Remember NASA?

Posted February 12, 2053

Colonial Governor Vladimir Putinovich, reiterated his government's position that it will not release additional power reserves to New Shanghai Colony's medical research facility. The research facility, having achieved significant success in gerontological and osteological research, has nonetheless suffered from poor maintenance management. Significant portions of the facility have been shut down in recent years, resulting in consolidation of operations and living areas. Its most recent innovations have led to advancements in bone regeneration with a focus on joints and arthritis.

Despite these success, the Chinese Central Government has been slow to share the benefits it has received with the lunar colony that created the benefits. New Shanghai officials are a colony without representation, and have been forced to barter with Putinovich, trading supplies in exchange for additional power to maintain systems. Meanwhile, Putinovich's colony, Novapetrigrad, has been attempting to balance its own power needs from a booming tourism trade with the supplies needed to satisfy tourists' needs.

On a related note, Congress has passed new tariffs on space travel, citing Russian, Chinese, and Indian price gouging. According to the Speaker of the House, "These countries' monopoly on manned space flight does not give them carte blanche to disregard their ethical and moral responsibility to the rest of mankind. Their price gouging and profiteering is cost prohibitive to science and research. These tariffs send a strong message that the US will not be bullied or manipulated because of its reliance on their space programs."

Big Government Part 2

As the debt debate rages on, we can each appreciate, from our personal and professional lives, the folly of spending more than we have or earn. We each, one way or another, are limited in our spending. Why should we, collectively as a government, be any different? There will, one day, be a reckoning. Perhaps it will come when all government revenues go to pay only debt service. It's simply inevitable.

However, before we get there, we struggle with priorities. We simply can't cut off funding and expect proportionate shrinkage. Let's think big. What laws will we choose to stop enforcing, or outright repeal? Employment laws? Environment laws? Education laws? Energy laws? And that's just the "E's"!!!

Or maybe we go after the real culprit: Debt. Isn't that what we do in our personal lives? Pay off the debt so we can piece our lives together? Maybe we sell off assets. Let's bite the bullet and be done with it. Sell oil. Sell gold. Sell land. Sell oil leases. Renegotiate debt. It's now or later.

Big Government?

"Big" is relative. Drive a Smart Car long enough and a Corolla will seem cavernous. Drive a Ford Excursion for a few weeks and you'll feel cramped in a Suburban. So when is government "too" big?

One common measure is reflecting government size (i.e., spending) as a percentage of GDP. That oversimplifies the issue. Delving into the components of government spending sheds a bit more light. It's clear that some components have grown aggressively over time, while others grown less so. State and local government often gets hit with the same accusation. What are some clearer ways to frame the issue?

• Which large program do we want to eliminate? Chipping away may work for small problems, but it won't work for big ones.
• Which large programs do we keep? Roads, police, waste - all those are best handled by government oversight. Safety and security are too important to be left to a provider whose core mission is profit.
• Where do we make real sacrifices?
• What's the best relative metric for defining the size of government? No one would claim that India should have the same size government payroll as does Monaco. But it's also not exactly a linear relationship. Larger populations beget not only larger, but more complex problems.

So what size should government be? How small is too small and how big is too big?

Successful Relationships

The relationships between men and women have changed substantially over time. That which worked decades ago or centuries ago no longer suffices. Clearly, the physical ingredient of relationships is roughly (no pun intended) as it has been for thousands of years. That's a matter of personal taste; to each his own. In all other areas, the dynamics are radically different.

The ancient Greeks weren't too far off in their analysis of love. Frankly, despite our arrogant belief that we have evolved light years beyond our ancestors, the nature of love hasn't changed too much. The Greeks broke down love into Storge (the love of a parent for their children), Filia (love among true friends), Agape (love for the human race and its community), and Eros (sexual love). Can mixing those definitions together be sufficient to create a worthwhile, long term relationship, such as marriage? Arguably, a good relationship mixes Eros and Filia; it's an exciting and deeply caring friendship. It then starts looking outward jointly with Agape. It often will manifest itself with kids, an opportunity to experience Storge.

Will that last? Well, people change. Excitement wanes. New interests develop. Kids grow up. Decades ago and centuries ago, our fairly narrow worlds limited the amount of change. Less change meant less reason to grow apart. Moreover, the economics were very different. Couples needed to be together. Neither could really survive on their own, and it was extremely difficult for a family to survive with only one parent. That need doesn't exist anymore. Going solo in life is much easier today. Superficial needs can be satisfied (or obfuscated) with petty pursuits, and economic needs can be more easily satisified without someone along for the ride. Men, by and large, haven't kept up emotionally with women's independence. Men don't get an ego boost by being the provider anymore, because they're often not the provider. The role models men had in their fathers and grandfathers no longer hold sway. It's uncharted territory, and it's the future.

So how do you make it last? Obviously, you need all the pieces listed above. But in addition I think there needs to be a purposeful partnership. Couples need to build something together. They both need to have skin in the game. Whether you're building your retirement or building a family, there needs to be something that keeps pulling the couple together. A common goal is the best long-term answer.