From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6707@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.184518.25122@medtron.medtronic.com>  
>rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:
>> Like it or not, the two main technology drivers for the
>> last 5 decades have been first the military and then the space  
>>program.
>
>I'm not sure that's true anymore (or whether it's been true for
>a while now).  Parts of the computer industry are driven by the
>DoD, true. However, the real computer revolution has been 
>driven by the business community demanding more computing power
>for less money.  

Let's be careful to keep process and production engineering work
that is ramping along the mass production learning curve separate
from real research at the cutting edge of technology. Most of the
improvements driven by business demands on the computer industry
are simply mass production techniques and incremental upgrades applied 
to a PC architecture first marketed in 1981. Slow $4,000 PCs with
limited memory and disk storage have become faster $2,000 PCs with
more memory and mass storage. But that hasn't involved any major
*research* breakthroughs, just good mass production engineering.

This kind of work is vitally important, and the Japanese are
masters at taking a product and engineering it for production,
see VCRs and autos, but it *is* a different order of activity from
the kinds of breakthrough research being done under military
guidance in programs like SDI, spysats, IR sensing, and underwater
acoustic reasearch. There, going up the learning curve for commercial
production isn't the focus. Instead, real breakthrough technologies
are being sought. That kind of work is never cheap, and hardly ever
100% successful in achieving mission goals. It does, however, serve
as a strong technology driver. That technology is then often turned
into the next generation of consumer products.

>> Billions of dollars have been cut from the defense budget. Where has this
>> money gone?  No one talks about that.  The deficit hasn't been cut, new jobs
>> haven't been created, and the country on the whole is worse off due to the
>> unemployment increase.  Do you really think that it is a coincidence that
>> the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese gaining a
>> technological edge?  
>
>Huh?  Seems to me the Japenese gained their technological edge
>in many fields because we were spending so much money via
>big governemnt (often defense-related) programs.  Perhaps
>if RCA, GM, Motorolla, Intel, etc. didn't have to pay so much
>in taxes to support gigantic governemnt defense contracts (and
>to pay for defending countries that aren't doing near as much
>to defend themselves) we'd regain our edge.

Two points. First, do the Japanese really have a technological edge?
In most cases the answer is no. They are masters of *production engineering*,
but most of the products that they produce so well were invented here.
Ampex has the basic audio and video recording patents that Sony, JVC, and 
the like license in their VCRs. The auto was developed here. The IC was 
invented here. In areas where they have tried to do research, the fifth 
generation computer project that they have poured billions into is considered 
a joke. Their space program, where the only *successful* projects have used 
licensed US technology, is floundering. Where genuine *research* is required, 
the Japanese lag the US in nearly every field. We'd do well to adopt their
production and marketing techniques. However, those techniques were taught
them by a GM engineer after WWII, so even here the Japanese are adapting 
research done in the US. Research that we've ignored to our peril right
here at home.

Second, on taxing industry, the enormous *profits* that our companies
have reaped from military R&D have allowed them to *do* significant
R&D work. The taxes they pay are much more than just offset by the
contracts they hold. You don't *really* think that it's taxes on
corporations that has paid for the military buildup, or any other
government activity, do you? The vast bulk of government revenue
comes from taxing middle class *workers*. Workers who wouldn't
have well paying jobs without those government contracts. If economics
were a zero sum game, it would be more efficient for the government
to just pay those workers welfare. Fortunately, economics *isn't*
a zero sum game and multiplier effects do exist. Trickle down economics
is no joke, though the trickle is really a flood and most of it comes
from middle class worker's paychecks. The average aerospace dollar
passes through the local economy seven times before the government
reclaims it. Contrast that to the welfare dollar that only passes
through the economy twice as low income people concentrate on only
the essentials of survival. It's *discretionary* income that makes
the economic wheels spin.

Gary