How To Escape "Heavy Government Regulations"

The Washington Times recently published "Congress OKs Space Act, paves way for companies to own resources mined from asteroids". According to that article,

Space Act on Monday, paving the way for private companies to own any natural resources they manage to mine from asteroids."

Could it be that "thar's gold in them thar asteroids"?

According to NASA, it currently costs about $10,000 to put each pound of payload into orbit around the earth. I'm guessing that it costs at least $5,000 per pound to retrieve each pound of payload from orbit and cause it to land safely somewhere on earth. That's about $15,000 for each pound of payload sent into orbit and subsequently returned to earth.

The cost-per-pound of sending mining ships to the asteroid belt (located between Mars and Jupiter) would probably be several times the cost of putting payloads into earth orbit and then returning those mining ships plus the weight of whatever ore they'd mined back to earth. I'm guessing the price per pound of space ships and ore recovered would have to run at least $100,000 a pound.

Given the incredible cost of space flight, it's hard to imagine how rockets will be able to reach the asteroid belt and mine to asteroids for any substance that's sufficiently valuable by weight to justify space travel to and from the asteroids. I.e., if it costs $100,000 per pound of spaceship and ore, to and from the asteroid belt, whatever ore they plan to mine from the asteroids must sell for far more than $100,000 a pound to make the trip profitable.

We're not going to haul iron ore back from the asteroids. The price per pound for iron ore will not justify the incredible costs of not merely transporting that ore back to earth, but also supplying the technology required to slow the entry of iron ore into our atmosphere without having it become a fiery meteor.

For space mining to work, the substance being mined and hauled back to the surface of the earth must have a high price to weight ratio similar to that of high-quality diamonds ($30 million/lb). I.e., if you could mine enough colorless, flawless diamonds from an asteroid to just fill a backpack, that small mass might still be worth enough to make space-mining profitable. If you could mine some mineral that was critical to making quantum computers and therefore of extreme value on a price per pound basis, space-mining might be profitable.

For example, Business Insider published a list of 19 items that were the most expensive by weight. That list included:

19. White truffles: $2,000/lb.

13. Rhino horn: $25,000/lb.

11. Heroin: $50,000/lb.

While we might be able to find some of those previously-listed organic substances on the "Planet of Prehistoric Women," I doubt that we'll be able to mine any truffles, rhino horn or heroin from the asteroids.

Besides, even if those items could be found in the asteroids, their price on earth (at most $50,000/lb) won't come close to justifying the cost of flying to and from the asteroids (at least, $100,000/lb).

9. Crack cocaine: $300,000/lb.

The price of crack ($300,000/lb.) might be enough to justify a trip to and from the asteroid belt. But I doubt that there's much crack up there. Even if there were, it would still probably be cheaper to buy it on the South Side of Chicago than to mine it in the asteroid belt.

7. Plutonium: $1.8 million/lb.

I'd bet we can make money mining plutonium from the asteroid belt. But can we haul plutonium back to earth in profitable quantities without killing the spaceship's crew with radiation?

6. Taaffeite: up to $9 million/lb.

Taaffeite is a mauve-colored gem that's less than one-millionth as common as diamonds. Find an asteroid full of taaffeite and haul a few pounds back to earth and your retirement could be fully funded.

3. Painite: $135 million/lb.

The rarest gem mineral. Beam me up, Scotty!)

1. Anti-Matter: $100 trillion/gram

On a price/pound basis, $100 trillion/gram works out to . . . umm . . . well . . . a lot. You wouldn't need to find very much anti-matter in the asteroid belt to get rich, but I don't expect you to find any at all.

My point is that I don't expect to find much in the asteroid belt that has enough value per pound to justify the incredible costs of space-mining.

Space mining asteroids might make sense if the cost of space flight were reduced to something comparable to the current cost of commercial air fare. But, given the current costs of space travel, I don't expect to see any profitable space-mining of the asteroid belt for several generations-if ever.

If so, what's the purpose and effect of passing a law that encourages private corporations to space-mine the asteroids?

Business Insider wrote that the "Space Act paved the way for private companies to own any natural resources they manage to mine from asteroids . . . . keeping the burgeoning private spaceflight industry free of heavy government regulations."

Implication?

Anyone seeking to escape "heavy government regulations," may have travel at least as far as the asteroid belt (somewhere beyond the orbit of Mars) to do so.

Business Insider ("This startup is trying to take down the diamond industry with Leonardo DiCaprio") reports:

"Diamond Foundry is a startup based in California that claims to be able to 'grow' hundreds of real diamonds in just a few weeks. Size can range up to 9 carats per gem.

"Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is just one of many influential investors backing the endeavor that could change the face of the diamond industry as we know it." 

DeCaprio starred in the movie "Blood Diamonds" which explored the violence and oppression that can be endemic within the African diamond industry. Apparently, DiCaprio is participating in this venture as a means to attack the "blood diamond" industry. I.e., if inexpensive diamonds can be produced in laboratories, there'll be less need for African diamond mines and/or the violence associated with "blood" diamonds.

Diamonds have always been a risky investment because diamonds are actually quite common. However, the diamond industry (especially, DeBeers) has artificially restricted the supply of diamonds by refusing to allow most of its inventory to reach the public. By artificially restricting the supply, the diamond industry has artificially increased the diamonds' price and profits.

However, if the Diamond Foundry has discovered a new technology to "grow" diamonds in the lab, the current diamond industry will no longer be able to restrict the supply of diamonds, the price of diamonds will fall, and the current diamond industry may collapse.

Implications:

1. As an investment, diamonds are silly because the supply has been artificially restricted. Soon, diamonds may be as plentiful and cheap as cubic zirconia.
2. Some other gems that are truly rare and not yetsusceptible to being "grown" in laboratories may soon become our favorite "rocks". For a while.
3. However, given that virtually all gems are crystals, and given that Diamond Foundry has allegedly found a way to "grow" one variety of crystals (diamonds), it seems inevitable that every other gem-quality crystal will soon also be grown in large numbers and large sizes in laboratories. Who knows? Within the next few years, we might see bowling balls grown out of a single diamond or ruby crystal.

In any case, given the accelerating rate of technological progress, once science learns how to make large quantities of inexpensive diamonds in the lab, it won't be long before it also learns how to grow rubies, emeralds and sapphires-by the pound. Maybe by the ton.

Further implications?

The current gem industry could be significantly diminished or even destroyed within the next five to ten years.

There may always be a collectors' market for the largest, purest and most extraordinary gems. But the retail markets for the smaller (less than 9 carats) gems may tank within the next few years.
Now's probably not the time to buy your brother-in-law's jewelry store or a bag of diamonds to preserve your wealth through the Greater Depression.

The New York Post ("ObamaCare's imploding even without repeal"):

Demographics.

"The long-feared'death spiral': Not enough young, healthy folks are signing up for these plans, so insurers are losing money despite the hefty federal subsidies for the coverage. They're raising premiums to even things out-but that drives even more young folks away, so that only older, less-healthy customers remain, driving new losses ...."

Last month (October), the Obama administration itself predicted 2016 enrollment in ObamaCare would be less than half of what the Congressional Budget Office had predicted just seven months earlier, in March.

Lessons?

1. All the President's horses and all the President's men can't con American youth into buying ObamaCare policies today that they're unlikely to need for another 30 years.
2. If ObamaCare fails and you can't personally pay for your own health care services, you might not be able to get any such services.
3. In order to avoid relying on others to provide medical services, we must each learn to become personally responsible for our own health care. If you want to avoid paying to see a doctor, you'd better assume responsibility for staying healthy. It's up to you to control your diet. It's up to you to exercise, etc.

A lot of money could be made if someone invented a machine that could provide relatively inexpensive medical diagnostics for the most common diseases. I'm thinking of a machine about the size of a desktop computer that had blood pressure sensors, some sort of non-invasive capacity to measure critical chemical imbalances in the individual's body, a data base to follow our diets and exercise regimens, and the necessary software to give us a daily assessment of our most common health problems.

Extra credit lesson: America's youth are unable or unwilling to support America's senior citizens. They're not going to sign up for ObamaCare just to subsidize grandma and grandpa. I don't blame them.

If you're a senior citizen (as I am) and you're counting on America's youth to support you in your old age (I'm not), you may be in for an unpleasant surprise. You may soon be forced to support yourself or at least pay for your own health care in your "golden years".

The leftist e-magazine .Mic published "Twitter Reacts to Bernie Sanders' Claims that Climate Change Caused Rise in Terrorism":

"In wake of a series of terrorist attacks that struck Paris on Friday night, the first question posed to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during Saturday night's Democratic debate was whether he still believes climate change is the No. 1 national security threat to the United States-and Twitter users had a lot to say about his answer. 

"'Absolutely,' he said. 'In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.' Sanders added that climate change will cause farmers in countries 'all over the world' to struggle with a scarcity of water and land to grow crops, which Sanders said studies have shown leads to international conflict. 

"Some Twitter users mocked Sanders' response, saying he should tell the French people that but wouldn't say that if he were face to face with a member of the Islamic State group."

I'd never support any collectivist for public office. It's a spiritual thing with me. I believe collectivism is inherently ungodly.

Therefore, I've never supported Bernie Sanders' run for the White House. Even so, just last month, I had high expectations for Bernie. I thought he might've captured the substantial youth/socialist vote of those concerned with income disparity, unemployment, and the general discontent of Americans trapped in a stagnant economy. A few polls showed Bernie's popularity to be rivaling or even surpassing that of Hillary.

However, as it's turned out, Bernie made some foolish statements that made him sound old and disconnected. "Global warming causes terrorism"? There may be some point to that argument, but it's not likely to be politically cool. Hillary's poll numbers are currently two to three times greater than Bernie's. Perhaps, it's time to dust off that rocking chair up in the attic.

Plus, a growing socialist political movement dominated and empowered by youth is unlikely to accept leadership from a 74-year-old senior citizen. Bernie is simply too old to represent the kids. Sean Penn is too old to represent the kids. Justin Bieber might be cool if they could just amend the Constitution to let anyone over 20 run for President.

Apparently, Bernie hit his high-water mark last month, failed to hang onto it, and has therefore lost his ability to effectively challenge Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Of course, if the Department of Justice ever issues an indictment against Hillary, she might be removed from the race and the Democrat nomination for President would be up for grabs. If Hillary were gone, Bernie might win the nomination.

But, so long as Hillary is still in the race-and assuming that no more Democrats enter the race for president before the end of this year-it appears that Hillary's nomination as Democrat candidate for President is increasingly "inevitable".

Gives me chills.

If the Republicans nominate some clown who can't even beat Hillary next year, the Republican Party should be dissolved.