Was Going to the Moon Worth It? No.

A robotic probe could hit a golf ball on the moon much more cost effectively.

The fact that forty years on there's still serious debate as the whether manned missions to the moon were worth the resources compared to other alternatives suggests an answer: no. There's no sign that by the sixtieth or even hundredth anniversary there won't still be significant doubts about the Apollo program's overall utility and that illustrates how dubious its importance was. Historically, the space race came down to the development of ICBMs and a glorified international pissing contest.

Arguments about technologies developed because of the space program ignore the fact that the capital would've been put to use in other areas and constitute a broken window fallacy. Even if we do eventually wind up having a serious presence in space, it would be fallacious to argue that such early trips to the moon were especially necessary. In the case of exploration, robots are more effective and it's at least many decades premature to consider colonization. There is far too much basic research and development to be done at this stage and is analogous to going directly from inventing a kite to planning the Concorde. We should definitely do such research, but there are many other advances that have to happen before such extreme long range goals make any sort of immediate sense.

Proponents of manned space travel are reduced to arguing for it in public relations terms. This strikes me as an extremely weak position and a better way to obtain public support is to attain real results with modest budgets. The amazing discoveries from the Hubble space telescope and Mars rovers captivated the imaginations of millions and did so for a lot less investment and risk of human life. Space exploration should be treated the same as other scientific endeavors and be about substance, not style. Technologically, the moon landings were a triumph; a needless, wasteful, and wrongheaded triumph.

Microsecond Trades = Insanity Indicator

There is extreme competition to execute stock trades in less and less time. The small changes in value that can occur while an order is pending can add up to serious money. This has become an arms race because as the ability to cram more trades into less time increases, the amount of fluctuation that can occur over brief periods becomes greater. Execution times on the order of microseconds are now possible, with no sign that further decreases aren't on the way. Ignoring for the moment the unfair competitive edge such systems give the large institutions that can afford them, I see the entire drive as proof positive that our speculation markets are insane. There is no way to interpret buying and selling that holds times that tiny as being anything in the slightest bit constructive, caring at all about the development of companies, products, or technology. It is gambling (at best, insider trading at worst) in its most naked form and should be eliminated. Not only should quick turnaround on stock be discouraged, but the trades themselves should be randomized and delayed in order to make extremely time sensitive trading impossible. I would like to see minimum delays of a least a day or two, with a random component of the same order. Another possibility is that orders are sold off across an interval so that the sale price is effectively time averaged. Many will complain that limiting transaction speed will reduce liquidity, but how is that beneficial in this instance? Because it allows more people to make extremely speculative and fundamentally unproductive exchanges faster?

Opposing Goals as a Method of Regulation

The rating agencies that failed so spectacularly during the recent housing boom have a serious conflict of interest problem: if they don't rate bonds highly, the bond owners will take their business elsewhere. Since they're funded by the companies whose products they rate, this is a serious problem. There are many proposed ways to address this, such as changing who funds them or basing rewards on prediction accuracy, but I was also thinking that requiring them to offer another service that creates a bias in the opposite direction could also work. If a rating agency were required to offer insurance on a product based on their own rating, then they'd have a powerful financial stake in its accuracy. Of course they'd need to have enough capital requirements to ensure their insurance was viable, and the two competing areas of business need to be roughly matched in value. This is fundamentally different than having third party insurance entities, because the rating agency has complete knowledge of the internal mechanisms used to arrive at their ratings. I feel a fundamental overall of the entire system is more appropriate, but still found this idea rather intriguing.

I couldn't think of a good picture to accompany this. Any suggestions?