply no way to make a profit on the moon without this invention.

Matter of fact the entire business plan ought to revolve around figuring out how to manufacture these things mostly with whatever we find up there on the moon. Since to have a cost-effective industrial setup we will simply have to have this invention. So that were I to be writing a business plan for a profit-making moon-base…. Were I to start writing this business plan this very day, it would revolve around developing the capability to make these things up there. Since if that were not possible a large-scale industry up there would not be plausible.

There is no mistaking this ribbed hosing gear. It is always there for one thing. Well two: Sucking and blowing. But thats really only only one thing. Its really only when the inside air pressure has to be different from the outside air pressure. And you don’t have this invention for any other thing ever.

Alright. Lets see if anyone can lay out some plausible-sounding narrative where a private company goes to the moon to make a profit without sorting it that they were going to assemble or better still manufacture this invention on the moon?

Just try???? I think you’ll find its no credible scenario. A good way to blow an Obama’s worth of trillions.

You won’t come up with any such narrative because you cannot.

“Pot. Kettle. Black.”

You talking about my new invention? I hope you are right and I am wrong about the photo. Since it will mean I came up with this invention myself. Without help from anyone living or dead. And no question we will need it if we want industrial output on the moon. I invented these retractable atmosphere’s, discovered that they will be needed without any doubt whatsoever to make a fist of moon-industry, and discovered that they will form the nexus of any business-plan that one must write in order to be able to envisage a step-by-step plan to make industrial output on the moon a profitable industry.

You heard it here first. I agree with you. Its my invention. Mine I tell you. Made it up all by myself. I’m going to put aside this childish notion of inter-stella refugees. Or exploded planet lunar-entrepreneurs. And in doing so I will claim this invention as being original with me.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    The plan has benn carried out to completion before but usually in little tinpot countries. The four steps of it include the takeover by a messiah. The advent of Obama therefore is merely part of an operation that has been carried out before but never in a large Western nation like this.


    What the hell is a zigger -rat? put it in your own words please.

    Scroll up you stupid prick. I’ve just got no patience with you you stupid twat. Its really just a modification of the pyramid idea to be a bit more nuanced. It still remains the case that if we want a profit-making industry on the moon we will be using mostly just local materials for the bulk of the building materials.

    Since the local materials will mostly be rock, and for other reasons, the buildings we would wind up putting up would be “pyramidal” in nature. But thats a clumsy made up word. I didn’t wish to make the absolutist claim that we would definitely be putting up one pyramid after another.

    If these things we think we can see on Mars are natural then its a big co-incidence. Since there can be no doubt that; should we ever get to run a profit-making large scale operation on the moon we will pretty much be forced to go with both the retractable tubes and the pyramidal style of rock buildings.

    The buildings will have to be huge to contain lengthy structures of production with many small companies operating in the one huge building. They will have to be even larger than you would at first think for practical purposes because of the specific economic problems we will have operating out of there. The good news is it would be a great place for older industrial workers to go when the knees and lower back is letting one down.

    The buildings will have to be huge. They will have to contain an atmosphere and protect people from cosmic rays.

    28 Aug 09 at 5:10 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    The thing about missile defense is it was always morally right. Pretty cheap for the Americans if they were building it up at a slow pace ( the costs would have been much greater if it was rushed. And totally effective if it was to be based overwhelmingly around space-based-laser. It could only knock out one class of nuclear weapon. The ICBM. But it would knock this class out totally. Since once you had the lift capacity it would be cheaper to put more lasers in space then it would be to build more ICBM’s.

    Its not an aggressive thing to do. Or not greatly aggressive in comparison to other military investment. And while we cannot do it quickly from the Australian perspective to be anti-missile defense in the American context is simply delusional and handicapped on an ethical level.

  2. I had been interested in Schumpeter during times when I had been sold on the idea that MISES was this great intellect of almost spooky proportions but that his act, specifically and technically in the field of economics, had been superseded. And one could say that during this time period I was relatively Austrian-Economics (and Classical British school-economics I can now see in retrospect) deprived. So that when I’d be at the State Library Of Queensland, or pretty much anywhere, I’d grab an economics text and often look up Schumpeter in the index and see what he had to say.

    But then again I’d do that for other people. When I discovered Tom Sowell it felt like I was the only person in Australia who knew about him. You can recognise these people with a broader, wider and deeper VISION. And Schumpeter was one of these guys with that extra vision.

    Maybe if we have Friedman as the great warrior. And the star performer, effortlessly and without being the least bit impolite, on live TV, methodolically pulling apart the other guys argument for a clear win, and the real winner is freedom. Friedmans vision I feel was more 3D than most. But here we are using him to thin down the numbers until we get a select few who have this even more panoramic vision than Friedman.

    And Schumpeter might be included in that aerified list. Certainly Tom and of course Mises more than anyone. Buchanan and Stigler by a nose.


    Actually by no means in his first book that made him famous. But in one or two of his later books (”Free Trade” and “A Perplexed Philosopher”) Henry George to my mind seemed to be right up there. We can appreciate Henry’s powerful thinking and his economics without necessarily going in for his solution in some sort of hasty way.

    Now Jason I figure you seem to have some sort of compass for these really deep deep smart guys. But I’ve noticed something else. You are only really interested in the ones who appear to have sold out or backed off.

    I guess I’ll have to read Schumpeter in the original, but I’m deeply suspect of this man. Not in the sense that he sold out so much. But perhaps in the sense that he appears to have allowed himself to be subject to what we might call a form of Professorial Operant Conditioning. Like he may be skewing his arguments just a five degree slant whenever there is the slightest doubt, in favour of the hard leftists in the faculty, who might be responsible for his ongoing existential well-being. If not his success in babe-town.

    My sense is he would try to fight the “rearguard action” in favour of liberty, as one notable Australian intellectual once phrased it to me. My sense is that he would do that if he felt it didn’t cost him. Now and again. Still it does pay to read the fellow in the original from start to finish.

    But he appears a little bit too influenced by the need not to get sacked.

    And I suppose you could say “Why wouldn’t he be?” When you look at how no University would pay last centuries greatest economist (Mises)a salary. Imagine that?

    You other blokes who are always boneheaded against any idea of any conspiracy ever: one size fits all….

    ….Imagine that Mises had to pull his living off some private charity. Its a scandal. Its upsetting even three score years hence. People who are too harsh on Rand have to realise that it was the sale of her books that largely reignited interest in the Austrian school.

    Chicago wouldn’t give so much as a bloody paid job to Hayek even?????

    And Reisman, the greatest of the economists still living, was stuck out somewhere in some lesser known University called “Pepperdine.”

    Sounds like some depression-era brand of bubble-gum or something.

    “Looking forward to the book coming out in print. I have a contribution in it too about Schumpeter’s Capitalism, socialism and democracy….”

    Well so am I. And I’m sure you’ll do a fine job of it. But is there any comments you might make about Schumpeter, without pre-empting your own piece… Well tell us what you think about this fellow. What you think about his ideas. What he was notable for.

    He linked high market concentration with technological advancement. Thats a reasonable inference if we are being generous. And it may have been the case in some specific instance, or given some sort of policy mix. So its a good inference but I think a wrong one and a rather unfortunate one to boot.

    28 Aug 09 at 4:23 pm

  3. Okay these posts will get wiped. Make sure you advise the appropriate relatives of any off-line discussions particularly if you are living at home. And give one of them the password as well. I’m not saying I’m some sort of weirdo but thats just standard practice.

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I think you need votes based on dollar votes nationally and on a State level. That is companies don’t pay taxes. And any taxes the individual pays stacks up in his voting quota. And then we have hyper-federalism and hyper-cantonisation. So that any small area can easily split from the country and only pay a stipend for navy and air-force. Individuals ought to have a lot of firepower but with less-lethal ordnance. Which can be updated to the lethal stuff in an emergency.

    Under the above scenario it would be trade barriers that were the only worry. Since the bigshots would get more votes and could base taxes around tariffs. So the idea would be to be able to break from the centre so as to get the benefits of free trade.

    The Athenians employed their slaves as the Police force. This strikes me as a powerfully smart way to handle things except that we ought never have slaves. The idea is to keep the man with the gun and the taxing power under the thumb. With hyper-cantonisation and the presumption of local rule we have the possibility of policing and judge powers 70% contracted out to private companies using non-lethal weaponry and specialising in being able to ascertain the truth and solve disputes fairly. With the locals maintaining enough kickass to stop these guys from becoming uppity.

    29 Aug 09 at 12:11 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    As to the history of it surely the government is just a descendant of thieves who at the point of starving everyone off with their thieving, found themselves facing starvation and it occurred to them to back off just a little so as not to kill the goose. Surely thats the most easy way to understand government.

    In the biblical case the Jews had it sorted with Judges deciding the application of justice and they had no King. But the people decided to get themselves a King. Initially by lottery. Which would be better than a vote since it doesn’t lead to someone wanting to steal and buy votes with the thieving. But in no time at all they had a King. Crazy. But maybe understandable from the point of view of needing executive control in order to be able to fight off rival thieves.

    Another theory is the idea that you go to wise men to resolve disputes. And the disaster of government comes about at that point where someone demands that you from here on in come to them and them alone for dispute resolution.

    I think thats got to be a pretty good theory. And the nomadic thieves interpretation of government is likely a good theory too and the two theories are hardly mutually exclusive.

    Whereas government has in the past been filled with recruits who weren’t fundamentally evil and this likely mitigated the overall repulsively evil natural tendencies of government I don’t see that as continuing. America for example is now run in Washington by people who are wall to wall pigs. Just for one example we have Holdren-the-unscientist. Who has advocated forced abortion as a population control device. Some of you young girls who read this blog and are staunch supporters of your “right” to abortion, while one sympathises with your wish to be able to end early term pregnancies, just think what you are getting yourself into via your stridency on this matter. Because there is a far worse form of government intrusion just around the corner for you if you cannot be a little bit less barbaric as to where you think the cutoff ought to be.

    We chose a form of government that has hard-wired within it the tendency to promote people who wish trash the capital value of the country in order to rape income for the near future. This is the major downside of democracy. The most outstandingly disgusting versions of such types are the Keynesians who have lately been expanding parasitism and debt as a cure for problems arising from parasitism and debt. Imagine the idiocy of finding the private sector under a situation of hurt and using this as an excuse for sponging off them even more. Nothing has ever emerged to justify this anti-economics. But politicians are constantly seconding idiots who advocate this sort of thing to the Treasury.

    SOON in the past has seemed to take the view that it doesn’t matter what horrible things people advocate on blogs. One time he taunted me because the worst economists imaginable had been seconded to Treasury. But the results of this flippancy were shown at the very first possible opportunity where these guys started this splurging campaign, the results of which we will be stuck with for decades. No-one is going to rip Kates out of the RMIT and second him to Canberra so he can tell the Parliament that Keynes was full of shit. So even our supposed right-wing economists refuse to put down this anti-economics idol, ie Keynes, in the strongest of terms. And his totally foolish ideas. There appears an outright tabboo on attacking the idiocy of the Keynesian multiplier. An incredible example of fantasy in economics….

    ….And why would they cross this tabboo? Perhaps some of them have in the past but few who did ever made it to Professor and probably missed out on promotions because of this. Because they are working for the man who is in the stealing business. And this basic purpose cascades down to all their colleagues and right down to the staff-room where some of the good-looking associate Professor and tutoring sheilas hang-out.

    One we have this bias in promotion in place we get the ultimate such trashings of capital value for the purpose of near-term income advocated. The idiot Ken Henry and his team recently came up with an idea to squander a persons Super fund NOW in order to place an obligation on the rest of the community to increase his welfare benefits 20 dollars a week for the future. You cannot get a scheme more decidedly flying in the face of economic science than that.

    29 Aug 09 at 12:55 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: