jump to navigation

Dr. Armen Papazian, Monday, 2-10-14 February 11, 2014

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Armen Papazian, Monday, 2-10-14


Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guest:  Dr. Armen Papazian.  Topics:  Dr. Papazian presented his ideas and theories for investing in space based on wealth, not debt.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcomed back to the show Dr. Armen Papazian to further discuss his innovative and groundbreaking money mechanics of space theory along with his having received the Alpha Centauri Prize Progenitor Award for his space economics work.  You can read more about the award, his theory and body of work at www.keipr.com.  Several times during our 1 hour 34 minute discussion, Dr. Papazian referenced his Cambridge University Business School Nov. 2013 presentation, “Our Financial Imagination and the Cosmos” which is at www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/media/2013/our-financial-imagination-and-the-cosmos.  During our first segment, Dr. Papazian introduced us to his space economic proposal which is to invest directly in NASA and space commerce by creating money through wealth, not by debt which is the traditional way of getting investment money into the banks to circulate it to industry.  As this theory may be difficult to understand, the first segment was devoted to describing how the system proposed by our guest would work, the use of Public Capitalization Notes (PCNs) rather than debt securities, and for the Fed to directly invest in NASA and the space industry about half of their monthly QE3 financial support going to the banking industry.  This would put abut $40 billion per month in the hands of NASA and the space industry as wealth investments, not debt.  Listeners asked our guest several questions to help understand the proposal, if the plan added to inflation, and to understand just how the PCNs would work.

In the second segment, we continued the discussion but listeners also wanted to know more about the plan which seems to bypass the banking industry.  Dr. Papazian explained that the banks were not bypassed but that the money would flow to them differently. Instead of from the Fed to be loaned out as debt, NASA and the businesses would get the funds direct as explained in the first segment and then the money would go to the banks in the form of deposits.  Remember that the banking industry leverages deposits with reserve ratios to increase their money supply to make loans so by the direct wealth investment in space, banks are still very much part of the process.  During both segments, we talked about the advanced technology regarding the space investments yet they were constrained by out of date financial methodologies and instruments.  Not only would this new space money mechanics increase space investment, it would also be used by NASA for more education.  Also mentioned during both segments was the traditional economic concept of scarcity.  Our guest spent lots of time debunking scarcity, especially with space given the vastness of the solar system, stars, all of space.  As you will hear, the reality of our environment is that it is not based on scarcity so why should our methods for creating money be based on scarcity.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS Blog per above.  You can reach Dr. Armen Papazian through me or his website.



1. Armen Papazian (@armenpapaz) - February 20, 2014

One of the links was repeated by mistake, here is number three again:

3- Space Exploration and Money Mechanics: An Evolutionary Challenge


2. Network Doctor - February 19, 2014

Hi David,

Thank you so much for TheSpaceShow. Your show allows me to stay informed on All Things Space!

I think I have a couple of analogies to explain Dr. Papazian’s “investing in space based on wealth”.

I would like opinions on whether my analogies are correct or if off-base, how?
Analogy #1:
Rocks/planets/moons in space are like real estate on Earth:
Humanity is blessed with an almost unlimited supply of uninhabited real estate on Earth. Clearly, real estate should be considered the wealth of all humanity & therefor free!
Analogy #2:
Does a deliciously prepared steak & potatoes dinner appear on your table upon your wish without the consumption of anyone’s scarce capital or scarce labor?
Of course the above sounds & is insane. Analogy #1 ignores the fundamental cost factor in real estate: Location. Analogy #2 highlights the fact wishes are “free”, their fulfillment is not.

In my humble opinion Dr. Papazian’s “investing in space based on wealth” theory has the SAME fundamental flaw: It assumes location of the Rocks/planets in space is not a factor, or is an insignificant factor in utilizing its wealth: Space resources are therefor free “Wealth”. The wishes to utilize space resources will have no costs in capitol or labor.

Dr. Papazian obfuscates the above by funding access to the “wealth” in space with the “free” money that would be “freed” if we just didn’t give it to the “banks”. Dr. Papazian imagines taking the money that is being “given” to “banks” to use instead to develop space.

I say if anyone can identify any money being “given” to “banks” or anyone by the government, stop the giveaway immediately & return the funds to the taxpayer, not find a different way upon which the government can waste the money.

The wishful thinking above is popular because it takes advantage of humanity’s chronic “something for nothing” desire to entice people into accepting yet another relabeled, repackaged & disguised Marxist “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability” economic system. Marxism has repeatedly, disastrously, failed every time it has been tried in economies large & small. This is now settled economic science.

Marxism in Dr. Papazian’s presentation here is of the form:
If you will just join me in promoting “Economics of Abundance”, “insert audience’s most cherished wishful dream here” can be yours at little or no cost to you. For The Space Show audience the wishful dream includes, for example, Mars Colonies.

Of course, no economic system based on Marxism can produce any such dream.

Unfortunately, Dr. Papazian’s proposal is an example of fantasy economics historically employed by those trying to ignore the laws of economics.

There is not free lunch.

Comments welcome & desired.

Daniel Peters
Emergency Medical Technician
Computer Network Engineer

Armen Papazian (@armenpapaz) - February 20, 2014

Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your comment. Yes, your analogies are off-base. Please see below three links that can provide necessary clarifications.

1- Our Financial Imagination and the Cosmos
Cambridge University Business School

2- Economics and Finance: The Front Lines of Galactic Evolution
Principium, Page 8

3- Space Exploration and Money Mechanics: An Evolutionary Challenge
Keipr Ltd

Thanks and best wishes,

PS: Regarding your point where you say, and I quote: “if anyone can identify any money being “given” to “banks” or anyone by the government… ” Well, I was talking about QE3, which is the injection of 85 billion USD every month since September 2012 into the banking system by the Federal Reserve, NOT the government. The amount has been tapered down, but still around 65 billion a month.

Ed Romano - January 30, 2015

Regarding the “free lunch” outrage, exactly how would you characterize fractional banking? Banks make profit (large sums) for the sole reason of having money to lend (a “service” for which they charge handsomely), in the most obscenely direct form of the “money begets money” truism. Don’t get me wrong, access to capital is no trivial matter, but to ignore the free lunch aspect on the supply side is quite grievous, wouldn’t you agree? That is, if we aim to vilify the human want for getting “something for nothing” on behalf of us dreamers, I only ask that we also vilify those that already do the taking!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: