In defending his job as a consultant with Freddie Mac Newt Gingrich dismayingly sounded like an anti-corporate leftist in attacking Mitt Romeny's irreproachable career in private equity investing, and the idea of creative destruction so vital to progress in an evolving free market economy. But what practically went unnoticed by the media was that Romney had his own anti-Capitalist moment when attacking Newt. This came during Saturday's debate when George Stephanopoulos asked Romney to explain the places where he differs from his rival:
"Let's see--," replied Romney, "-- we can start with-- with his idea to-- to have-- a lunar colony that would mine-- minerals from the-- from the moon, I'm not in favor of spendin' that kinda money-- to do that......." (Laughter).
Gingrich then came out swinging with this reply:
"I'm proud of trying to find things that give young people a reason to study science and math and technology and telling them that some day in their lifetime, they could dream of going to the moon, they could dream of going to Mars. I grew up in a generation where the space program was real, where it was important, and where frankly it is tragic that NASA has been so bureaucratized, aims at you-- Iowa-- Iowa State's a perfect example.
Iowa State's doing brilliant things, attracting brilliant students. I wanna give them places to go and things to do. And I'm happy to defend the idea that America should be in space and should be there in an aggressive, entrepreneurial way."
In other words, Gingrich wants to bring American industry and enterprise to the Moon and beyond opening new horizons of growth, opportunity and employment for Americans, which Romney opposes because of the costs. But the question is this: is Gingrich's futuristic vision of extraterrestrial Capitalism for exploiting the resources and wealth of outer space realistic? Does it make economic good sense? Or are the costs prohibative as Romney says making Gingrich a kind of candidate moonbeam. The answer is "no" says Rand Simmberg of National Review Online who challenges Romney's view that Gingrich is a pie in the sky visionary and therefore a less sensible candidate for President.
.
"There are rare earths on the Moon," writes Simmberg, "which are valuable per pound (a useful trait for a commodity with high transportation costs) and strategically important for the electronics industry, and whose price has been skyrocketing recently due to a monopoly on them by China. Some, such as Apollo geologist/astronaut Jack Schmitt, have long promoted lunar mining as a source for helium 3, an isotope with characteristics preferable to deuterium for fusion (though we don’t currently have the reactor technology for it). But the most compelling argument for lunar mining right now is its ability to dramatically reduce the cost of exploration beyond the earth-moon system by using the water and oxygen trapped in lunar rocks to make propellant — which constitutes most of the mass of the payload for giant rockets such as the planned Space Launch System — as well as for life support. Having propellants in other locations allows full reusability of the vehicles, and could make possible not just the exploration but the settlement of the moon and other bodies. Developing such resources would, in the words of George W. Bush science adviser John Marburger, “incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere.” That, I suspect, is the vision that Newt has in mind (see)."
Indeed, he does. Gingrich's lunar mining colonies are spot on; and Romney poking fun of him is out of touch with the realities of the Space Age with its huge possibilties for benefiting our economy and that of the world.
Major websites linking this piece are as follows (click and see):