When innocent taxpayers are forced to 'invest' in defective technology

[Sledge]

Fisker isn't doing anything revolutionary. They are just tarting up a golf car and adding a few dollars to the price tag.

Porsches are just tarted up VW Type 1s with a few dollars added to the price tag.

[seadoo2006]

The stupid. It burns.

Obin Robinson lost his mind ... it's okay, he's like the funny old man with Alzheimer's.

In reality though, he forgets that our nation saw the largest spans of growth when one, immigration was a driving force in our economy (in the latter-half of the 19th century) and when the world had, quite literally, blown itself to pieces leaving only the US standing. It's easy to forget how easy it is to grow a middle class when there are no competitors to the global marketplace.

[cockerpunk]

You are implying that if the basic research is not done, then private companies can't/won't produce products to sell. What will they do then? Sit on there thumbs. Well, if they want to be successful and stay in business, they will save money, formulate capital, invest in the basic research in order to produce the products.

If companies want to sell products in a free market and compete, they will do the research. If they don't have the funds, they will save, go to a bank to be loaned someone elses savings or reach out to investors. If they have a sound business plan, maybe the will get the money to do the research. If they don't they won't and that investors money will be available to another business that has a sound business plan and who is looking to build a strong foundation.

Either way, the common denominator needed to facilitate growth is savings and you can see how well our government does with that.

my point is basic research funded by the government is a faster way to market technology, and more profitable for the private sector.

your way is WAY more costly to the consumer, and take WAY longer.

yes, i said more costly and slower then the government. because companies keep there research private, which means that every company in every market will be doing this basic research ... which means instead of a government funded lab or university doing one study, and publishing one paper, EVERY SINGLE company has to do that exact same experiment.

which means, the price of products goes up, and the development time goes up.

government funded research is actually the best and most efficient way to take ideas to products.

[cockerpunk]

Obin Robinson lost his mind ... it's okay, he's like the funny old man with Alzheimer's.

In reality though, he forgets that our nation saw the largest spans of growth when one, immigration was a driving force in our economy (in the latter-half of the 19th century) and when the world had, quite literally, blown itself to pieces leaving only the US standing. It's easy to forget how easy it is to grow a middle class when there are no competitors to the global marketplace.

also, capital gains tax was over 40% and the top income tax bracket was 90%.

inb4 taxes kill job creation ....

[fbobberts]

Globalization may have redefined the world, but economics doesn't change. Economic growth comes from savings, capital formation, and production. Not from borrowing, printing, and consuming. Doesn't matter if we are in the 1800's or 2000's.

This I agree with and I will go one better - the rise and decline of a nation's power is related to its rate of industrial growth divided by the rate of growth of its Imperial commitments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ris...e_Great_Powers

This has also not changed in that same period of time. So the issues as I see them are simple:

1) How can we revitalize our industrial growth rate - which is at an index of 102 in 2002 terms, or nearly 0% growth - while we allow nearly completely open borders with lower wage regions of the world? What do we need to do in terms of training, education, infrastructure and energy policy to drive increased industrial growth?

2) How can we ensure that our representatives will limit our Imperial commitments to those in our true strategic interest? When will we revisit the real world and our defensive posture through the lens of what is really needed?

This is not just a question of budgets. This is a question of investment in the correct strategic directions.

[jds215]

It is just that the land and natural resources from the stolen (or gov't bought stolen land from Russia and France) land fueled a large part of the growth. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the economic growth was all from innovation because it flat out wasn't just that, and don't think the gov't didn't have a hand to play in that innovation either. If you don't believe me look at the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 and all the gold rushes of the mid to late 1800's.

Our economic fundamentals were very different then. The government wasn't redistributing wages on income from one individual to another to fund these things.They were raising most of their money through excise taxes and other taxes. This was keeping more savings into the hands of private individuals and businesses. The Federal Gov was also constrained by the gold standard providing a check on the value of the currency.

Sure it wasn't just innovation. I can't turn innovation into production without capital & savings. Fortunately we saw one of if not the largest period of capital formation at this time which helped to spur additional production and elevate our economy to one of the largest in the world.

[pretzelogik]

An investor revolt is not a sign of defective technology. Technology advances happen quickly, but much R&D has to be done and you can not simply manage technology "by the quarter". Investing is speculating, legalized gambling. These people took a gamble and had no patience to bring up new technology.

Innocent taxpayers; lol. You getting this from Faux News?

If you don't like fox news how about you buddies at CBS...http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

[Obin Robinson]

Obin Robinson lost his mind ... it's okay, he's like the funny old man with Alzheimer's.

NO I'm just trying to figure out why Fisker is worth investing money into. What are they doing which nobody else in the world can do? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. They're building hybrid cars not hybrid spaceships.

obin

[cockerpunk]

No my argument is that they aren't providing us with cost-effective and innovative product which the world needs. They're in the domain of $20,000 stereo amplifiers, gold plated golf clubs, and handcrafted telescopes. That's all stuff which is neat to have but it's nothing we can live without. If you can afford the stuff then more power to you. A Fisker car can't do something which a GM, Toyota, or Lincoln is totally incapable of doing at a lower cost.

obin

you don't think people need cleaner, more efficient ways to move around?

you have to have companies like fisker, small companies do the innovation, get bought out, and then technology goes mainstream.

[cockerpunk]

NO I'm just trying to figure out why Fisker is worth investing money into. What are they doing which nobody else in the world can do? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. They're building hybrid cars not hybrid spaceships.

obin

thats fine if you dont want to invest, but some poeple might.

like i said, the IP that fisker develops might be worth billions. you never know.

[cockerpunk]

If you don't like fox news how about you buddies at CBS...http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

the largest growing segment of loss in the budget is the bush tax cuts. so while yes, national debt has increased more during obama, it has to do with the bush taxcuts more then obamas policies.

[jds215]

WE the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty due ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

promote the general welfare. not provide.

we can see in the same sentence that they chose provide for common defense and not promote. This wasn't an accident.

[jds215]

the largest growing segment of loss in the budget is the bush tax cuts. so while yes, national debt has increased more during obama, it has to do with the bush taxcuts more then obamas policies.

Incorrect. Bush tax cuts combined with increased debt financed spending was terrible and part of the problem.

All Obama and his administration had to do was propose a budget that cut spending. How long did it take them to submit a budget?

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

[jds215]

also, capital gains tax was over 40% and the top income tax bracket was 90%.

inb4 taxes kill job creation ....

and nobody paid that 90%. There were many more deductions than we have to today.

[silverlegacy]

Our economic fundamentals were very different then. The government wasn't redistributing wages on income from one individual to another to fund these things.They were raising most of their money through excise taxes and other taxes. This was keeping more savings into the hands of private individuals and businesses. The Federal Gov was also constrained by the gold standard providing a check on the value of the currency.

Sure it wasn't just innovation. I can't turn innovation into production without capital & savings. Fortunately we saw one of if not the largest period of capital formation at this time which helped to spur additional production and elevate our economy to one of the largest in the world.

First off, yeah they were using one person's dollars to fund somebody else's project. They used what tax revenue they had to fund these gov't projects. It is no different than today other than the form of the taxes (though a national personal income tax started during the Civil War that lasted until 1873 it accounted for up to 20% of gov't revenue). The income tax was really pushed in the late 1800s in response to monopoly profts to give a more fair form of taxation. Progressive taxation has been pushed since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations as a more efficent and better system of taxation.

Second, the gold standard has no check on it's value. The simple fact of finding huge amounts of gold would cause the currency to be less valuable. That is simple economics, and the lack of control is one of the reasons to get away from the gold standard. Sometimes you actually want to devaule your currency. I know that is hard to understand, but it is true.

Third, where did the capitol formation come from? It didn't happen out of thin air. It happened because of massive amounts of untapped natural resources (which we were one of the only countries to have as much as we did).

[fbobberts]

promote the general welfare. not provide.

Promote is an active verb. So it establishes in the Preamble the idea that our government can take an active role, something you seem to think did not exist in the thinking of the Founding Fathers. But it did. The idea that it did not is ideology chosen to support a modern idea of how government might be interpreted, not necessarily this design at the time.

[jds215]

I am sorry but those days are long gone and the way the world runs has significantly changed. Back then if you wanted to make and sell stuff, you made it locally and sold it. Today, you can design stuff in California, make it in China, support it out of India and sell it globally. The world is changing and we seem to think that going back to how things were run back in the 1800's would make us more competitive.
A lot of global companies started from humble roots and through favorable govt. programs, they blossomed. China will do whatever it takes to win. The sooner we learn this and start directing our resources to helping our companies and local industries, the better.

yes, the days of US economic growth is behind us because we aren't savings or producing relative to the rest of the world. It should be even easier to distribute goods and services all over the world and if that is so, why is our trade deficit at record levels?

I again repeat, economics fundamentals don't all of a sudden change over time. If we think we can continue to ride out out our debt based service economy without getting back to the fundamentals, we are mistaken.

[Obin Robinson]

you don't think people need cleaner, more efficient ways to move around?

you have to have companies like fisker, small companies do the innovation, get bought out, and then technology goes mainstream.

General Motors, General Electric, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Daimler, Bombardier, and Siemens already have a lot of experience in this field. If Fisker can truly figure out something which General Electric can't then we're all in for a treat. I doubt it though and so does the federal govt.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2...delaware-doubt

Fisker announced in February that it was laying off workers in Delaware and California, including about two dozen at the former GM plant near Wilmington, as it sought to renegotiate its loan agreement with the Department of Energy.

Fisker has received $193 million of the $529 million DOE loan, mostly for work on the Karma, a sports car that is being built in Finland and sells for about $100,000. The introduction of the Karma was delayed because of regulatory issues and battery pack problems that prompted a voluntary safety recall by Fisker.

The DOE made loan availability for the Delaware project contingent on Fisker meeting development and sales milestones for the Karma, which the company missed.

My bet is that Fisker ends up being another Solyndra.

obin

[cockerpunk]

and nobody paid that 90%. There were many more deductions than we have to today.

they certainly paid more then they do now.

[silverlegacy]

and nobody paid that 90%. There were many more deductions than we have to today.

Almost nobody pays an effective 35% income tax either... My effective tax rate is much lower than my bracket (less than half actually).

[fbobberts]

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

We have both.

[silverlegacy]

We have both.

+1

[cockerpunk]

General Motors, General Electric, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Daimler, Bombardier, and Siemens already have a lot of experience in this field. If Fisker can truly figure out something which General Electric can't then we're all in for a treat. I doubt it though and so does the federal govt.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2...delaware-doubt

fisker can do quite a lot, mostly, do things quickly.

large companies are slow bureaucracies.

the medical device industry for example, is dominated by medtronic, boston sci and st jude, but none of those companies can be as innovative as the start ups they buy every year.

in fact, thats how general dynamics and the like operate as well.

which leads back to my original point - Intellectual Property is just as valuable, if not moreso then the actual products fisker builds.

do you actually work in a a technical field? i get the distinct impression you have no idea how the size of companies and there freedom and innovation and there role in the marketplace works.

[seroki]

I find it funny that most people who buy a hybrid/electric vehicle don't buy a second. We like the power of gas.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Turbio!]

No my argument is that they aren't providing us with cost-effective and innovative product which the world needs. They're in the domain of $20,000 stereo amplifiers, gold plated golf clubs, and handcrafted telescopes. That's all stuff which is neat to have but it's nothing we can live without. If you can afford the stuff then more power to you. A Fisker car can't do something which a GM, Toyota, or Lincoln is totally incapable of doing at a lower cost.

obin

You think they're investing in the car? No. They're investing in the technology.

[cockerpunk]

Incorrect. Bush tax cuts combined with increased debt financed spending was terrible and part of the problem.

All Obama and his administration had to do was propose a budget that cut spending. How long did it take them to submit a budget?

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

incorrect: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...t-and-Tax-Cuts



the national debt is growing at a faster rate then ever before because of bush's policies. remember, when bush came into office, Clinton had balanced the budget, and with a surplus, enough to pay off the debt in 10 years.

we most certainly have a revenue problem. tax rates are as low on the middle class as they have been since 1934. and tax rates on the rich are as low as they have ever been EVER. tax rates on coperations are near record lows.

there is no part of the solution to this problem that doesn't include at least 1990s level taxes. if not 1970s tax levels.

[Obin Robinson]

do you actually work in a a technical field? i get the distinct impression you have no idea how the size of companies and there freedom and innovation and there role in the marketplace works.

Yes I do. I work in a very technical field. I know that both large and small companies can have hindrances to innovation. There are very smart and creative people at both large and small companies that we deal with. I am just doubting that the money spent on Fisker is worth it considering that the half a billion dollars could have been spent elsewhere with much better results.

obin

[Turbio!]

my point is basic research funded by the government is a faster way to market technology, and more profitable for the private sector.

your way is WAY more costly to the consumer, and take WAY longer.

yes, i said more costly and slower then the government. because companies keep there research private, which means that every company in every market will be doing this basic research ... which means instead of a government funded lab or university doing one study, and publishing one paper, EVERY SINGLE company has to do that exact same experiment.

which means, the price of products goes up, and the development time goes up.

government funded research is actually the best and most efficient way to take ideas to products.

Agreed on every point. Private research tends to be slow, redundant, constantly under threat, narrowly focused on applied solutions rather than basic research, and excessively legally encumbered such that it ends up benefiting very few. Publicly funded research is absolutely critical.

[seadoo2006]

incorrect: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...t-and-Tax-Cuts



the national debt is growing at a faster rate then ever before because of bush's policies. remember, when bush came into office, Clinton had balanced the budget, and with a surplus, enough to pay off the debt in 10 years.

we most certainly have a revenue problem. tax rates are as low on the middle class as they have been since 1934. and tax rates on the rich are as low as they have ever been EVER. tax rates on coperations are near record lows.

there is no part of the solution to this problem that doesn't include at least 1990s level taxes. if not 1970s tax levels.

This ...

However, we do have a spending problem, namely, the DoD, sucking down a HUGE percentage of our tax dollars every year. Cut the DoD budget in half, oh wait, that will put people out of work,well, I say get off the gub'mint teat ... if you're going to go after poor black mothers on welfare, well, be prepared when I call you out for Lockheed Martin's annual government contract ECLIPSING what we spend on cash assistance and food stamp programs nationwide.

We also have the boomers ... the folks currently SLASHING tax revenues just in time to retire on full government bank roll ... sorry, Dick Cheney, that government purchased heart you just got needs to be repo'ed ... say 'what' about death panels?

If you want to play the budget slashing game, prepare to make some pretty hard sacrifices NOW ... because this ***** footing around the 1000 pound gorilla in the room is just asinine.

[Turbio!]

Yes I do. I work in a very technical field. I know that both large and small companies can have hindrances to innovation. There are very smart and creative people at both large and small companies that we deal with. I am just doubting that the money spent on Fisker is worth it considering that the half a billion dollars could have been spent elsewhere with much better results.

obin

You don't sound like you're in doubt of your opinion on the matter at all.

[stevegolf]

Seriously it would be great to have a national movement other than war... one that involved innovation and technology.

Unfortunately war related research and development is the main driver why our world technologically looks the way it does today. The whole idea of maximizing the lightness and efficiency of materials was really developed during the first two world wars to kill the most amount of people the largest distance away using the least amount of resources . Before WW1 a ton of steel could've been put to use as part of a hulking, inefficient tank which could kill a limited amount of people within a fairly close range. By WW2 electronics and materials were developed enough by the war effort that the 1 ton of steel could be made into a couple of ICBMs that could kill thousands of people hundreds of miles away. Satellites, nuclear technology, radar, transistors, the internet, all helped along by government investment.

Heck, Europe wasn't accurately mapped until the US invasion of Italy in WW2. They found the available maps had city's locations off by several miles, which is critical if you are trying to bomb them. They had to use radio triangulation to accurately map points down through south America, up through Africa and then through Italy as they invaded through the rest of Europe to get accurate positions. (Also a reason why Russia didn't like US inspectors visiting their facilities, its hard to bomb what isn't accurately mapped) This latest war's spill off technology seems like it will mostly be medical related, they are doing some amazing things in battlefield medicine these days that will eventually trickle down to the rest of us.

It is annoying and ironic when people say all government money going to research is a waste, when the high standard of living they enjoy compared to people 50-100 years ago, (and the technology they use to bitch about it) was mostly developed by the government years ago to help kill as many people as possible.

[Obin Robinson]

Cut the DoD budget in half, oh wait, that will put people out of work,well, I say get off the gub'mint teat ... if you're going to go after poor black mothers on welfare, well, be prepared when I call you out for Lockheed Martin's annual government contract ECLIPSING what we spend on cash assistance and food stamp programs nationwide.

Are investors going to give poor black mothers on welfare billions of dollars to develop satellites for them?

obin

[cockerpunk]

This ...

However, we do have a spending problem, namely, the DoD, sucking down a HUGE percentage of our tax dollars every year. Cut the DoD budget in half, oh wait, that will put people out of work,well, I say get off the gub'mint teat ... if you're going to go after poor black mothers on welfare, well, be prepared when I call you out for Lockheed Martin's annual government contract ECLIPSING what we spend on cash assistance and food stamp programs nationwide.

We also have the boomers ... the folks currently SLASHING tax revenues just in time to retire on full government bank roll ... sorry, Dick Cheney, that government purchased heart you just got needs to be repo'ed ... say 'what' about death panels?

If you want to play the budget slashing game, prepare to make some pretty hard sacrifices NOW ... because this ***** footing around the 1000 pound gorilla in the room is just asinine.

the primary problem is the dogma that government is evil, free market solves all problems, and taxes are a waste of money.

you want to solve the problem, you gotta go with an all of them above approach. i dont mind cutting spending, thats great, but reasonable tax rates are another part of it, so is not maintaining a military empire with 24 hour response time to nearly anywhere in the world ... blah balh blah.

the simple truth is the "no new tax" pledge and "cutting taxes on the job creators" are the worst possible policy. supply side economics DOESN'T WORK. we have tried for 30 years, and it has brought us to this point.

[cockerpunk]

Are investors going to give poor black mothers on welfare billions of dollars to develop satellites for them?

obin

welfare: the check you write as a rich person to prevent being attacked the poor

[Turbio!]

If you want to play the budget slashing game, prepare to make some pretty hard sacrifices NOW ... because this ***** footing around the 1000 pound gorilla in the room is just asinine.

I saw an interesting article about how some really high percentage of people have taken advantage of government programs, but only a tiny fraction of them admit to having done so.