If you need HIDs to see , then you shouldn't be driving <--sig material
Try: government funding has aided many technological and scientific advances (which, you know, is kind of needed to keep the nation competitive in such fields). There's not enough private sector capital to handle all of that -- period. Not every investment is going to be a rousing success. To expect otherwise is foolish (as is the notion some of you seem to have that the government is supposed to be perfect and never, ever be wrong). They're only human (and you can stuff the snarky/sarcastic retort to that).
Non-Obsessive Hatchback Owner.
This is the biggest problem we and the rest of the central banking manipulated world have to be thinking about - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...-to-fail-banks
The criminal syndicate "privately owned" federal reserve has (up through July 2010) passed out the back door over 16 TRILLION to banks - many outside the US. Who knows how much they have pumped out the back door since July 2010 - very destructive activities going on and ALL on the backs of the US Taxpayers.
If any of you are in love with the current administration or the hierarchy of the democrat/republican parties you have been duped to no end - you drank the kool-aid and they own you in more ways then you will ever imagine. Now Ron Paul, he "gets it" and has been a rare voice trying to get the manipulated masses to right the ship - so far there is not enough citizens "awake" to what is coming down the pipe next - so we will get more of the same and that will never correct the core structural problems taking down this country.
Basic research is science research done for its own sake. Discovering natural phenomena and the like to expand the frontiers of knowledge. Private industry doesn't do much of this anymore. It's clear why—basic research is costly and the results may never be commercialized. More importantly, the knowledge that comes from basic research can't be patented. Discovering something that exists in nature lacks the "inventive step" that a patentable invention must possess. Since anyone else can come along and use what you discovered, there isn't much incentive for private firms to spend money on basic research.
Applied research and development is the process of bringing technology to market and adapting it for large scale production. Applied R&D is what private companies spend on research. However without basic research done beforehand, there wouldn't be any new promising technology in the pipeline to try to commercialize.
So without government funding, you would still see innovation but it would be confined to applications of basic research that is already known. If you're adverse to the idea of the government directly funding research you can do what was done for AT&T. Monopoly status gave them enough profit to fund their own research at Bell Labs. Unfortunately, Bell Labs stopped doing basic research when deregulation caught up to them. So despite having to pay inflated prices for telephone service, we did get innovations such as the transistor and the UNIX operating system out of them.
The long term result of what you propose is for American companies to go out of business because they're forced to play by different rules than companies from other countries. I simply don't understand how you think that wouldn't happen or would be desirable.
Government absolutely has a role to play in developing new technologies. Same argument as above applies: the USA is a great source of innovation, but so are many other countries. If the USA must solely rely on private funding while other countries invent s*** with both private and government funded research, the USA will undoubtedly fall behind. I don't see that as desirable, I see that as adhering to a philosophy well beyond the point where that philosophy starts to make no sense.
Last edited by Jader Pack; 04-07-2012 at 01:55 AM.
This is entirely a political argument. Those of you who support government investing in private companies have failed to support why the government should, or has the right to do so.
"Because Germany, Japan et al. does it" is not an argument. I think that most of us learned that we don't get bikes because Jimmy down the street just got a new bike.
A more grown-up response is that European competition law is founded on the ideals of European integration and limitation of abuse of dominant position. European law came out of countries where the people were comfortable with consolidated power because they were accustomed to state monarchies holding absolute control.
American anti-trust law was created with the purpose of preventing that type of consolidation of power into individual hands in order to prevent monopolization. Americans just have a different mindset for how much power they are comfortable with in the state's hands. It shows that maybe that is changing (you European-thinking TCLers you).
"Because we waste so much money fighting wars, we might as well waste more by investing in private companies" is silly and deserves no response.
"The government invests in Boeing, GM, etc." So what? This doesn't answer the question of whether public investment of private companies is good. How much of this investment is driven by lobbying?
Ultimately, you could take either position because the answer comes from your personal level of comfort in the how the government spends your money (i.e. converts your money into power).
The problem is many veterans here are not as long winded as somebody like me. People get tired of explaining the reasons and or justifications so anymore it becomes very mean spirited.
Your last paragraph sums it up well, but politics isn't always necessarily the descriptor for an issue that has a lot to do with science. I suppose one can choose to pin it as so, but given a lot of what the push for EVs are about at its foundation are about facts and man would like to continue to live on Earth more.... wouldn't that be beyond politics? I guess it also boils down to how far into the future one views things. Furthermore it also depends a lot on how our circumstance as a nation historically has succeeded given our set of conditions versus say some European and/or other countries. But somebody like William Catton, Jr. details it far better than I do.
Would you prefer that all such American companies simply fail because they must play by different rules than their competitors?
Last edited by ffcol; 04-07-2012 at 11:31 AM.
Letting GM fail for want of government assistance, when all of GM's competitors enjoy a great deal of government assistance, is not competition. Real competition would be great but, failing that, competition on equal terms will suffice.
Now, would you please answer my question?
how come a transvestite donkey witch is next to you and why is it wearing a dress?
Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you mother****er, say what one more goddamn time!
To answer your question, any company that can not compete in its market deserves to fail and another one will take its place if there is a market. Printing money to generate a market does not really seem like a smart thing to do.
Well I am off to work my 4th weekend in a row since we did not get bailout money to hire more people
I think loaning GM a bit of money is preferable to America losing a massive company. I can't see how anyone would disagree.
All of this is doubly so because GM's failure was not it's fault. It's products and business model were not the problem; the problem was that credit dried up for reasons completely unrelated to anything GM did. It would be like letting GM fail because of a temporary but severe shortage of raw supplies.
I strongly support my government investing in American companies developing new technologies. I understand that not all these investments will pay off. But that's how the process works.
Please help me win a new, amazing Ukulele! Vote for my Pete Seeger inspired image in HMS's Photo Contest. CLICK HERE.
Funny, OP makes stupid post, gets ass handed to him and never posts again. TCL at its best.
Garmin Is My Pilot.
I am confident you are wrong, but instead of illustrating why, I will just make disparaging remarks about your reading comprehension.
I do not think having the Chinese or whomever else owning GM is a better alternative than "bailing" them out.
The shock wave of GM failing would reach far beyond the spectrum of General Motors. I was actually working for a GM dealer when the letters to shut down were starting to get mailed out to franchisees. Not a fun time watching everyone hit the panic button.
You see... you (and many of us) would prefer that everything works by the merits of one's capabilities and decisions and that would afford more fairness. Your belief is rooted in fairness, no? It is not fair for the government to back ANY business or entity, but it does. That is part of the purpose of government. It creates and coordinates and maintains and evolves laws/regs/etc. in order to guide a society. Any time a law is created... it is theoretically biasing against some side that doesn't like/believe in the law/belief. Think about that. So what it boils down to is everybody's definition of what ENOUGH is or what the LIMIT should be. We all have varying beliefs and no rule can satisfy everybody.
Without a doubt it is not fair that one entity/business gets more support than another. That is BS plain and simple. But guess what? Life sucks and you deal with it. Some have better lobbies. Some have a wider impact on the economy. Some participate in global markets that are crucial to overall the country's well-being. The simple fact that man is competitive means governments are. Since they are they will each do things uncompetitively. Or actually in the minds of some cultures... that would be defined as common sense... and in fact... competitively smart.
For those to assert that less government influence and/or no influence is the ideal... that is in denial of what they believe at the core (fairness). It is contradictory, because if the US government were to remove all its help across all of its industries... it would fail big time. And then guess what? Those arguing against all the aid will then do a 180deg about face and start bitching about why the government allowed the failures to happen! And you cannot even pretend to think that is exactly how it would have played out. Unfortunately we don't live in a world that is fair even though entities exist to try to make things fair... however one defines that word.
No doubt. But don't pretend all of what made GM or Chrysler and even Ford to an extent fail was within their realm of influence. There are all manner of issues outside of their control that were setup long before we reached the last decade or two. There is not a business in existence that grew wealthy/successful and have not become uncompetitive simply by the inherent nature of successful companies = higher wages = wealthier community = less competitive than other global regions. One of the problems with car MFG is that localization is important due to the mere fact that transporting cars globally is not cheap as it is transporting iPhones.To answer your question, any company that can not compete in its market deserves to fail and another one will take its place if there is a market. Printing money to generate a market does not really seem like a smart thing to do.
I don't blame the general public for being ignorant of all the issues that were outside of the realm of influence of Detroit, but it exists and how do you explain away those challenges as if they were easily within the realm of fixing? There is a reason a lot of MFG industries don't exist in America anymore. I think today's society or at least some of its leaders chose to do something antithetical to their core beliefs, because they realized how big of an impact it was and that allowing an industry that nearly every other major economic power relies on to help act as one of the many foundations of their economic might... allowing it to completely fail is not smart.
There is not a week that has gone by since the bankruptcy that I don't appreciate the bailout (eventhough I am against it... from the start, but for different reasons than you). And if you want to talk about working weekends... all I can say is, "I feel ya, bro." In the last 1.5 years I have worked 29 Saturdays and 8 Sundays... for FREE. The vast majority of which I will never make up (because you just can't in my job as there is so much work now to catchup and move on with). And BTW... I don't know about you, but I don't get paid for working these weekends. In fact... I knew that going into those weekends, but I justify it by telling myself, "You got bailed out by many that didn't approve of it and many that have lost their own jobs. Count your blessings and deal with it!" Oh yeah... and I work for GM.Well I am off to work my 4th weekend in a row since we did not get bailout money to hire more people
Government investment is very important. A great example is the internet, which was funded by DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency). A large percentage of DARPA research is a waste, but a small percentage leads to incredibly important technologies that are owned by the US. The US has had a monopoly on the internet services industry for 30 years thanks to DARPA's investment. Without government investment, and some misses, you could have Baiju-ed the last time you wanted to find the lyrics to Purple Haze.
So yes, its a waste, but taking risks is important to the future of the country.
I tried Baidu-ing "lyrics to purple haze" just out of curiosity and it worked well, actually. I didn't even get great firewalled. However, it has a message in Chinese at the top of the results saying that "due to relevant laws and regulations, some results are not being shown." WTF?
So, a quick, humorous straw man had to suffice from me this time through.