78 replies to this topic

[Allathar]

Although spacefaring isn't really that important imo, I'd rather see it than 'monitoring climate change'. What the hell Obama.

[Phil]

I don't see much use in continuation of moon landings either. Until somebody develops some kind of hyperdrive that can transport us to other solar systems in a reasonable time frame, manned space travel in general (outside of the ISS maybe) seems pretty futile.
Let's face it, the US has a gigantic deficit and this is certainly a spot where cutting funds doesn't hurt much. Let the Russians and Chinese waste their money on it if their misguided sense of nationalism drives them to. I wouldn't stick another cent in moon landings for the time being.

The world (and the US) definitely has bigger problems to solve and to spend resources on.

[Hostile]

@Ash dumping more money into the US education system is a waste because we already spend more than any other nation and our primary school is not challenging. Reforming the school system to actually increase academic levels in schools is the answer. Not throw away more money on a failed system that is afraid to fail a kid for fear of a low self esteem.

And stop calling me a bigot. I can't even find any logic on how you fit that one in.

Obama is so quick to spend more money than any President in history and the only thing he can think about cutting is the space program. It's currently .8% of all US spending.

NASA annual budget is $17.3 billion. That's a drop in the bucket when compared to the money we send in aid around the world.

The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

http://www.csmonitor...07s01-wome.html

Cash for Clunkers Program

The result, says Edmunds, is that the $3 billion spent for C4C ended up spurring only 125,000 sales at a cost of $24,000 per vehicle.

The Congressional Budget Office had originally projected the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would cost taxpayers $189 billion.

The additional cost, which applies to TARP spending for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, was included in the CBO's March projection of a $1.8 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009, which ends September 30.

http://www.reuters.c...E53323420090404

$17 billion investment in the US Space Program is a joke when compared to the amount of SERIOUS money being thrown around here in the States.

Of all the money being wasted, science and space exploration is far from a waste. With the shuttle fleet being retired this year and no longer any progress on the Ares rocket, how is America going to have a manned space program even if it doesn't mean going to the moon?

Obama has spent such a CRAZY amount of money that he can't even afford NASA. It's a disgrace what Obama has done. He can't even afford NASA in the budget?!

I've tried to not be very critical for awhile of Obama because you can't judge someone without having given him a chance. I now find myself to be openly critical of many things this President is implementing.

[Pasidon]

It is unfortunate the theories of his critics were precise. His poor judgement is the payment for electoral error. And it is dreadful to see him winning awards for his actions when he has accomplished nothing.

[m@tt]

Should have done it sooner, I think I remember being surprised when funding was announced a while back. The space programme has been very important in the past, not only for technology advancement but also public confidence and national pride, but at the moment there are more pressing issues and people generally don't care about going to the Moon.

The idea of a moon base is ridiculous. The universe is frickin huge, starting from the Moon instead of the Earth isn't going to change much. Ok, take-off will be quicker and will require less energy, but when it takes 5 years to get to Mars, is that really going to make that much of a difference (especially as you have to get to the Moon in the first place anyway)?

[Hostile]

Maybe we should go back to living in tents and grass huts? I hear that is very eco-friendly.

[Spectre]

Although I believe that there are more pressing matters at hand on our own planet that we need to deal with, I don't agree with cutting funds into Scientific Investigations off-planet. It doesn't serve the public or for that matter anyone really anytime soon, but in the long run this could aid further development of better technologies. Obama could do much better, yet he just relentlessly toys with the American Economy with ideas and policies that narrow American minds presume as 'Socialist' or bad to the economy just for being brought up.

He needs to learn how to fix this nation, not destroy it any further - cutting funds for NASA is just silly, the money they get is about as much as 10 dollars to how much the US burns annually - and for that matter receives. If he wants to save money, he needs to cut funds for something that is not beneficial to anyone or anything.

Edited by Spectre, 02 February 2010 - 05:35 AM.

[Hostile]

Should have done it sooner, I think I remember being surprised when funding was announced a while back. The space programme has been very important in the past, not only for technology advancement but also public confidence and national pride, but at the moment there are more pressing issues and people generally don't care about going to the Moon.

The idea of a moon base is ridiculous. The universe is frickin huge, starting from the Moon instead of the Earth isn't going to change much. Ok, take-off will be quicker and will require less energy, but when it takes 5 years to get to Mars, is that really going to make that much of a difference (especially as you have to get to the Moon in the first place anyway)?

it takes 6 months to get to Mars, not five years.

[FoRSAkeN_oNe]

Reasons to get to space ASAP:
-Earth could begin loosing it's ability to house the rapidly growing population in a century (ETA, correct me here if so). Between overpopulation, depletion of resources (it's not going to stop, no more being naive), the threat of nuclear warfare if anything goes funky, and continued levels of pollution (regardless if global warming exists or not, pollution does indeed do harm AT LEAST to local environments), things are not bright. Humanity could be a mere spectre of itself by the 31st century.

Negatives of focusing too much on space travel:
-Earth plummets into a hell-hole quicker.
--Economy (unemployed for 8 months now)

This is a tough call, but the most I can hope for is seeing more advanced space travel by the time I die (or entering space altogether...). For now, all I can hope for is a resolution to some of the current messes so we can fund space travel once more.

[m@tt]

I'm sure I'd heard five years (for manned missions). Perhaps I remembered wrongly.

[Vortigern]

Do you understand how difficult it would be to mass-migrate humanity to the stars? There are the best part of seven billion people on this planet. That's 7'000'000'000. How many people have gone into space on the biggest mission yet? 15? The International Space Station has a crew of 6. Less than one billionth of how many people we'd be looking at moving. Besides that, it is supposed to cost around $100 billion all told. How much money do you think anyone is going to put into a long shot like practical space travel?

Believe me, the only solution is to rescue this planet, not just find another one. Where would we even look? Proxima Centauri is 4.4 lightyears away. Taking into account relativistic effects of near-lightspeed travel, it'd be a one-way trip which would still take years and years. I can't be bothered to do the calculations based around the speeds we can achieve at the moment, but it is a hell of a long way.

[duke_Qa]

If we are lucky, adding a few notches to the belt on the space programme and many other expenditures would allow the US to rise again within 3-6 years. If nothing is done, then the US might never recover and could turn into a parody of Eastern Europe, leaving any of those projects dead in the water.

The moon is in my opinion just a pile of rocks to put flags on. A chestbeating gesture to show off your prowess. Spend the money on research, not gimmicky PR-adventures.

[Ash]

"Don't cut the space programme, it's not THAT expensive! Stop giving to charity instead!" Was the basic translation of Hostile's post. Incidentally, I agree with cutting back on foreign aid and letting everyone sort their own damned problems out a bit, but if we're going to slash nonessential spending, we can certainly start with the space programme.

As Vort just touched on, trying to colonise/put bases on other worlds is a logistical nightmare. I have already touched on why. Basically, there is no practical reason whatsoever why not to shelve space/lunar programmes for now. Economically, America's in trouble. Once it's got itself out, it can start throwing money at extravagances. And education is something that would benefit. Sure, it's not challenging now, but that isn't money's fault. How will cutting funds help that? Therefore, it is not a waste of money to allocate additional tax funds to it.

alternately, you could always cut taxes once you've reduced the amount of spending. Yeah, start laughing. We both know that taxes have never in the history of ever gone down, only up.

[Pasidon]

I think space travel is more of a business venture than a luxury.

He needs to learn how to fix this nation

I would think that would be one of your skills before people make you president.

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 02 February 2010 - 09:55 PM.

[Hostile]

"Don't cut the space programme, it's not THAT expensive! Stop giving to charity instead!" Was the basic translation of Hostile's post. Incidentally, I agree with cutting back on foreign aid and letting everyone sort their own damned problems out a bit, but if we're going to slash nonessential spending, we can certainly start with the space programme.

As Vort just touched on, trying to colonise/put bases on other worlds is a logistical nightmare. I have already touched on why. Basically, there is no practical reason whatsoever why not to shelve space/lunar programmes for now. Economically, America's in trouble. Once it's got itself out, it can start throwing money at extravagances. And education is something that would benefit. Sure, it's not challenging now, but that isn't money's fault. How will cutting funds help that? Therefore, it is not a waste of money to allocate additional tax funds to it.

alternately, you could always cut taxes once you've reduced the amount of spending. Yeah, start laughing. We both know that taxes have never in the history of ever gone down, only up.

America gives the most charitable sums of money in the entire world. Why can't we do both? And how are you qualified to translate my words into words that are not mine?

"Don't cut the space programme, it's not THAT expensive! Stop giving to charity instead!" Was the basic translation of Hostile's post.

Where did I say stop giving to charity. Are you crazy? I'm a huge proponent of charity. Is there something wrong with your head Ash?

The great thing about scientific research is overcoming huge obstacles like logistics. Since when have we become a people so burdened by obstacles, while other nations are gleaming with the idea of progress such as manned space flight.

I thought liberals were supposed to be progressive not regressive?

Sure, it's not challenging now, but that isn't money's fault. How will cutting funds help that? Therefore, it is not a waste of money to allocate additional tax funds to it.

Who said about cutting education? I said continue it's current financing and reform it to increase the academic standards. Do you even read what I write when you reply?

And Obama isn't diverting those funds to education. They are being diverted to monitoring climate change.

alternately, you could always cut taxes once you've reduced the amount of spending. Yeah, start laughing. We both know that taxes have never in the history of ever gone down, only up.

Bush cut taxes across the board that the liberals will now let expire.
http://americaswatch...ax-cuts-expire/

Read the article. Obama is not going to extend the across the board tax cuts that Bush enabled. So don't tell me taxes can't go down. They did under George Bush and I'm not wealthy. How do you define wealthy?

I am a compassionate conservative. I believe that we should help our fellow humans as best as our own personal resources allow. I do not believe government is needed to orchestrate that process. I believe less government is the best government. Money in the hands of the people are better spent than money in the hands of the government.

Something as large as the US space program is not something you casually throw to the side of the road to make other nations happy at America's expense. We have a vested interest in our space program. We need to stop draining our blood for social programs that are a waste of money and will drag the US down into a system of operation that is not conducive to it's current mode of operation.

Government, stay out of the affairs of the common capitalist people. I never liked the government and I never will. Let the people rule themselves.

[Phil]

You do realise though that the US has some pretty hefty financial problems, right? And by hefty financial problems I mean a public deficit of over 6 trillion dollars. Lowering taxes and not cutting spending rigorously is going to ruin your country.

Now I'm not saying that using resources to monitor climate change is the best area to spend it on but it's certainly a better area than manned space travel, which brings next to nothing except possibly some prestige. Like I said, let the others shoot their millions and billions into the sky, you don't have to give a shit.
Although the best place to cut spending for the US would of course be its war efforts that drain money like there is no tomorrow.


"Money in the hands of the people are better spent than money in the hands of the government." is a nice slogan, but without any kind of state welfare, all the money will end up in the hands of a few, while most won't have a cent in theirs. Just take that into account when you try to make arguments look social that are targeted against social programs.

[Allathar]

"Money in the hands of the people are better spent than money in the hands of the government." is a nice slogan, but without any kind of state welfare, all the money will end up in the hands of a few, while most won't have a cent in theirs. Just take that into account when you try to make arguments look social that are targeted against social programs.

Disagreed. In a capitalist economy, ultimately everyone will benefit more than when the money goes to the government. Look at it this way - I buy a car, the cardealer uses that money to pay the carsalesman, the salesman buys a television with that wage, the electronics shop hire an accountant with that money for the tax stuff, the accountant buys a new computer, etc. (Not ad infinitas though, parts of the transactions are getting taxed, and some of the money is saved instead of spend). Everyone is happy with that money though - what's better, the BNP rises more than what I initially spend on the car!

If the money goes to Obama instead... Well, instead of buying a car, I use the money to pay mr. Obama taxes. And Obama uses that money to monitor climate change. Nothing happens.

Point is, a reduction in taxes can lead to a boost in the economy (people have more money to spend, starting the cycle described above), and the government doesn't lose a whole lot of money with it either (because there's sales tax involved in the transactions, so the lower wage tax gets back in the form of sales tax instead).

[Phil]

That argument has two flaws though:

Firstly, the effect that you describe, the income multiplier, doesn't just apply to the private sector but also to government spending. The money you give to Obama to monitor climate change doesn't just vanish in his pockets, instead it is used to hire people to do those jobs, who in turn will have an income of which they will spend a part for their lives. The cycle continues. In fact (if I'm not very mistaken) Keynes himself used this theory to advocate government spending in times of weak economy because the total stimulus is much bigger than the actual amount that the government has to spend.
The problem with government jobs is that a) they are non-productive in the sense that the government spends more money than it gets back through taxes (which is what many people don't seem to understand when they advocate more government jobs if the unemployment rate is high) and b) that government-run businesses have a high tendency to be inefficient and wasteful of their resources (due to bureaucracy, lack of innovation, political interference, etc.).

Secondly, while the free market system may be very efficient, it is not necessarily fair. Unfortunately not everyone automatically profits from the "natural" distribution of money. There is a very big part of the population that will go away empty-handed, which is why you need a (forced) redistribution of wealth to ensure that everyone can survive in dignity. If you don't have this, the capital will become concentrated in the hands of a few, who will then use that capital to make even more money, ultimately at the expense of the poor.
So no, tax cuts don't automatically help the people. It's all a matter of finding the right balance: if the taxes are too low, the rich will simply get richer while the poor get poorer (to the extent where they may not even survive). If the taxes are too high, you hurt the economy, which is the motor of prosperity.

At this point, I love to quote the preamble of the Swiss constitution:

[...] and in the knowledge [...] that the strength of a people is measured by the well-being of its weakest members;

[Ash]

America gives the most charitable sums of money in the entire world. Why can't we do both? And how are you qualified to translate my words into words that are not mine?

Where did I say stop giving to charity. Are you crazy? I'm a huge proponent of charity. Is there something wrong with your head Ash?

Answer:

NASA annual budget is $17.3 billion. That's a drop in the bucket when compared to the money we send in aid around the world.

The basic gist of your argument was that it's OK to carry on the space programme considering the many hundreds of billions you're chucking at crappy countries. The logical extension of that train of thought would be that you believe it better to reduce foreign aid spending before you reduce NASA spending. That is, essentially, the essence of your logic, distilled.

The great thing about scientific research is overcoming huge obstacles like logistics. Since when have we become a people so burdened by obstacles, while other nations are gleaming with the idea of progress such as manned space flight.

Round about the time when your economy went down the fucking toilet and there was a golden opportunity to make both your own country and the entire world a better place. Manned space flight will not accomplish either such goal.

I thought liberals were supposed to be progressive not regressive?

I fail to see what progress will be gained except in the international dick-waving contest between world superpowers.

Who said about cutting education? I said continue it's current financing and reform it to increase the academic standards. Do you even read what I write when you reply?

You should probably re-read your own posts, Hostile. Your own words said that diverting more funds to education was, and I quote, a waste of money. Stop being such a dick, btw.

And Obama isn't diverting those funds to education. They are being diverted to monitoring climate change.

Admittedly, something of a misallocation of the resources. But so was the space programme, so yes, he's wasting money, but he's wasting wasted money. No particular loss, but no gain either.

Bush cut taxes across the board that the liberals will now let expire.
http://americaswatch...ax-cuts-expire/

Read the article. Obama is not going to extend the across the board tax cuts that Bush enabled. So don't tell me taxes can't go down. They did under George Bush and I'm not wealthy. How do you define wealthy?

Temporary cuts don't really count. Gordon Clown cut VAT for nine months. It's gone back up now. And very few (if any) people saw any appreciable difference with that cut anyway. I'm referring to a long-term, written-into-law reduction in general income or council taxes, abolition of the stamp duty, inheritance tax, etc.

I believe that we should help our fellow humans as best as our own personal resources allow.

Generally, this follows my own view. But I'm not convinced you adhere to it quite so well, considering your wish to throw money at throwing men at the moon to no real gain.

I do not believe government is needed to orchestrate that process.

I do. I believe people are, by and large, inherently cripplingly selfish, their only altruism being to family and close friends. People will do nothing unless they see some benefit in it for themselves. This is true of all creatures on the Earth. Why do x billion people the world over go to work in shitty jobs day after day after day, whittling away (wasting away, in fact) their meaningless, pathetic lives at conveyor belts, desks, office cubicles or checkouts? For enjoyment and fulfilment? I think not. They do it because they get paid, which in turn means they can buy food. I am against non-charitable-organisation (i.e, government-funded) foreign aid almost wholeheartedly, unless the donating country is in profit, because I think it's unfair that my taxes should be used to benefit another country. If my taxes fund the NHS which helps cure someone else, that's fine, because I one day may have need of the NHS. But what good is my tax doing being sent to Haiti to pay for their soup kitchens? Call me cold, but what benefit do I get out of that? All I get out of that is slightly more out of pocket, and slightly more resentful at the sponges of the world, and the over-generous governments. This is why I hate the EU. We get out of the EU less than we put in, and we get legally bound to give up even more. Spain, on the other hand, takes out significantly more than it gives, and so too does Italy.

I believe less government is the best government.

I think it should keep its nose out of individual business, less nanny-state, and should work on more effective policies that work towards the benefit of the many, not the few. So, in certain areas I would like to see it increase and nationalise certain necessities (or rather, re-nationalise in the UK's case), but in others I'd like to see less of it.

Money in the hands of the people are better spent than money in the hands of the government.

Couldn't agree more, in theory. But then, my government is a bunch of gibbering, worthless simpletons who could barely work out how to successfully bounce a ball, much less run a country of sixty-two million. As it is, it doesn't matter who has the money, it's all going to end either in the hands of the government or in the hands of some greedy corporate fat-cat, with but a trickle going to the masses in the form of piss-poor wages. Which will result in people having to beg. Which brings us back to charity again.

Something as large as the US space program is not something you casually throw to the side of the road to make other nations happy at America's expense.

How will it make other nations happy? Your country is in over six trillion dollars of debt. You need to cut nonessential spending. I vote the US Space Programme as being quite nonessential. I'd cut foreign aid too, pull the troops home and reduce defence spending quite dramatically.

We have a vested interest in our space program.

Which is? Please stop skirting the problem, and explain to us categorically why it is needed.

We need to stop draining our blood for social programs that are a waste of money

What, like the space programme?

and will drag the US down into a system of operation that is not conducive to it's current mode of operation.

Like what? Are you referring by any chance to the health bill, which will actually benefit over forty-six million of your people, and will leave the other few hundred million little or no worse off? I personally consider keeping one's people healthy and well and fit to work (where possible - where impossible, it should do what it can for them to maintain a dignified standard of living) is a government responsibility, one which your current President is trying to take up, but which the US government since its inception and which the current politicos have continued to shirk.

Government, stay out of the affairs of the common capitalist people. I never liked the government and I never will. Let the people rule themselves.

If you had power, Hostile, you wouldn't know what to do with it. What next? Burn the constitution and the lawbook and let the country descend into anarchy? Yeah, good luck with that.

Now I'm not saying that using resources to monitor climate change is the best area to spend it on but it's certainly a better area than manned space travel, which brings next to nothing except possibly some prestige. Like I said, let the others shoot their millions and billions into the sky, you don't have to give a shit.
Although the best place to cut spending for the US would of course be its war efforts that drain money like there is no tomorrow.

"Money in the hands of the people are better spent than money in the hands of the government." is a nice slogan, but without any kind of state welfare, all the money will end up in the hands of a few, while most won't have a cent in theirs. Just take that into account when you try to make arguments look social that are targeted against social programs.

This.

Disagreed. In a capitalist economy, ultimately everyone will benefit more than when the money goes to the government. Look at it this way - I buy a car, the cardealer uses that money to pay the carsalesman, the salesman buys a television with that wage, the electronics shop hire an accountant with that money for the tax stuff, the accountant buys a new computer, etc. (Not ad infinitas though, parts of the transactions are getting taxed, and some of the money is saved instead of spend).

If the money goes to Obama instead... Well, instead of buying a car, I use the money to pay mr. Obama taxes. And Obama uses that money to monitor climate change. Nothing happens.

In your happy capitalist world, how does the money get back to you? I'm not disagreeing that taxpaying is a monetary abyss into which money falls and is never to be seen again, however I'm not seeing how there is in any way a money cycle. People don't really have more money to spend - sure, a bit less is going to the government but they aren't really 'better off', as it were. It's not as if they become 'more wealthy' in line with the economy. They still become poorer as that fictitious reality of inflation (totally unnecessary, stupid and essentially nothing more than a way to extort the poor just that little bit more) robs them just that little bit more...

[Allathar]

That argument has two flaws though:

Firstly, the effect that you describe, the income multiplier, doesn't just apply to the private sector but also to government spending. The money you give to Obama to monitor climate change doesn't just vanish in his pockets, instead it is used to hire people to do those jobs, who in turn will have an income of which they will spend a part for their lives. The cycle continues. In fact (if I'm not very mistaken) Keynes himself used this theory to advocate government spending in times of weak economy because the total stimulus is much bigger than the actual amount that the government has to spend..

That may be true, but from experience we know that the free market is more efficient in redistributing the money. Because then the people decide where the money is going as opposed to the government. And also the fact that a lot of money is simply getting burned in endless bureaucratic processes, ultimately rotting away on some government bank account. As for the other cons, you pretty much nailed it.

Secondly, while the free market system may be very efficient, it is not necessarily fair.

That’s also true, but I’m not implying that we should get rid of all the income taxes: I’m suggesting that it shouldn’t be that much, and also a flat rate. Look at it this way: a manager of some company can get an extra order, a pretty large one. If he takes that order he’ll have to work very hard, but because he’s in the highest tax range, 60% of what he earns with that order gets burned in income taxes. Needless to say he thinks it isn’t worth the effort. With a flat rate, however, he views every order the same: now only 35% of what he earns gets taxed. He thinks it’s worth it and takes the order, making many more hours, but also earning a lot of money. The people working for him earn more money too, he even hires a couple of extra people to lessen the workload. Those people all get a good wage for the extra work they’ve done, and it also stimulated the economy with the extra order and all the wages that are getting spend, resulting in the income multiplier.

Now, let’s say that with the highest tax range situation, those extra people that he otherwise hired would be jobless. They then would be sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the government benefits to show up, which would be paid from the money of the highest tax range. Either way, they would be getting some money that period, working or not – but what’s the fairest, according to you?

I do. I believe people are, by and large, inherently cripplingly selfish, their only altruism being to family and close friends. People will do nothing unless they see some benefit in it for themselves. This is true of all creatures on the Earth. Why do x billion people the world over go to work in shitty jobs day after day after day, whittling away (wasting away, in fact) their meaningless, pathetic lives at conveyor belts, desks, office cubicles or checkouts? For enjoyment and fulfilment? I think not. They do it because they get paid, which in turn means they can buy food. I am against non-charitable-organisation (i.e, government-funded) foreign aid almost wholeheartedly, unless the donating country is in profit, because I think it's unfair that my taxes should be used to benefit another country. If my taxes fund the NHS which helps cure someone else, that's fine, because I one day may have need of the NHS. But what good is my tax doing being sent to Haiti to pay for their soup kitchens? Call me cold, but what benefit do I get out of that? All I get out of that is slightly more out of pocket, and slightly more resentful at the sponges of the world, and the over-generous governments. This is why I hate the EU. We get out of the EU less than we put in, and we get legally bound to give up even more. Spain, on the other hand, takes out significantly more than it gives, and so too does Italy.

Amen to that. Seen the last news, about Greece? It’s going great again!

As it is, it doesn't matter who has the money, it's all going to end either in the hands of the government or in the hands of some greedy corporate fat-cat, with but a trickle going to the masses in the form of piss-poor wages.

I’d rather have my money going to corporate fat-cats than to the government. At least they did something to earn it, where the government simply taxes the shit out of everything without a clear reason and goal (or worse, throw it down the bottomless pit of thirld-world aid).

In your happy capitalist world, how does the money get back to you? I'm not disagreeing that taxpaying is a monetary abyss into which money falls and is never to be seen again, however I'm not seeing how there is in any way a money cycle. People don't really have more money to spend - sure, a bit less is going to the government but they aren't really 'better off', as it were. It's not as if they become 'more wealthy' in line with the economy. They still become poorer as that fictitious reality of inflation (totally unnecessary, stupid and essentially nothing more than a way to extort the poor just that little bit more) robs them just that little bit more...

The money gets back to me through the same cycle: remember that accountant who did the taxes, and bought a computer with his wage? I work at the shop where he bought it, and needed to give him some advice on the best buy. Really, these examples may seem small, but if everyone benefits from just a little less tax, and decide to spend it in the economy, the effects can be pretty big. And the inflation is just the engine keeping the economy going (mind you, a mild inflation): because my money is worth slightly less in the future, I’m tempted to go spend it now instead of tomorrow.