Why Not More Ideas for Easier Earth to Orbit Launches?

Since so many people are impatient with N.A.S.A. manned space Earth to orbit methods I thought I would add another concept on the topic.

I like electro-magnetic accelerators a lot. They can easily achieve orbital escape velocity. Originally developed for the S.D.I. rail gun they have been used by the Navy for artillery on ships and in the metal-storm pistol manufactured by an Australian. It would be a useful concept approach to put an e.m.a. aboard a very large edge-of-the-atmosphere balloon launch platform and lift an orbital capsule 'bullet' up to the rarefied air where it would then be fired through the tube and into space.

That would be stage one of the idea. The balloon itself might be a winged delta shape and have rockets in it to fire when the e.m.a. sends of the space capsule in an opposite direction from the balloon delta-wing platform. The platform-launchers should be fairly cheap and easy to reload with another capsule for launch.

Obviously there are a zillion varieties and permutations for the shape and composition of the high-altitude space-capsule lift and launching platform. The balloons could be collapsible and the very large delta/balloon object could glide down to Earth after use for reloading perhaps landing in the ocean near Cape Canaveral Florida.

Less atmosphere less friction for the manned or cargo bullets. I haven't time to write more about the idea presently.  

Wiping Clean Vulgar Primary Issues

Much ado has been made by the pristine Republican elite about the infrequently rough language of Donald Trump as if Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson would have turned scarlet at such language. In the stratosphere of Republican PACs with lots of spare money to throw on campaign spots probably from zero-interest Federal Reserve loans to banks than are thereafter free to mint four e-dollars in new loans out of thin air for each buck from the Fed borrowed rough language is seldom used. On Wall Street behind the scenes the elites have prayer breakfasts each day before skimming billions in high-speed trading. The elite Republicans for ZIllary PAC financiers may use unkind words themselves behind golden doors.

I personally wouldn't mind a million bucks in order to experience some of the selflessness of consolidating wealth. If Donald Trump can return some manufacturing opportunities from China or coordinate a new easy-access print on demand industry that could make timely things like Presidential candidate toilet tissue and delivery them to retail outlets innovators might be able to just dial-in an idea and get the product made with a percentage of the profits eventually deposited in a friendly bank account.

Sht-if enough candidates remain until April to have a semblance of competition three or five different a-wipes could be big sellers to millions.

Sure it is good to carefully select one's language and exist in a non-pressured way wherein one may offer an appearance of saintliness and composure to the public. In my opinion though that is not always possible. A good candidate with rough language now and then may have the redeeming quality of good policy for the public. If elected he may use a teleprompter and not ad hoc so much, if he decides to remain an American citizen and not return home to Canada to run there. A candidate sometimes needs not only to tone down the rough edges although that may be something a reality-TV era public likes, sometimes he needs to wait and see if he gets the Presidential nomination before choosing to denounce any spare citizenships in foreign nations he or she may have.

Economic Analysis Necessarily Is Political

Economic policy analytic is necessarily political. Global economics isn't democratic. The most rich are best able to exploit it. An economist may be talking on American radio or television with comments that may be completely anational and empirically global . The economist may be irrelevant to national concerns of citizens.

It is the poor and middle class that stand to benefit the most from nationalist economics. Yet because of the Clinton's Yale-Oxford Boston takeover of the Democrat party and the Bush-Romney ultra-elite hegemony over the Republican Party the United States may be said to have a no-party system with Donald Trump possibly trying to upset the status quo.

Back in the day when the U.S.A. was a somewhat isolated power economists could reasonably talk about economic policy without concern for the globe except for matters of tariffs on trade goods and the value of foreign currencies based on their gold holdings. Today of course that has all changed and economists may default to planetary economic criteria concerning labor available globally, planetary transport costs of distal manufactured goods, tax rates in various nations on currencies in other nations, etc. Manipulating international politics and supporting various conflicts abroad directly effects economic criteria exploited by global economists for the benefit of investors in international markets comprising holdings of the plutonomy (the upper 5% of the 1%).

Economics for the benefit of U.S. citizens differs from economics for the benefit of plutonomy or economics for the benefit of the dar al Islam. Economic policy for the benefit of Russians differs from economic policies designed to benefit Argentinians or Mexicans. National economic policies are the sole direct approach to intentionally benefiting national citizens yet many may benefit indirectly, sometimes from regional politics.

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a natural Canadian citizen. If elected President of the U.S.A. he would also technically be a subject of the British Empire and complicate ancient ideas about the legality of the American Revolution against the King. He might also enable the United States to consider a legal annexation of Canada through a consolidation procedure involving business transcendence of boundaries. As a Canadian citizen and subject of the Queen Ted Cruz could exploit NAFTA from both sides of the border and possibly get elected President of Canada simultaneously and agitate to make Canada the 51^st state. Economic policy necessarily is political.

Environmental issues are another factor determining economic definition and relevance to national citizens. There is an entire academic discipline concerned with the objective state of natural resources and human economic interaction with them that objectify the value of those resources and the real cost to society of degrading and/or depleting them. Environmental economics is not just a preference for green or renewable resources that don't pollute.

An economist may be global, regional or national, she may be an environmental economist or not, she may be a socialist, a corporatist, an unlimited existential capitalist or a reformer with a preference for a new synthetic economic method of her own invention. One could make a table to show some of the varieties or combinations of economic viewpoints and recognize some of the confusion that goes abroad through the broadcast media and publishing world when various economic analysis and remedies are advanced to the public.

There are many short-term existential economists it seems concerned with short-term phenomenal changes to various  disingenuous government measured statistics of inflation, employment, value of bonds, treasury notes, public debt, tax rate and so forth with various theoretical filters for interpretation also based upon their own choices for economic viewpoint. Many of those are what the public gets in the U.S.A. today. It is a sort of possession is 9/10ths of the law sort of economics, rather than one of cold, rational objectivity for the good of the people and environment.

An Essay & Poem (video); Concentration of Wealth and Power

Where Nothing Disappears (poem)

Why Vladimir Putin Is An Admirable Historical Figure

President Vladimir Putin is an admirable historical figure. Well, that settles that. Putin is comparable to the Tsar Boris Godunov who led Russia during a serious 'time of troubles in the latte 16th century

Boris Godunov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Godunov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_rulers

Some presidential candidates such as Marco Rubio have criticized Donald Trump for saying Putin is an admirable guy, yet Trump is right. Of course Americans have made it a knee-jerk requisite patriotic necessity to have Russia as at least a sort-of foe since the cold war. It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks and American politicians love to hate Russia or at least its leaders if they don't kiss hut of the U.S. government.

Putin has needed to keep Russia strong and rebuild it during its time of greatest weakness. defend Russia against the west seeking to take its historically Russian lands and threats from Muslims, terrorists and of course China, and deal with the the Russia mafia as well. There were more threats and a requirement to keep people from starving too. No American President since F.D.R. have faced a fraction of the challenges and overcome them without complete failure. Instead, given all the opportunity in the world and immense military power after the end of the cold war in january 1990 the United States has built its public debt to 20 trillion dollars, continued to mess up te environment and get engaged in protracted foreign conflicts directly and indirectly that were avoidable. They also let the world economy nearly crash with banking and mortgage horseshit through deregulation and political stupidity.

A somewhat Tsar-like President is not a good thing except in comparison to what might have been instead to take an idea from Churchill.

One hopes the U.S.A. evolves some competent leadership one day ad that Russia evolves a perfect democracy with a good environment however I think that may take some time.

Presidential Candidates May Make 'Phony' Campaign Promises

With the lawyers attacking Donald Trump in and out of the debates and establishment Republicans calling Donald Trump a 'fraud' and a 'phony' it is worth recalling that it is politicians themselves making the claims, and politicians habitually make phony and fraudulent campaign promises. The disingenuous insinuation of political veracity of the accusatory candidates makes for a chuckle.

Candidate Trump standing amidst two lawyers that are professional arguers and polemicists too in a sense enjoys an experience something like being attacked from two pit bulls while riding a bike with them biting at each foot, and Trump has the prospect of the Democrats lawyer team of the Clintons ahead. It is somewhat amazing to me that he can actually enjoy the challenge.

Yet as serious as are sins of commission in making false campaign promises are, equally bad are the sins of omissions such as candidate Obama made in concealing his willingness to legalize homosexual marriage. If he had made that known in 2008 it is doubtful that he would have been elected, and neither would Hillary Clinton have replaced Obama since she too supports the abomination.

I should explain that I have heard a couple of jokes recently. One is the perennial one of 'What is the difference between a hippo and a zippo? One is heavy and the other a little lighter'. The other joke was on the radio. it was reported that a school board candidate believes President Obama was a homosexual prostitute in his 20's. In order to earn some extra cash I would guess. Yet I wonder where people gt that kind of idea or if it is just made up out of thin air.

Iit may be that most candidates are so daft rather than disingenuous that they have no idea about the potential for implementing policies that will cost unforseeen trillions. Such guesswork and blindness to national economic situations is considerable it seems.

I especially like the idea that the candidates other than Trump are competent on foreign policy. They may be able to tell Botswana from Argentina or Peru from Canada, yet they generally support incompetent Middle Eastern policy and Ukraine policy too that costs the nation a lot and Europe too in lost potential. None have solid Mexico policy that would stop all illegal immigration yet help develop Mexico quickly with a green and sustainable economic assistance and full employment policy. Instead they seem to prefer the decadent (literally) policy of corruption.