patrick.net

There is no profit in going to the moon per se. It was an amazing feat, and it stroked a lot of ego, but so what?

Things might have been invented or improved as a side-effect. Then it is really a matter of marketing and financing.

Peter P says

No matter how much I wanted that to be true, the market is really very good at making itself efficient.

If the market were efficient, then the Goldman Sachs of the world would be out of business. As much as I wished the market was efficient and self-correcting, it is not. If the market actually learned from its mistakes and improved itself, the housing bubble would have never happened.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/339761-just-how-efficient-is-the-market

Robert Shiller showed back in 1981 that stock price volatility is far too high to be attributed to new information about future real dividends

Research by Abarbanell and Bernard at Michigan University has shown that companies that surprise with higher than expected profits do not instantly get repriced. 25 to 30% of the repricing happens up to six months after the initial news.

Even the father of efficient market theory, Eugene Fama, has cast doubt on its validity by showing that small cap stocks and low price to book stocks outperform the efficient market model

Josef Lakonishok, Joseph Piotroksi and David Dreman in many different studies have shown that value stocks based on low price to book, low price to earnings and other metrics significantly outperform glamour stocks.

As just one of several identified momentum effects, research by George and Hwang found that stocks near their 52-week highs tend to be systematically undervalued (investors use this level as an “anchor”, so they tend to be reluctant to buy a stock as it nears this point regardless of new positive information).

Dan8267 says

If the market were efficient, then the Goldman Sachs of the world would be out of business. As much as I wished the market was efficient and self-correcting, it is not. If the market actually learned from its mistakes and improved itself, the housing bubble would have never happened.

I think you have an overly simplistic view of market efficiency. Rent-seeking can be profitable even in the face of market efficiency.

The market is self-correcting, yet it may not happening. It is just being as efficient as possible.

That said, the market is NOT completely efficient. It is about 97% (just a number I pulled from my ass). It corrects inefficiencies, but there will always be the new ones.

And by the way, the market is a representation of expectations, not of established facts. Of course the stock prices will diverge from what a value model will predict.

The market is about crowd psychology.

Peter P says

Yet without which we would not have to go there at all? The moon is not made of cheese, you know? :-)

Keep believing that Medieval society could put man on the moon if you like. That's a delusion.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

As is the doubling of the human life span

Not sure if that is a good thing.

Whether or not you consider it a good thing, it is certainly an impressive and important accomplishment. I, for one, will gladly take the second half of my lifespan.

Peter P says

There is no profit in going to the moon per se. It was an amazing feat, and it stroked a lot of ego, but so what?

After discovering the basic principle of electromagnetic induction in 1831, Michael Faraday was asked by a skeptical politician, William Gladstone, what good might come of electricity. "Sir, I do not know what it is good for," Faraday replied. "But of one thing I am quite certain - someday you will tax it."

Today electricity is the basis of our entire civilization, and yes, it is taxed.

The benefits of space exploration are long term, but without space exploration our species will most certainly die when our sun exhausts its nuclear fuel. Most likely, there will be a plenitude of material benefits long before that happens.

How profitable is space exploration? Would you like a solid block of gold the size of Mount Everest? There is more gold in the solar system than has ever been mined in all of human history. And that's just one thing.

The bottom line is that science's track record has been stellar, whereas religion's track record has been abysmal. No amount of turd polishing or poo-pooing can change that. The difference is so stark that any attempt to make religion look even nearly as good as science is laughable.

Dan8267 says

The bottom line is that science's track record has been stellar, whereas religion's track record has been abysmal.

The Pope would disagree.

Science is a VERY useful tool. But we just need to know its limitations.

Dan8267 says

There is more gold in the solar system than has ever been mined in all of human
history. And that's just one thing.

gold is only valuable because it is rare ... on earth. Breathable air is valuable in space, but cheap on earth.

I think Dr. DeGrasse says that we (our human bodies) are made up with the exact same percentages of the elements as the universe. That's pretty cool. God is a clever operator.

p.s., Science has been wrong a billion times, but it has the auto-correct function of being a never-ending-quest for answers (a good thing, in my opinion). Science (and all of the names it was called before 1600 A.D.) has been off the mark a few times. Lets not forget, the creation "myth" was deemed correct by science about 7,000 years after it was "wrote" down. Between the time it was wrote down, and about 1920, science was not sure of the ordering of the appearance of life on earth, (you know, water plants, water animals, land plants, land animals, and the very very last thing -- man) Ancient text had it right, and then science found it out! p.s.s. the creation myth had nothing to do with religion, it was just the answer to "how did we get here".

I will not be surprised if a civilization on earth 10000 years ago had more advanced technology than we do now.

Peter P says

The Pope would disagree.

Why should I care what the Pope, a former Hitler Youth and current and long time cover-upper of pedophiles, thinks?

Peter P says

I will not be surprised if a civilization on earth 10000 years ago had more advanced technology than we do now.

Whereas the entire educated world would be shocked. Any society with world-wide telecommunications, computers, and space travel that existed on Earth 10,000 years ago, would be a very, very big discovery.

Dan8267 says

Whereas the entire educated world would be shocked. Any society with world-wide telecommunications, computers, and space travel that existed on Earth 10,000 years ago, would be a very, very big discovery.

I am not easily surprised nowadays. Unless it is good food in some unlikely places.

Bap33 says

Science has been wrong a billion times

Science is a methodology. Individual scientists are wrong. Science is the methodology that filters out incorrect hypothesis and revises and improves correct ones.

What exactly do you have against the scientific method and what superior alternative do you propose?

Religious leaders are deliberately incorrect. They lie for the sake of gaining wealth and power. Science ensures that any deliberate fraud and any accidental mistake are caught and exposed. And science's track record has been phenomenal and exponentially improving. It is science that enable mankind to progress more in the 20th century than mankind progressed in all prior centuries put together. That alone proves the incredible value of science. Nothing in religion can compare.

Bap33 says

God is a clever operator.

Even if there were a god and it were a clever operator, it would not be your god. It would not be Jesus and god the father. That's for sure.

Bap33 says

Lets not forget, the creation "myth" was deemed correct by science about 7,000 years after it was "wrote" down.

Not even remotely true. Any pseudo-science caused by the religious perverting the scientific community by disregarding the scientific method is pure bullshit.

Bap33 says

Science (and all of the names it was called before 1600 A.D.) has been off the mark a few times.

Although science does not have a precise beginning, the modern meaning of the word comes from the methodology began in the 1600s and published by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum in 1622, and by René Descartes in Discourse on Method in 1637. The scientific method was revised and improved so that by the late 19th century, it was a world-wide standard. It is during the late 19th century that we start seeing the exponentially increasing knowledge, understanding, and technology of mankind. The scientific revolution is what started this.

Bap33 says

and the very very last thing -- man)

There are countless species which have come into existence after man came about. HIV comes to mind.

Peter P says

There is no profit in going to the moon per se. It was an amazing feat, and it stroked a lot of ego, but so what?

We've just got this thing for conquering frontiers and propagation. I don't get it either. We could've stopped after the bottle opener and the remote control, and I'd still be in awe of humankind.

JodyChunder says

We've just got this thing for conquering frontiers and propagation. I don't get it either. We could've stopped after the bottle opener and the remote control, and I'd still be in awe.

I think molecular gastronomy is more useful.

Space exploration is not my thing. Can't pay me enough to go to space.

Peter P says

Can't pay me enough to go to space.

I've got the Eureka Dunes near enough if I ever get the hankering.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

and the very very last thing -- man)

There are countless species which have come into existence after man came about. HIV comes to mind.

nope. don't be silly.

Dan8267 says

What exactly do you have against the scientific method and what superior
alternative do you propose?

I really like science and support it. Sorry if it sounded different. I support an active pursuit of the unknown in all areas. Science is way bitchin if you ask me. Scientific discovery has done as much to solidify my understanding of God, man, and the universe, as anything else. Along with Plato, Sam Clemens and Ben Franklin.

Peter P says

I will not be surprised if a civilization on earth 10000 years ago had more advanced technology than we do now.

The world's pyramids, the Nazca lines, and the degradation of modern man, seem to point at an ancient advanced society.

Bap33 says

Along with Plato, Sam Clemens and Ben Franklin

Is it acceptable writing style to refer to Mark Twain by his real name if you are referencing the ideas or writings published under the pseudonym? It's like referring to Leonardo DiCaprio as "Leo" or Nicholas Cage as "Nick" when you don't personally know them. . . .

Bap33 says

The world's pyramids, the Nazca lines, and the degradation of modern man, seem to point at an ancient advanced society.

Yes, and they could be advanced in different ways.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

The bottom line is that science's track record has been stellar, whereas religion's track record has been abysmal.

The Pope would disagree.

Do you always trust known pedophile protectors?

Regards
DL

Philistine says

Bap33 says

Along with Plato, Sam Clemens and Ben Franklin

Is it acceptable writing style to refer to Mark Twain by his real name if you are referencing the ideas or writings published under the pseudonym? It's like referring to Leonardo DiCaprio as "Leo" or Nicholas Cage as "Nick" when you don't personally know them. . . .

I was not refering to Sam Clemens in the familure, I was refering to the person who invented the thoughts, words, and personage of Mark Twain. Sorry if I came off as being disrespectful. I am a cad at times. If you don't mind, please tell me one thing, who is it that would be offended by my reference? Sam or Mark?