-
The non-viability and fraud of the ‘electric car’
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-obamas-electric-car-mistake/2013/02/11/441b39f6-7490-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…6cf1d31106b_story.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?ref=johnmbroder&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…f=johnmbroder&_r=0[/link]
[link=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/politics/36272468_1_loan-program-energy-department-secretary-steven-chu]http://articles.washingto…t-secretary-steven-chu[/link]
[link=http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/a-detour-on-the-road-to-an-electric-future/?ref=johnmbroder]http://wheels.blogs.nytim…uture/?ref=johnmbroder[/link]With the President blathering on tonight about the electric cars/green economy of the future, here are multiple sobering realistic articles about electric cars non-feasible future that have been in the liberal papers of record in the last few days. It states the obvious. The electric car fails to deliver and is quickly becoming a liberal/democrat-exclusively held delusion-that billions of tax dollars are being wasted on.
The electric car is not feasible under modern society circumstance and need. In the story, a 250 mile trip turned into a unsafe nightmare and was truncated several times for the person testing it. Whose bright or justifiable idea in government is to provide companies (with direct subsidies and buyer’s incentives) with billions in subsidies for a $100,000 car that cant go 100 miles!?
key quotes: “[i]American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “…… all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”[/i]
[i]I began following Teslas range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low the temperature was still in the 30s and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, [/i]…[i]..my feet were freezing and my knuckles were turning white……Car is shutting down, the computer informed me. My high-tech Model S test car ended up stranded off Interstate 95,… I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.[/i]WTF??!. Is this the 1920s model T without the ability to crank some more into it?! Why on earth would we be forced to regress on technology except in a open lie/ non-scientific fairytale liberals keep force feeding us to accept?
Etsell…begat the Pinto begat Yugo and now Tesla/Volt.
Why would anybody of reason support this waste of time? What strategic advantage does could it provide with all the resources in North America with enough fossil fuel in North America to last 150 years? There is no justification. Its the pure definition of a liberal boondoggle.
Stick Dr. Chu in one of them. Oh yeah, he doesnt drive. But he offers a lot of uninformed and worthless negative opinions about other people, families and just about everything else in a macroeconomy who needs to drive. -
510 Replies
-
Good post if it was softer I’d use it as toilet paper
-
Rubio needs work…looks small compared to the grander of his surroundings. Toooo much hand motion..smacks his lips???does he need water like Ryan in the debate. Same script/different cast
well I see Paul’s followup-
ok, Rubio actually grabbed for a drink..lets hope it was water. So Inappropriate..
to me weak!!!!!!!!!!!! Agree with Chris Mathews on this..TOOO BASIC!!!!-
Oh, horror! Rubio took a drink of water.
In the meantime … Obama goes off on the global warming and clean energy BS, inducing orgasmic delight on liberals. I guess he wants us to “invest” more money on Solyndra or the Chevy Volt.
This guy is the biggesty demagogue in the history of the world. The same guy who promised to cut the deficit in half. Would you buy an electric car from this guy?-
Aldi..he would have been given an F or D- at best in the average college public speech course.
Chrstie and Jeb move back up from cause that was B listQuote from aldadoc
Oh, horror! Rubio took a drink of water.
In the meantime … Obama goes off on the global warming and clean energy BS, inducing orgasmic delight on liberals. I guess he wants us to “invest” more money on Solyndra or the Chevy Volt.
This guy is the biggesty demagogue in the history of the world. The same guy who promised to cut the deficit in half. Would you buy an electric car from this guy?
-
[b]”Aldi..he would have been given an F or D- at best in the average college public speech course.”[/b]
[b] [/b]
The bummer got a “B” for b**l c**p. Gasp……..chris matthews didn’t like Rubio’s speech. What can we possibly do now? Old chris, with spittle flying and desheveled hair lambasts the Conservatives. You libs are sickening. Let’s take a look at the obummers little piece of bull droppings, shall we? I’m surprised he didn’t bring in a few disabled individuals to tug at our heart strings. His use of Gifford is really low. He should give the lady a rest. He cares about nothing except himself. Same old c**p delivered with a cadre of leftist speechwriters and surrounded by teleprompter city. What was new? We are going to fix this????? How? He doesn’t have a clue. How can we possibly survive the next four long, dreary and dangerous years with incompetent leadership of our nation? The bummer and lil’ joey biden should go on home and let the Speaker take over and guide us out of our “death spiral”. Only God can save America. Especially from the leftist extremists.-
The electric car goes along with the fairy tale liberal narratives of headstart, tabula rasa, more education money equals better outcomes and the value of unfettered immigration. Don’t bother with facts and data, liberalism is a religion, only faith is necessary.
-
Hey look at the bright side
The rising star of the GOP/Tea party Rubio looked like he was going to poop himself last night citing Talking points never even touched on in the state of the union address
All is good in republican land. Smaller and more delusional by the day
-
No idea whether electric cars are the future or not, but the technology is still young. It’s like complaining that the Wright brothers didn’t build a 747 so we should never have invested in air travel
-
Yes, he goes to the liberal cliché of “investment”: Preschool “investment”. Clean energy “investment”. An investment has a chance of return. Call it what it is, a black hole.
-
Neighbor has a tesla. Loves the thing.
-
Recently had some posts on the Tesla & a new owner raving about it, didn’t we?
-
Quote from Frumious
Recently had some posts on the Tesla & a new owner raving about it, didn’t we?
yep. that was me. i’ve had it for just under two months and still loving it. i said it before and i’ll say it again; we’ve been doing it wrong for the last 100 yrs. this is the future. i will say that there is much more variability with range in an electric car. the EPA rating is 265 miles but you’re not going to get that on a standard charge, in cold weather and driving aggressively. at this point it requires more thought and planning for long trips but the infrastructure will follow. i think they’re way too expensive right now for the average consumer but there’s already plans for a cheaper version. -
Quote from Thor
No idea whether electric cars are the future or not, but the technology is still young. It’s like complaining that the Wright brothers didn’t build a 747 so we should never have invested in air travel
I guess RVU also believes that hand-held calculators still cost $400 for a simple 4-function model. Someone should tell him that first generation technology is now a giveaway at any comic book trade show.
-
I think that the Obama administration’s error on electric vehicles and alternative energy was not in the support for the companies or in support for R&D, but instead the somewhat disingenuous association of alternative energy with a jobs program.
The “green jobs” and Biden saying “billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs” implied that widespread market adoption of this technology was just around the corner. ….. It was not.
That does not, however, mean that investment in alternative energy, battery technology, and electric cars is the wrong thing to do.
It should have been sold as what it is ….investment in technology that the potential to decrease harm to the environment and increase US energy indepedence in the long term. -
Quote from Lux
I guess RVU also believes that hand-held calculators still cost $400 for a simple 4-function model. Someone should tell him that first generation technology is now a giveaway at any comic book trade show.
How many $500M “investments**” did the govt make to develop the calculator?
**investment-n. a gift to the politically connected. -
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
I guess RVU also believes that hand-held calculators still cost $400 for a simple 4-function model. Someone should tell him that first generation technology is now a giveaway at any comic book trade show.
How many $500M “investments**” did the govt make to develop the calculator?
**investment-n. a gift to the politically connected.
Respectfully, that’s an absurdly irrelevant analogy.
-
Quote from Lux
Respectfully, that’s an absurdly irrelevant analogy.
Agreed, but to avoid being hypocritical, maybe your complaints should be directed at the one that brought up calculators to begin with.
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
Respectfully, that’s an absurdly irrelevant analogy.
Agreed, but to avoid being hypocritical, maybe your complaints should be directed at the one that brought up calculators to begin with.
Clearly, you’re just playing games at this point in an attempt to deliberately evade the weakness of your “$500M” insinuation. On the contrary, this discussion is strictly an issue about the price of [u]new[/u] technology vs. the precipitous drop in the price of that technology as it [u]matures[/u] into public domain. It has nothing to do with any initial R&D costs and “investments” that may have influenced the cost of the early generations of that technology.
NASA may have spent untold millions for the development of the ear thermometer, smoke detector, memory foam, cordless tools, and water filters, and those technologies were priced relatively high when they were first released for public consumption. But today they’re practically given away depending on whether they’re off patent and which third world (ahem, “developing”) country manufactures them.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Thor
No idea whether electric cars are the future or not, but the technology is still young. It’s like complaining that the Wright brothers didn’t build a 747 so we should never have invested in air travel
I guess RVU also believes that hand-held calculators still cost $400 for a simple 4-function model. Someone should tell him that first generation technology is now a giveaway at any comic book trade show.
Lets take a quick glance at the history of technology here.
Approx. 40-50 years ago:
-Hand-held calculators have simple functions like you pointed out.
-And the electric cars of the day (they were around with the same environmentalists touting them) could travel to 1 to perhaps 3 contiguous towns before the battery was drained.
Today:
-Hand held calculators have turn into hand held computers working with processors literally 100 billion perhaps a trillion more efficient/powerful in executing entry commands.
-And the electric cars of today (now force fed on the unwanting public through a Presidential mandate to see 1 million of them in 2 years) can travel to 1 to 3 contiguous counties before the battery is drained.
Sorry, your analogy fails. -
Lets take a quick glance at the history of technology here.
Approx. 40-50 years ago:
-Hand-held calculators have simple functions like you pointed out.
-And the electric cars of the day (they were around with the same environmentalists touting them) could travel to 1 to perhaps 3 contiguous towns before the battery was drained.Today:
-Hand held calculators have turn into hand held computers working with processors literally 100 billion perhaps a trillion more efficient/powerful in executing entry commands.
-And the electric cars of today (now force fed on the unwanting public through a Presidential mandate to see 1 million of them in 2 years) can travel to 1 to 3 contiguous counties before the battery is drained.Sorry, your analogy fails.
That is a great anology to use. And the fact that computers have come a long long way while electric cars have by comparison only mariginally improved is a fair assessment.
Why? I think you can point to the massive goverment investment in supercomputing in the 40s, 50s and 60s for military applications. The romantic notion that that personal computing developed spontaneous in a Calaifornia garage is a false one. The US government pumped massive dollars in basic research and was essentially the only market for computing into the 1970s. US military grants founded the computer science department at MIT, Carnegie Melon, and Stanford.
Alternative energy on the other hand has seen less support. This can be traced to the great political power of the hydro-carbon energy players. Hell, it has been a huge fight just to get congress to *allow* the US military to look into alternative fuel sources.
Current politics force the administration to use mandates on busienss rather than direct government investment because of entrenched opposition to spending of any sort. It is suboptimal because it is les coordinated and has some negative effects on business porductivity, but it is better than doing nothing. (This is the same reason Obama proposes the inefficient increase of the minimum wage rather than the much better increase of the Earned Income Tax Credit as an anti-poverty measure. The former can be done for “free” (no cost to the US government) while the latter would require direct government expenditure on the books, making it not politically viable. )
-
Quote from dergon
Lets take a quick glance at the history of technology here.
Approx. 40-50 years ago:
-Hand-held calculators have simple functions like you pointed out.
-And the electric cars of the day (they were around with the same environmentalists touting them) could travel to 1 to perhaps 3 contiguous towns before the battery was drained.Today:
-Hand held calculators have turn into hand held computers working with processors literally 100 billion perhaps a trillion more efficient/powerful in executing entry commands.
-And the electric cars of today (now force fed on the unwanting public through a Presidential mandate to see 1 million of them in 2 years) can travel to 1 to 3 contiguous counties before the battery is drained.Sorry, your analogy fails.
That is a great anology to use. And the fact that computers have come a long long way while electric cars have by comparison only mariginally improved is a fair assessment.
Why? I think you can point to the massive goverment investment in supercomputing in the 40s, 50s and 60s for military applications. The romantic notion that that personal computing developed spontaneous in a Calaifornia garage is a false one. The US government pumped massive dollars in basic research and was essentially the only market for computing into the 1970s. US military grants founded the computer science department at MIT, Carnegie Melon, and Stanford.
Alternative energy on the other hand has seen less support. This can be traced to the great political power of the hydro-carbon energy players. Hell, it has been a huge fight just to get congress to *allow* the US military to look into alternative fuel sources.
Current politics force the administration to use mandates on busienss rather than direct government investment because of entrenched opposition to spending of any sort. It is suboptimal because it is les coordinated and has some negative effects on business porductivity, but it is better than doing nothing. (This is the same reason Obama proposes the inefficient increase of the minimum wage rather than the much better increase of the Earned Income Tax Credit as an anti-poverty measure. The former can be done for “free” (no cost to the US government) while the latter would require direct government expenditure on the books, making it not politically viable. )
Its good to open this discussion up (again) at least in this forum (govt. vs. private industry-innovation). However, you are not really comparing apples to apples making an analogy between the earliest days of computers-a true government-academic-military/industrial complex joint ventures and cross-culture, versus, the incredibly slow and impractical (to anybody logically purchasing a car not as a hobbyist) evolution of the electric car. Electric cars are built and developed by private corporations, not government. There is no talent left in government that could forward voltaic technology or run a manufacturing company (Freddy/Fanny are good recent examples of hybrid govt-private companies corrupt to the core, and thoroughly mismanaged). The best scientists, like the hardest working doctors, tend to chose not to work for a behemoth federal or state bureaucracy.
However, Obama’s government now has made crony capitalism of his pet projects a passionate pursuit and has kept bad businesses afloat. Although, companies like Solyndra and Tesla sound good to the liberal on paper, they’re are not really answerable to the marketplace. Yes, the marketplace is the ultimate genie that would forward electric cars or for that matter any technology you can name forward, as Steve Jobs and Apple did for those hulking computers of the 60s and 70s you so fondly remember (see more below).
Your museum-like memories of the computers of yesterday brought to us through “massive government” though is more wishful thinking on your part of what government can do. You harken to a day before there were really big computer companies with R/D the could compete with the Govt (hiring ex-Nazis and people fleeing liberalism extremes in the Eastern Bloc)-academic axis for brainpower. But what did they bring to the public in the 1960s-1970s? Computers that handled primitive data type, binary commands, and perhaps the accessible memory of something short of a kilobyte. Then there was encoding of memory of clunky data reels that perhaps kept a few more kilobyte around. And, data entry through strange cardboard punch out cards. And these kilobyte computers were all housed in many rooms and an entire floor of an office building and ran on electricity which could light a neighborhood. And this passed for ‘computers’ for nearly two decades.
But what happened in the next two decades-the 1980s and 1990s?! I dont really think I have to even tell you this. Apple vs. IBM and the exponential growth of the power, productivity and distribution of computing-brought to you by private industry exclusively. I dont think that even the most immoderate liberal would consider anything Steve Jobs did remotely linked to a government interface whether it be his education, outlook , design or innovations in computer hardware, sales and marketing. This was private industry being innovative in a win win competition, racing to get the next biggest product or software to market. We all benefited from their capitalistic pursuits. Kilobytes became Mega become Giga and Tera. Data entry cards became objects to interface with the screen, which ultimately became the global user interface. Now Al Gore (or any other creativeless government Apparatchik) can foolishly boast about things, but he or any other government functionary will never take credit for Macintosh and Windows.
What else has the competitive commercial computer-technology marketplace brought to us coming into this century? Now computers have become smaller and smaller, where the technology that fits into your hand, didnt even exist 20 years ago as a free-standing computer. And look at the way we connect through computer networks, not via mostly government controlled telephone landlines-modem technology, but broadband. Broadband’s penetration is another amazing story of the absolute success of private industry racing to the top. Broadband’s penetration to make this large step in technology available to 99% of the US market occurred in about a decade’s time. Name me another utility-all government control or highly regulated- in Americas past that didnt take 50 to 100 years for that type of penetration-rail, water-works, electricity, land-line phones, roads?
So, the end message here- if you want a technology to explode just leave it to the private market, not government. If it wasnt for the private markets we still wouldnt have the Mac and some would likely still be using punch cards. I guarantee you that the real substitute for the combustible engine, new cleaner fuels, and low or no carbon energy will come from the entrepreneur with little government backing. And its not going to be because Obama or some other lib gives an army of cronies “tax credits”. Its going to be unique brilliant individuals seeking to get PERSONALLY ULTRA-RICH which is the motivation. And, when these special individuals and their corporations become mulch-billionaires, liberals will make a stink about them the same way they attacked the DNA maverick sequencer Craig Venter. So Steven Chu and whatever army of droning Washington bureaucrats just ignore and move on. Its the marketplace and special unique brilliant individuals (Steve Jobs, Craig Venter) who will be the innovators, and not government. -
Can’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone who has been exposed to the VA would think the govt is competent to develop or run ANYTHING.
-
What I was trying to get to was, if the military had decided that it needed 1 million electric vehicles with high performance batteries that met a certain specification (say 500 miles in 0 defgrees) then also granted Northrop Grumman and few $billion to work on development, you’d be a lot further along at this point. Then that tech translates out into the private market with a product that is closer to competetive with hydrocarbons with the US government having been the “bleeding edge” consumer.
Right now the market is trying to survive on its own in the nascent period. The time-frame fro the big money on the private side is not on such a long term horizon to allow for tech developments that might take decades to come to fruition. -
Question Dergon, the Mars Rover. What is that exactly?
Any “govt” tech there tha is or will be used by private for-profit companies?
-
I don’t know much about the rover, but NASA was certainly one of the “bleeding edge” purchasers of lithium-ion battery technology.
-
GPS
Lithium batteries
accelerometer
microchip
fire resistant clothing
The Bar Code!
Solar powered refridgeration
High Speed Three-Dimensional Laser Scanner with Real Time Processing
PICA and SIRCA Low-Density Resin Impregnated Ceramics
ArterioVision
Cochlear implants
Insulin pump
CCD
memory foam
cordless tools
There’s a lot you take for granted that developed in government labs & R&D. Imagine if the Feds said they owned all the patents & private corporations had to license the products from the Feds instead of often making the research publicly available for private companies to make profits from. As it is, there are some.
[link=https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/28/2013-01620/government-owned-inventions-availability-for-licensing]https://www.federalregist…lability-for-licensing[/link]
[link=https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/08/2013-00066/notice-of-availability-of-government-owned-inventions-available-for-licensing]https://www.federalregist…vailable-for-licensing[/link]How common is government funding of patents?
[link=http://keionline.org/node/1575]http://keionline.org/node/1575[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What we need is a better horse
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
ok, Rubio actually grabbed for a drink..lets hope it was water. So Inappropriate..
to me weak!!!!!!!!!!!! Agree with Chris Mathews on this..TOOO BASIC!!!!Check out Colbert’s take on the “State of theRubio”
[link=http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423831/february-13-2013/state-of-the-rubio?xrs=share_fb]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423831/february-13-2013/state-of-the-rubio?xrs=share_fb[/link]
funny!-
Didn’t anyone else notice how parched his mouth was?? His lips were so cracked I started looking to see if they were bleeding and totally missed what he was saying! His voice was more bassey (meaning dry mouth) and was quivering a bit, so i assume he was just scared out of his mind up there. I think it’s silly to nitpick about the water. Give the guy a break. It was a FAR better response than what Daniels did at a previous SOTU.
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from Noah’sArk
ok, Rubio actually grabbed for a drink..lets hope it was water. So Inappropriate..
to me weak!!!!!!!!!!!! Agree with Chris Mathews on this..TOOO BASIC!!!!Check out Colbert’s take on the “State of theRubio”
[link=http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423831/february-13-2013/state-of-the-rubio?xrs=share_fb]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423831/february-13-2013/state-of-the-rubio?xrs=share_fb[/link]
funny!
Holy cow, I just watched it. Man, Colbert takes no prisoners. Frankly, I was also horrified for the poor kid. I don’t agree with Rubio’s take on a lot of issues, but I think he’s authentic. On one hand I think it’s unfair to make fun of him like that, but on the other hand you can’t be “grooming” the young blood by putting him back to back to the POTUS SOTU. You put your biggest, most experience horsepower in such a spot, not the rising star, diamond in the rough, newbie. The GOP made yet another BIG mistake with that theatric.
-
He is manchurian canidate
-
Quote from kpack123
He is manchurian canidate
Wow, perfect metaphor.
Just like Dubya.
I hope we [i]don’t get fooled again![/i] lol
-
You libs are all about style over context. The sip of water was played over 200 times on cable news channels, yet not a word about the philosophical divide between the two protagonists. Not a mention of Obama’s 57 vacations since he proclaimed that he would not rest until every American who wanted a job had one. No mention of the multiple false claims the Bammer has made about his programs not costing an extra dime. Not one mention about the chilling effect of Obamacare on small business, not one mention of how Obama promised comprehensive immigration and closing of Gitmo in 2008 and he never followed through. 60 minutes of wall to wall lies, empty promises, deceptions and straw men.
You want to compare the regal environment of the SOTU address inclusive of the circus of clapping seals, robed justices, the full Congress and teleprompters to a guy in a room with nothing but a camera, a glass of water and a critical press. Rubio’s job was like a Gladiator trying to explain conservative government philosophy to a Colisseum full of drunken Romans. Silly for him not to know that they are there for blood, not reasoned thought.-
Hey Aldo
Even the Fox News people immediately after Rubio’s speech admitted it wasn’t his best moment and he looked anxious
-
I was waiting for him to claim the earth was 10,000 yrs old but he was too busy pooping himself on national TV
-
Quote from kpack123
I was waiting for him to claim the earth was 10,000 yrs old but he was too busy pooping himself on national TV
He’s answered it once already:
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
He then backtracked a teeny bit but essentially said the same, it’s unknowable. -
Amen..he looked more inexperience. I wonder how TIME feels since he got a cover. Also, not that attractive..there are more handsome men in RADS
Quote from kpack123
Hey Aldo
Even the Fox News people immediately after Rubio’s speech admitted it wasn’t his best moment and he looked anxious
-
Research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance: [url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade]Electric vehicles will soon be cheaper to buy than conventional gasoline powered cars [/url]
{F}alling battery costs will mean electric vehicles will also be cheaper to buy in the U.S. and Europe as soon as 2025. Batteries currently account for about half the cost of EVs, and their prices will fall by about 77 percent between 2016 and 2030, the London-based researcher said.
On an upfront basis, these things will start to get cheaper and people will start to adopt them more as price parity gets closer, said Colin McKerracher, analyst at the London-based researcher. After that it gets even more compelling.
Renault, maker of the Zoe electric car, predicts total ownership costs of EVs will by the early 2020s equal conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (known in the trade as ICE), according to Gilles Normand, the French companys senior vice president for electric vehicles.
-
[url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pepsico-tesla-orders/pepsico-makes-biggest-public-pre-order-of-tesla-semis-100-trucks-idUSKBN1E61FB?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews]PepsiCo makes biggest public pre-order of Tesla Semis: 100 trucks[/url]
PepsiCos 100 trucks add to orders by more than a dozen companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc ([link=https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=WMT.N]WMT.N[/link]), fleet operator J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc ([link=https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=JBHT.O]JBHT.O[/link]), and foodservice distribution company Sysco Corp ([link=https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=SYY.N]SYY.N[/link]). Reservations to date are at 267 Tesla trucks, according to a Reuters tally.
PepsiCo intends to deploy Tesla Semis for shipments of snack foods and beverages between manufacturing and distribution facilities and direct to retailers within the 500-mile (800-km) range promised by Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk.
The semi-trucks will complement PepsiCos U.S. fleet of nearly 10,000 big rigs and are a key part of its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across its supply chain by a total of at least 20 percent by 2030, said Mike OConnell, the senior director of North American supply chain for PepsiCo subsidiary Frito-Lay.[/QUOTE]
-
I want a Tesla S for my 60th birthday. Hopefully there will be a dealer in my little town by then.
-
Kind of surprised they didn’t go Cummins. Cummins is well known and trust worthy brand. Tesla over promises and under delivers. Cummins also recently announced their 100 mile electric truck that can move 22000 pounds.
[link=https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2017/08/29/take-that-tesla-diesel-engine-giant-cummins-unveils-heavy-duty-truck-powered-by-electricity/#481d005978f1]https://www.forbes.com/si…ctricity/#481d005978f1[/link] -
UPS orders 125 trucks at $20k deposit. I’m still kind of surprised it looks like they have all these orders. Over 1200 estimated on pre-order. Tesla doesn’t deliver. Look at model 3s. Tons of orders, crappy production numbers.
[link=http://fortune.com/2017/12/19/ups-orders-125-tesla-semis/]http://fortune.com/2017/1…rders-125-tesla-semis/[/link] -
[b] [/b][link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-12/electric-vehicle-battery-shrinks-and-so-does-the-total-cost?srnd=premium]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-12/electric-vehicle-battery-shrinks-and-so-does-the-total-cost?srnd=premium
[/link]
[h1]Electric Car Price Tag Shrinks Along With Battery Cost[/h1] Choosing an electric car over its combustion-engine equivalent will soon be just a matter of taste, not a matter of cost.Every year, BloombergNEFs advanced transport team builds a bottom-up analysis of the cost of purchasing an electric vehicle and compares it to the cost of a combustion-engine vehicle of the same size. The crossover point when electric vehicles become cheaper than their combustion-engine equivalents will be a crucial moment for the EV market. All things being equal, upfront price parity makes a buyers decision to buy an EV a matter of taste, style or preference but not, for much longer, a matter of cost.
Every year, that crossover point gets closer. In 2017, a BloombergNEF analysis forecast that the crossover point was in 2026, nine years out. In 2018, the crossover point was in 2024 six years (or, as I described it then, [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-22/more-luxury-electric-vehicles-will-soon-be-available-for-lease]two lease cycles[/link]) out.
The crossover point, per the latest analysis, is now 2022 for [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/terminal/PPN2K36K50XS]large vehicles in the European Union[/link]. For that, we can thank the incredible shrinking electric vehicle battery, which isnt so much shrinking in size as it is shrinking dramatically in cost.
Analysts have for several years been using a sort of shorthand for describing an electric vehicle battery: half the cars total cost. That figure, and that shorthand, has changed in just a few years. For a midsize U.S. car in 2015, the battery made up more than 57 percent of the total cost. This year, its 33 percent. By 2025, the battery will be only 20 percent of total vehicle cost.
[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/business/gm-lordstown-trump.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/business/gm-lordstown-trump.html[/link]
[b]G.M. in Talks to Sell Lordstown Factory to Maker of Electric Vehicle [/b]
General Motors is aiming to sell a recently shuttered car factory in Ohio to a maker of electric trucks, news that President Trump touted on Twitter on Wednesday.
G.M. said in a statement that it was in discussions to sell the plant in Lordstown to a new business partly owned by the electric-truck maker, the Workhorse Group, and headed by that companys founder and former chief executive. Workhorse would use the plant to produce electric pickup trucks.
G.M. said the deal had the potential to bring significant production and assembly jobs to the plant. The number, however, would likely be far fewer than the 1,200 who previously worked there given Workhorses size and output.
We remain committed to growing manufacturing jobs in the U.S., including in Ohio, and we see this development as a potential win-win for everyone, said Mary T. Barra, G.M.s chairwoman and chief executive, said in the statement. Workhorse has innovative technologies that could help preserve Lordstowns more than 50-year tradition of vehicle assembly work.
-
[link=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2021/05/13/time-to-panic-buy-an-electric-pickup-truck-492843]https://www.politico.com/…ic-pickup-truck-492843[/link]
[b]Ford to roll out an electric version of the F-150
[/b]
[b]The problem for the climate is the truck-driving segment is extremely large, while the EV segment is still less than 2 percent of U.S. sales.[/b] Americans currently buy three times as many pickups, SUVs and crossovers as passenger cars, which is why U.S. transportation emissions have remained relatively flat even though passenger cars have gotten much more fuel-efficient. We love our rugged-sounding Yukons and Dakotas and Navigators and Expeditions, even if many of us just navigate them on expeditions to the mall, and there haven’t been many all-electric alternatives.
That is starting to change, though, with Audi and Volkswagen debuting electric SUVs to compete with the Tesla X and Hyundai selling an electric crossover to compete with the Tesla Y, while the Chinese unicorns Rivian and Nio prepare to enter the global market as well. The F-150 may be the industrys most important test, because its Americas most popular vehicle.
So the Lightning better be good. Tesla made a splash not by appealing to the environmental consciences of the global community, but by making awesome cars. Electric vehicles are still a bit more expensive up-front than their fossil-fueled counterparts, but their minimal maintenance and fuel costs make them less expensive over their lifetimes. Their battery ranges are also getting longer every year, and Biden wants to invest $15 billion in charging stations that will help reduce the Darling-where-do-I-get-a-charge problem.
[/QUOTE]
Wish RVU was still here for this paragraph:
Republicans used to dismiss EVs as impractical Obama-mobiles for eco-hippies, …But Chris Nelder, a carbon-free transportation expert at the Rocky Mountain Institute, believes the Lightning can help expand the appeal of plug-ins to consumers who probably wont be charging at Starbucks. The mere existence of the electric F-150 will send a powerful signal to the entire truck-driving segment of the market, Nelder said.
-
I happened to see a gray Mustang Mach-e on the road the other day. It’s a sharp looking car. Electric F150 sounds great but how far can it tow a 5000lb trailer. I don’t think the electric genre is there yet.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Electric F150 sounds great but how far can it tow a 5000lb trailer. I don’t think the electric genre is there yet.
I wouldn’t bet against it.
Ford took a huge risk converting the F-150 to wimpy aluminum.. GM advertised their strong masculine steel built (and much hevier and less fuel efficient) trucks … and lost market share.
Combine that with the reality that 75% of pickup truck owners use their tow package once or less per year (never) and I think you can see that there is a large segment of the F-150 market that could convert. -
Theyll sell for sure. I think thats like half the pickup market. Dudes who want to drive a tough truck but usually its like a Denali or high end truck thatll never see dirt.
-
Some Denalis & Suburbans, etc have the best wax shine Ive ever seen!
-
[link=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/uber…ertz-deal.html]https://www.cnbc.com/2021…/uber…ertz-deal.html[/link]
Uber will offer up to 50,000 Teslas to its drivers through Hertz rental deal -
Toyota launching an all-electric RAV4 SUV
I cant find range info but interesting
-
Cool. The RAV4 prime plug in hybrid is 42 on battery so Id expect more. Its a pretty popular seller is my understanding. I liked my 2010 RAV4 a lot but Id it didnt suit my needs for larger size.
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Rubio’s job was like a Gladiator trying to explain conservative government philosophy to a Coliseum full of drunken Romans. Silly for him not to know that they are there for blood, not reasoned thought.I’d think Rubio along with writers, strategist etc… had done preparation to give remarks and it wasn’t totally impromptu like the gladiator shoved into the arena.
-
Quote from aldadoc
You libs are all about style over context. The sip of water was played over 200 times on cable news channels, yet not a word about the philosophical divide between the two protagonists. Not a mention of Obama’s 57 vacations since he proclaimed that he would not rest until every American who wanted a job had one. No mention of the multiple false claims the Bammer has made about his programs not costing an extra dime. Not one mention about the chilling effect of Obamacare on small business, not one mention of how Obama promised comprehensive immigration and closing of Gitmo in 2008 and he never followed through. 60 minutes of wall to wall lies, empty promises, deceptions and straw men.
You want to compare the regal environment of the SOTU address inclusive of the circus of clapping seals, robed justices, the full Congress and teleprompters to a guy in a room with nothing but a camera, a glass of water and a critical press. Rubio’s job was like a Gladiator trying to explain conservative government philosophy to a Colisseum full of drunken Romans. Silly for him not to know that they are there for blood, not reasoned thought.
I reject the “you libs” bigotry. I’ve never met two liberals with the same ideology. Likewise for cons. Don’t you dare lump me into your prejudice notions.
I did not watch SOTU, now did I see Rubio’s or Paul’s reply. I felt sorry for Rubio when I saw the tube making fun of him, but I never made fun of him. I like Rubio.
Now go stick it.
-
Quote from aldadoc
You want to compare the regal environment of the SOTU address inclusive of the circus of clapping seals, robed justices, the full Congress and teleprompters to a guy in a room with nothing but a camera, a glass of water and a critical press.
Oh COME ON!
First of all, if you think for one second that Rubio wasn’t staring 100% of the time into a teleprompter, you’re certifiably delusional.
Second, he was alone because either he or his party CHOSE to make him alone. Nothing stopped them from having him in a conference room with an audience to applaud every statement he made.
And every one in the room to see Obama talk was there on their own accord, not because anyone was holding a gun to their head.
Rubio knew damn well what he was getting himself into and he CHOSE to be there exactly under those circumstances, INCLUDING the fact that he would indeed be compared to the SOTU. In fact, THAT IS WHY HE WAS UP THERE in the first place.
So get out of your cave, stop making silly excuses for your party, and FINALLY START BEING ACCOUNTABLE!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thor
Shhhhhhhhhhhh.
The world she is flat
-
Quote from Thor
No idea whether electric cars are the future or not, but the technology is still young. It’s like complaining that the Wright brothers didn’t build a 747 so we should never have invested in air travel
However, many current politicians (VP Biden most obviously) are actively touting this as the industry of right now and infusing a lot of money into manufacturing and sales of what is now at best a faulty product.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24/the-epas-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…vehicle-mileage-fraud/[/link]
[link=http://www.myelectriccarforums.com/c-max-hybrid-and-fusion-hybrid-mileage-claims/]http://www.myelectriccarf…hybrid-mileage-claims/[/link]
[link=http://www.floridainjurylawyers.com/practice-areas/electric-cars/]http://www.floridainjuryl…e-areas/electric-cars/[/link]
Electric car manufacturers are making claims that arent true/fraudulent and now they are facing class action law suits. It is only a matter of time before attorney generals start up their own lawsuit against the blatant false advertising these companies are actively peddling. As accurately told in the article above, if this car is touted as normally operating for 250-300 miles with one charge, and a standard test drive demonstrates it goes 100 miles with difficulty (despite proactive and lengthy feedback directly from the manufacturer during the trip), I dont see how they can avoid lawsuits for public deception-in particular, given the costliness of these vehicles.
There is also a real issue of auto safety. As this experienced NY Times reporter showed in the link above, the ‘electric car’ is not accurately estimating how much power it has to make trips. These cars computers radically readjust its remaining power during vehicle operations, and has a very real potential to leave motorists stranded in zones between charging stations. If this happened to a standard car, where the gas gauge varied by as much as 50%+ (as this story demonstrates), consumer watchdog groups would be demanding changes. And, as these cars trickle into the market, this safety concern is going to become a much bigger issue. These electric cars use the same Lithium batteries technology that has recently grounded the Boeing 787s. So in a routine traffic accident, do they pose a greater risk of catching fire/burning? Also, this reporter is not alone with experiencing an electric car that stalls frequently on interstates, another huge safety issue not addressed. So, the legitimate question must be asked before any sizable number of these cars is further federally manipulated into market and on the roadways— is the electric vehicle circa 2013 unsafe at any speed or distance?
As for the positive reviews with electric cars, its not an accurate assessment by far. The samples have been skewed by extremely motivated buyers, whose motivations to any outsider, would more match an enthusiastic hobbyist rather than a typical car purchaser. These buyers are much more likely to be environmentally conscious for whatever reason. They have already paid a lot for the car, and are likely happy with the vehicle the same way a hobbyist is happy with a 1969 Corvette ZR I.-
Quote from RVU
…if this car is touted as normally operating for 250-300 miles with one charge, and a standard test drive demonstrates it goes 100 miles with difficulty (despite proactive and lengthy feedback directly from the manufacturer during the trip), I dont see how they can avoid lawsuits for public deception-in particular, given the costliness of these vehicles.
Oh please. Then why not sue every auto company today for publishing that their car get[i]s “43 mpg on the highway (your results may differ)”[/i] when it really only gets 32 under actual weather/terrain conditions?
You raise a silly argument. These are largely nuisance lawsuits. Your analogy to the 787’s battery is bogus. It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a Li-ion battery and has everything to do with the ancillary control circuitry that encapsulates the battery.
Electric car technology will survive and thrive. This is a bogus debate other than forcing us to asses whether we have good grasp on expectations.
Regarding how optimistic a “politician” or manufacturer is about this technology, it only makes sense to sensitize people sooner than later to it, because the sooner the technology is embraced by the masses, the sooner the price of the technology will precipitously drop, the sooner the manufacturers can add more components to get even more mileage at lower costs. I recall Apple doing the same thing back in the ’70s when it tried to claim that everyone would use a desktop computer to balance their checkbook. We all knew that was bogus, but the point was to popularize the technology so that it would become more affordable to the masses.
This is the way ANY new technology works. The only difference here is that some people want to politicize it because of the high $take$.
-
In my mind the bigger picture is alternatives to using hydrocarbons. Electric vehicles might be viable some day. Places like MIT are making break throughs in fuel cells. The cost also needs to come down. Natural Gas vehicles are another good idea. Seems like I never stop hearing about all the nat gas that can be frak’d. Obama talked about having high tech infrastructure. Build the infrastructure to make alternate fuels possible. I believe you can buy nat gas honda civics but it’s not like you can just drive down to the nearest gas station and fill’er up. Also he talked about cutting energy use in homes. How about figuring out how to mass produce a LED light bulb that doens’t cost $50.
-
The price will come down the more that are sold. They’ve come down some already.
All this opposition to developing new technology. The post above is correct, the Luddites just want a faster horse instead of a car. OK, so probably no government investment back late 1800’s to develop a car but since WWII that has changed a lot. To raise a tired issue, our posting on the Internet on AM is the direct result of a lot of government investment in R&D that was then given to the private market essentially for free in order to make profits. Thank you Uncle Sam as Google & other companies rake in the profits for something essentially created by the government at public expense! Thank you Uncle Sam for creating a public good for all of us, other than mere profits. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
In my mind the bigger picture is alternatives to using hydrocarbons. Electric vehicles might be viable some day. Places like MIT are making break throughs in fuel cells. The cost also needs to come down. Natural Gas vehicles are another good idea. Seems like I never stop hearing about all the nat gas that can be frak’d. Obama talked about having high tech infrastructure. Build the infrastructure to make alternate fuels possible. I believe you can buy nat gas honda civics but it’s not like you can just drive down to the nearest gas station and fill’er up. Also he talked about cutting energy use in homes. How about figuring out how to mass produce a LED light bulb that doens’t cost $50.
All excellent points. For things like natural gas, if there’s any chance such technologies would blossom, I’m quite sure gas stations (called Energy Stops in the future?) would add such capability to their products and services in a heartbeat.
-
Just wondering LUX, does your current Mercedes and BMW fit into that “ecologically friendly” class ?
-
Quote from Point Man
Just wondering LUX, does your current Mercedes and BMW fit into that “ecologically friendly” class ?
My current vehicle complies with all current environmental codes.
And your point is…?
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
Just wondering LUX, does your current Mercedes and BMW fit into that “ecologically friendly” class ?
My current vehicle complies with all current environmental codes.
And your point is…?LUX, since you libs are so vocal about Conservatives not supporting the bummers “green” thing, I just wanted to know if you are being hypocritical. Just an honest question. If you “talk the talk” then you should “walk the……….”
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from Point Man
Just wondering LUX, does your current Mercedes and BMW fit into that “ecologically friendly” class ?
My current vehicle complies with all current environmental codes.
And your point is…?LUX, since you libs are so vocal about Conservatives not supporting the bummers “green” thing, I just wanted to know if you are being hypocritical. Just an honest question. If you “talk the talk” then you should “walk the……….”
Man, you really ARE such a friggin’ bigot. You lump me into a group you call “libs” and then accuse me of being a hypocrite for absolutely no reason at all? And you expect me to explain myself?
Get lost.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from RVU
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-obamas-electric-car-mistake/2013/02/11/441b39f6-7490-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…6cf1d31106b_story.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?ref=johnmbroder&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…f=johnmbroder&_r=0[/link]
[link=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/politics/36272468_1_loan-program-energy-department-secretary-steven-chu]http://articles.washingto…t-secretary-steven-chu[/link]
[link=http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/a-detour-on-the-road-to-an-electric-future/?ref=johnmbroder]http://wheels.blogs.nytim…uture/?ref=johnmbroder[/link]
I don’t know of any credible source that claims today’s electric car can be considered a reasonable defacto alternative to the gas-powered combustion engine any more than Henry Ford’s first Model T would be considered a suitable replacement today. The electric car has indeed become a BETTER solution for stop-and-go city dwellers after only a few years developing the technology.
Sure, Broder’s Tesla ran out of juice because of traffic and a detour. But ANY vehicle that’s low on fuel is subject to the same risk.
Of the articles you provided in the OP, two were written by Broder about his Tesla where he repeats the exact same sentiiment in both articles. The third article is simply [u][i]about[/i][/u] Broder’s incident with his Tesla and provides no useful additional information. It simply reports the limitations still present in this new technology, albeit it’s improving.
The fourth article is simply about a lawsuit which questions whether there was malfeasance in the feds’ funding of the R&D in the private sector. It has nothing to do with the long-term success of that technology.
There is a lot to be said for the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not routinely drive >200 miles every day. And for those Americans, electric technology is potentially FAR more economic, especially when you extrapolate what the price of a gallon of gas will be in 2020 (perhaps $6-$10?). For those rare, long trips, go for a different form of transportation, like renting a fossil fuel car, or take a train, bus, or plane.
I don’t understand why there is such opposition to the technology now, in such an early stage of development. You cannot simply say [i]”but the experts claim that only small incremental improvements can be made in the capacity of Li-ion batteries”.[/i] There are so many other variable to be considered than simply today’s Li-ion technology. For example, who would have predicted the advent of neodymium magnet technology that has drastically improved the distance achievable on a single charge. Also, the advent of Li-ion batteries, themselves, was a boon to the electric car concept — initial electric cars were based initially on lead-acid batteries and then on Ni-Cad batteries, both technologies yielding relatively poor results compatred to Li-ion). Who’s to say we won’t see a more advanced battery and/or magnet technology in the future? Furthermore, as I said above, when gas hits $10/gal, how many people will still prefer to shell out over $200 to fill their gas tank rather than pay just a few bucks for a full charge to carry them, most likely by then, a very similar distance as a full tank?
When you stop and consider all the issues address by an electric (or efficient hybrid) car, the benefits over gas-powered vehicles become crystal clear. And that doesn’t even include whether electric cars have a “green” advantage.
-
Quote from steppenwolf
yep. that was me. i’ve had it for just under two months and still loving it. i said it before and i’ll say it again; we’ve been doing it wrong for the last 100 yrs. this is the future. i will say that there is much more variability with range in an electric car. the EPA rating is 265 miles but you’re not going to get that on a standard charge, in cold weather and driving aggressively. at this point it requires more thought and planning for long trips but the infrastructure will follow. i think they’re way too expensive right now for the average consumer but there’s already plans for a cheaper version.
Yeah, but what is your experience worth vs. a set of firmly ingrained beliefs ? -
Quote from kpack123
I was waiting for him to claim the earth was 10,000 yrs old but he was too busy pooping himself on national TV
Maybe that would have been better, since liberals obviously like getting lied to. Next time maybe he should tell you how the use of automobiles will cause massive floods in New York, or how increasing the minimum wage will help the economy, or how ACA is good for you. Drunken Romans indeed.
-
I don’t know given the pooping. I was thinking maybe he could you grass or leafs because they would be more friendly to the environment
-
Quote from aldadoc
liberals obviously like getting lied to.
If that was true, the SOTU would have been given by Romney.
-
Maybe if Rubio had said something substanitive we wouldn’t be talking about the water instead he rehashed a bunch of Romney talking points and we all know how well that played in 2012
-
Quote from Thor
Maybe if Rubio had said something substanitive we wouldn’t be talking about the water instead he rehashed a bunch of Romney talking points and we all know how well that played in 2012
+1
-
-
-
-
for those that care:
[link=http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive]http://www.teslamotors.co…st-peculiar-test-drive[/link]-
[link=http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/ramirez-on-the-state-of-the-union/]http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/ramirez-on-the-state-of-the-union/[/link]
Gotta love the cartoon-
Isn’t that why the Cubans came to America instead of Chile or Argentina, something from the American government for nothing while the right wing governments of Chile & Argentina offered nothing?
In the mind of the Right, America is the country of moochers. That’s why everyone lines up to come here.
-
I think you got it wrong Frumi. People used to come for opportunity and freedom, not for freebies. Freebies is a new vote buying Democrat program. Listen to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s what they are trying to tell you.
-
Quote from aldadoc
I think you got it wrong Frumi. People used to come for opportunity and freedom, not for freebies. Freebies is a new vote buying Democrat program. Listen to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s what they are trying to tell you.
Hey aldadoc, I realize this question is a bit of a sidebar to the OP, but do you agree that employers should be punished harshly for employing an undocumented foreign worker?
-
Andrew Sullivan nails it…
[link=http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/13/rubios-pathetic-exhausted-vapid-response/]http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/13/rubios-pathetic-exhausted-vapid-response/[/link]
Then there is this simple and obvious contradiction:
[blockquote] More government isnt going to help you get ahead. Its going to hold you back. More government isnt going to create more opportunities. Its going to limit them.
[/blockquote] Only minutes later, he said this:
[blockquote] I believe in federal financial aid. I couldnt have gone to college without it.
[/blockquote] So does government help people get ahead? Or does it hold them back? Which one is it, Senator? -
Quote from Lux
Quote from aldadoc
I think you got it wrong Frumi. People used to come for opportunity and freedom, not for freebies. Freebies is a new vote buying Democrat program. Listen to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s what they are trying to tell you.
Hey aldadoc, I realize this question is a bit of a sidebar to the OP, but do you agree that employers should be punished harshly for employing an undocumented foreign worker?
Yes, punished for sure. Not necessarily harshly, but certainly fined. If you are going to stop an illegal activity, you also have to remove the incentives. When the jobs dry up, so will the in-migration.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Lux
Quote from aldadoc
I think you got it wrong Frumi. People used to come for opportunity and freedom, not for freebies. Freebies is a new vote buying Democrat program. Listen to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s what they are trying to tell you.
Hey aldadoc, I realize this question is a bit of a sidebar to the OP, but do you agree that employers should be punished harshly for employing an undocumented foreign worker?
Yes, punished for sure. Not necessarily harshly, but certainly fined. If you are going to stop an illegal activity, you also have to remove the incentives. When the jobs dry up, so will the in-migration.
So why haven’t they been punished up until now? We let 11 million into the country, didn’t bother to check their ID for employment, our economy started to trash around ’06, and yet we never bore down on the incentive so that American workers could help revive the economy. I was always intrigued the polticians wouldn’t go out of their way to put voters on the payroll instead of allowing non-voters to keep all those jobs, and the politicians never elected to slap the hands of the employers.
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
I think you got it wrong Frumi. People used to come for opportunity and freedom, not for freebies. Freebies is a new vote buying Democrat program. Listen to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s what they are trying to tell you.
Not “used to,” still come here for opportunity and freedom. The “old” immigrants had identical things said about them when they came over. That included hard-working Cubans lumped into a category of sameness.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
[link=http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/ramirez-on-the-state-of-the-union/]http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/ramirez-on-the-state-of-the-union/[/link]
Gotta love the cartoonThe only problem is that I never heard Obama claim that government can fix everything.
I have indeed heard children say they like free stuff though.
I like free stuff too. Who doesn’t?
The cartoon obviously simply preaches to the choir. Big deal. -
Quote from RVU
Quote from Lux
Quote from Thor
No idea whether electric cars are the future or not, but the technology is still young. It’s like complaining that the Wright brothers didn’t build a 747 so we should never have invested in air travel
I guess RVU also believes that hand-held calculators still cost $400 for a simple 4-function model. Someone should tell him that first generation technology is now a giveaway at any comic book trade show.
Lets take a quick glance at the history of technology here.
Approx. 40-50 years ago:
-Hand-held calculators have simple functions like you pointed out.
-And the electric cars of the day (they were around with the same environmentalists touting them) could travel to 1 to perhaps 3 contiguous towns before the battery was drained.Today:
-Hand held calculators have turn into hand held computers working with processors literally 100 billion perhaps a trillion more efficient/powerful in executing entry commands.
-And the electric cars of today (now force fed on the unwanting public through a Presidential mandate to see 1 million of them in 2 years) can travel to 1 to 3 contiguous counties before the battery is drained.Sorry, your analogy fails.
What?!
To imply that a technology that evolves more slowly than a more rapidly evolving technology is proof, in and of itself, that the more slowly evolving technology must therefore somehow be a failed technology is ludicrous. The combustion engine blow your theory out of the water. Not all technologies develop at the same rate. It makes sense that a technology that carries a relatively high price tag will take longer to develop. And your use of the word “counties” is meaningless. How big is a “county” and on what terrain and weather conditions? Your assessment is full of holes. Sorry.
The reason people aren’t flocking to buy a “Plug-In” Prius isn’t that they don’t want electric. It’s that they can’t afford $40G for an otherwise average middle class family car REGARDLESS of what kind of engine it has. Come back and argue your points when the price of an electric car attains parity with a car with a combustion engine.
-
I’m still trying to figure out WTF the issue is other than, “Obama said it, therefore I hate it & have to declare it untrue!”
Luddites can gnash their teeth as much as they like but electrics are coming. It makes sense. Period.-
Quote from Frumious
I’m still trying to figure out WTF the issue is other than, “Obama said it, therefore I hate it & have to declare it untrue!”
Luddites can gnash their teeth as much as they like but electrics are coming. It makes sense. Period.Rest assured, you can stop right there because you HAVE figured it out!
Logic and critical thinking are wonderful things.
-
-
Well we’ve had over 100 years to work on the internal combustion engine, and yet we still don’t do much better than Mr Ford’s Model T. Some big advancements there huh?
-
Quote from Icthruu74
Well we’ve had over 100 years to work on the internal combustion engine, and yet we still don’t do much better than Mr Ford’s Model T. Some big advancements there huh?
In my lifetime I have seen the internal combustion engine advance tremendously. They last longer, have a much lower specific fuel consumption, much lower emissions, more reliable. -
Quote from Icthruu74
Well we’ve had over 100 years to work on the internal combustion engine, and yet we still don’t do much better than Mr Ford’s Model T. Some big advancements there huh?
Some people here seem to think that just because electric car technology is evolving slower than calculators, that must mean electric cars are a failed technology. But to logical people, it’s clear that we can’t expect every technology to evolve at the same rate. Technological development slows down when the public has generally accepted the current generation of technology and it costs a lot to further evolve it. Under those conditions what’s the incentive to develop the technology further? But don’t be surprised to see another stage of advancement in car power technology when gas hits $10/gal. which will most certainly happen sooner or later.
There’s no research study showing that the public has rejected the concept of buying an electric car if its price and distance per charge were comparable to a combustion engine, and the day of such parity is approaching as battery and motor technologies evolve.
-
Quote from Icthruu74
Well we’ve had over 100 years to work on the internal combustion engine, and yet we still don’t do much better than Mr Ford’s Model T. Some big advancements there huh?
We don’t? Where have you been?
Mileage has definitely increased! Efficiency all around has improved. And materials. As has what comes out of the pipe. My 1996 mid-sized is approaching 400K, original engine, approx 30-35 mpg, no oil burn. That would have been quite remarkable in the 1960’s. Or a Model T. My 1971 Bug couldn’t come close to what my car does now.
When I bring my car to the dealer I get a loaner. Last time I drove an SUV, auto trannie & now most new cars seem to have a vacuum gauge to help improve mileage. This SUV was giving me around 29 mpg; gas engine, nothing fancy.
Are you still driving a Model T, maybe?-
Quote from Frumious
Are you still driving a Model T, maybe?
Frumious, the Model T is more than 30 days old, and so the extreme conservatives assume they can just make up stuff about it and no one will be the wiser. That’s SOP in GOP land. Rubio proved that the other night.
-
OK so over the 100 years many advancements have taken place that have vastly improved the internal combustion powered car, why do you expect the electric car to be perfect over a few years?
And why are we stuck with the idea that cars have to be powered by a gasoline fueled 4 stroke engine?-
HUH? Perfect over a few years? Who? And who requires gasoline? There are diesel engines. Or natural gas.
You are the skeptic about advances.-
Quote from Frumious
HUH? Perfect over a few years? Who? And who requires gasoline? There are diesel engines. Or natural gas.
You are the skeptic about advances.
OK, so try going back and re-reading my post carefully. You missed the points I was going for.
Point 1: That it takes time to improve technology (in agreement with Lux on this one). We didn’t get where we are now with gas engines overnight. Neither will electric cars be at the same level as gas cars (that have had over 100 years of research and improvement) in the short time that they have been in development.
Point 2: Exactly, why don’t we have diesel cars in the US? They are more efficient and (GASP!) release less pollution than gas cars. Or why not alcohol? Or natural gas? Or fuel cells? There are many options out there that we could be exploring.
I hope that some day alternative vehicles will be viable. Not only that, but I relish the idea that I could produce my own energy for my vehicle (wind turbine, solar, bio-diesel, whatever) and not be at the mercy of the oil companies.-
Diesels are available and have been. VW & Mercedes & BMW offer diesels. Chevy & Chrysler & Mazda are supposed to be offering diesels soon.
There was an issue of diesel gas having too much sulphur but that’s been refined out as far as I recall.
[link=http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&year1=2012&year2=2013&vfuel=Diesel&mclass=Small+Cars,%20Family+Sedans,%20Large+Sedans,%20Upscale+Sedans,%20Luxury+Sedans,%20Hatchbacks,%20Coupes,%20Convertibles,%20Sports/Sporty+Cars,%20Station+Wagons&srchtyp=newDslCars]http://www.fueleconomy.go…amp;srchtyp=newDslCars[/link] -
Quote from Icthruu74
Exactly, why don’t we have diesel cars in the US? They are more efficient and (GASP!) release less pollution than gas cars.
My understanding of diesel vs. gas is that the gas engine costs less (e.g., lower compression ratio), is quieter, more reliable in cold weather, and cheaper to repair.
Basically, gas is for consumers and diesel is for industry.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
HUH? Perfect over a few years? Who? And who requires gasoline? There are diesel engines. Or natural gas.
You are the skeptic about advances.To some people, a burger is a burger is a burger, regardless of whether it’s veggie, fried fish, grilled sirloin, or White Castle.
-
More like bleeding edge R&D investors first.
-
The biggest problem is private industry is interested in short term gains which limits the long term investment. Why would corporate America take a ten year view the way we are set up. Same reason why we can find all sorts of games for our Ipad but fewer taking their computer knowledge and taking a long term view
-
The biggest problem in private industry is the government has the whole economy upside down:
1. Govt egghead does study showing lack of public sector R&D.
2. Govt subsidizes R&D
3. Govt is inherently imprecise and bad companies (ie Solyndra) benefit to the detriment of any potential good ones.
4. Private R&D is squelched because “Why take R&D risks—we won’t be able to compete with our govt financed competitors”
5. Goto #1
Same thing with jobs:
1. Govt egghead sees lack of jobs
2. Decides we need more regulations to “promote” hiring and retain workers
3. Business doesn’t hire because of burdensome regulations
4. Goto #1-
But your lament does nothing to solve the inherent problem of time horizon. There are certainy things that are important to our society that simple capitalism does not support well. Alternative energy is a perfect example. We need to find alternatives but until capital sees a reasonable expectation of return on investment, the private market will fail to support the industy.
This is one of the places where a government can direct investment and take a long view acting in the best interests of society and providing a long term real improvement in quality of life for its citizens.-
Quote from dergon
But your lament does nothing to solve the inherent problem of time horizon. There are certainy things that are important to our society that simple capitalism does not support well. Alternative energy is a perfect example. We need to find alternatives but until capital sees a reasonable expectation of return on investment, the private market will fail to support the industy.
This is one of the places where a government can direct investment and take a long view acting in the best interests of society and providing a long term real improvement in quality of life for its citizens.
Ha! You treat alternative energy like some type of new thing that just needs a little boost to get going. They had building solar panel models when I was in 6th grade—–yet solar energy is still not competitive. Compare that to how far computers have come since ’82.
We have seen the gov’t effects on the energy market——-take corn, but don’t eat it—-turn it into gasoline, raising the cost of BOTH food AND gasoline. How exactly does forcing up the price of food AND gas provide me with a better quality of life? You seriously trust these folks to make decisions for your childrens futures?
Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg. Check it out:
[link=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/]http://blog.heritage.org/…green-energy-failures/[/link]
Govt $$ makes companies less, not more, likely to innovate.-
Your earth-shaking discovery is that not every investment is a success.
WOW! Like who would’ve seen that coming.-
Government support of R&D in science is crucial to the success of this country.
[link=http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html]http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html[/link]
Why does the government need to invest in R&D? The private sector on its own will not commit the level of resources to R&D that is best for society or even for the individual firms. A firm bases its investment expenditures, including those on R&D, on the expected return on an investment to that firm. Because firms realize only a portion of the total returns to an investment in R&D, they will not invest enough from a societal standpoint. R&D is a unique input in the production process. Its results can spread quickly throughout the economy, with applications far beyond those imagined by the original researcher — the so- called “spillover” effect. Spillovers mean that an individual firm or innovator will realize only a fraction of the total returns to an innovation; that is, the innovation yields benefits to others for which the original researcher is not fully compensated.
Examples abound. Lasers and transistors are now a part of everyday life. The inventors of the laser probably had no idea that it would eventually be used for removing cataracts or for playing music in a compact disc player. Likewise, the American physicists who invented the transistor at Bell labs in 1948 could not have imagined that their invention would be used today in radios, computers, spaceflight and guided missiles, and countless other electronic devices. In both cases, even if the inventors’ imaginations did reach such heights, today they receive no additional monetary benefit for the large advantages that society reaps from their insights.
The consequences of the existence of important spillovers is that private firms will not invest enough in R&D from a national perspective. This point is not merely theoretical: many studies have demonstrated that investments in R&D yield high returns to investors and even higher returns to society. One recent review of econometric studies concluded that the average private rate of return to an innovation seems to be between 20 and 30 percent, while the social rate of return is closer to 50 percent. An earlier, extensive, case-study approach found that the median private return to the innovations studied was 25 percent, while the median social rate of return was 56 percent. While estimates of the rates of return are just that — estimates — a wealth of studies over the past two decades have confirmed these high private returns and even higher social returns.
The inadequacy of firms’ incentives to invest in R&D creates an important role for the Federal government. The goal of technology policy, however, is not to substitute the government’s judgment for that of private industry. Rather, the point is to correct a genuine and significant problem — underinvestment in basic research and in pre-commercial R&D resulting from the divergence between private and social returns to those activities. A complementary goal is to design the technology investments that the government itself makes in public goods — national security, public health, education, a clean environment, an efficient transportation system — in ways that maximize the potential external benefits for the Nation’s commercial technology base. In both cases, support for technological innovation enhances the Nation’s economic and social welfare.-
Dergon,
your comments were so obtuse and moronic I knew they had to come from the government. I was right!!!!! But I didn’t think you’d be dumb enough to plagiarize exactly. I was wrong!!!!
[link=http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html]http://clinton1.nara.gov/…con/html/econ-rpt.html[/link]-
Ah– yes — that was supposed to have been quoted… my dog was taking a nice wet dump on the floor as I posted that earlier……. was an error on my part… post ammended.
-
-
Quote from dergon
Government support of R&D in science is crucial to the success of this country.
[link=http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html]http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html[/link]Why does the government need to invest in R&D? The private sector on its own will not commit the level of resources to R&D that is best for society or even for the individual firms. A firm bases its investment expenditures, including those on R&D, on the expected return on an investment to that firm. Because firms realize only a portion of the total returns to an investment in R&D, they will not invest enough from a societal standpoint. R&D is a unique input in the production process. Its results can spread quickly throughout the economy, with applications far beyond those imagined by the original researcher — the so- called “spillover” effect. Spillovers mean that an individual firm or innovator will realize only a fraction of the total returns to an innovation; that is, the innovation yields benefits to others for which the original researcher is not fully compensated.
Examples abound. Lasers and transistors are now a part of everyday life. The inventors of the laser probably had no idea that it would eventually be used for removing cataracts or for playing music in a compact disc player. Likewise, the American physicists who invented the transistor at Bell labs in 1948 could not have imagined that their invention would be used today in radios, computers, spaceflight and guided missiles, and countless other electronic devices. In both cases, even if the inventors’ imaginations did reach such heights, today they receive no additional monetary benefit for the large advantages that society reaps from their insights.
The consequences of the existence of important spillovers is that private firms will not invest enough in R&D from a national perspective. This point is not merely theoretical: many studies have demonstrated that investments in R&D yield high returns to investors and even higher returns to society. One recent review of econometric studies concluded that the average private rate of return to an innovation seems to be between 20 and 30 percent, while the social rate of return is closer to 50 percent. An earlier, extensive, case-study approach found that the median private return to the innovations studied was 25 percent, while the median social rate of return was 56 percent. While estimates of the rates of return are just that — estimates — a wealth of studies over the past two decades have confirmed these high private returns and even higher social returns.The inadequacy of firms’ incentives to invest in R&D creates an important role for the Federal government. The goal of technology policy, however, is not to substitute the government’s judgment for that of private industry. Rather, the point is to correct a genuine and significant problem — underinvestment in basic research and in pre-commercial R&D resulting from the divergence between private and social returns to those activities. A complementary goal is to design the technology investments that the government itself makes in public goods — national security, public health, education, a clean environment, an efficient transportation system — in ways that maximize the potential external benefits for the Nation’s commercial technology base. In both cases, support for technological innovation enhances the Nation’s economic and social welfare.
You are still strolling through the halls of the history museum. You have here 70 year old stories of what government, fresh out of the total war effort of WWII and into the Cold War, was able to do when they had a virtual monopoly on science talent. This obviously isn’t a reality anymore and hasn’t been for many decades. If you contend otherwise, please cite a list like the one below of direct (or majority produced) US government innovation, creation and manufacturing. The fact you would use a Clinton-era think piece before he announced the death of big government shows how little entrenched liberals really want to understand or admit that the US government does next to nothing conceptualizing, developing, manufacturing, and marketing any technology instrumental in it’s citizens lives.
The exception to this are weapons programs for the Dept. of Defense. And, I am sure that every liberal on this site has from time to time complained about the relative large defense spending of the US in the last three decades. But when it is convenient to the liberal elites argument for more government, libs become the biggest temporary fans of the Pentagon and defense contractors. Its very curious but thoroughly blatant hypocrisy. Now, how many people outside of a liberal elite want defense-like spending to bring pet/hobbyists projects like improvements on an electric car so that it can cross state lines instead of county lines, or, run in non-perfect California weather? Obviously not many, since there’s enough accessible fuels and other energy sources to last over 100 years going forward.
[link=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/01/22/Why-Americans-Still-Dont-Drive-Electric-Cars.aspx#page1]http://www.thefiscaltimes…ectric-Cars.aspx#page1[/link]
[link=http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/23612.html]http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/23612.html[/link]
But ardent govt lovers inevitability cite GPS technology. The development of GPS has been discussed several times on AM. GPS was shelved as a half finished project when Jimmy Carter decimated the defense and intelligence of the US in the late 1970s. Afterwards, GPS pretty much sat on the shelf an an unused technology. Rights were then sold over to private industry as part of Reagan’s dual-use initiatives. Afterwards, the technology obviously takes off. It was private industry which tinkered, manufactured, and marketed the GPS. Without clever ex-military personal in private industry, liberals would have kept it shelved.
[link=http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf[/link]
Key quote: [i]The money generated by the survey market boom (private commercial industry) was also important to the overall development of GPS applications because it enabled U.S. manufacturers to invest in research and development (R&D) on GPS technology. [u]The added R&D investment helped accelerate the development of GPS applications faster[/u] [u]than would have been possible had the DoD been left to carry out this task on its own.[/u] In fact, surveyors were the first to employ some of the more advanced differential GPS techniques being used today, such as kinematic surveying and real-time carrier phase tracking.[/i]
Reading through your link, it very much mimics what liberals have been inaccurately scaring the public constantly about in not providing more and more-really endless- resources to government. [i]”Today, we face the possibility of unprecedented cuts in Federal R&D expenditures…..The competitive position of the United States — and indeed future increases in standards of living — depends on technological advances”. [/i]However, since this paper was written in 1993, just think what privately held American firms and private capital R & D have developed and accomplished, wthout anything but the relative tiniest contributions in the development-production cycle from any government source. The list blows up any liberals contention of “[i] inadequacy of firms’ incentives to invest in R&D creates an important role for the Federal government[/i]. The breadth and scope of this list is too much to deny:
-Protease Inhibitors (Hoffman-LaRoache) along with Atripla pretty much halted the AIDS epidemic.
-Bird Flu Vaccine//Pentacel 5-in-1 vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur)
-Craig Venter. First his private company Celera genomic sequenced the human genome first (despite starting more than 1/2 decade after the govt sponsored Human Genome project, and being gentlemanly enough to finish as a joint project with the govt, so the project was finished 3 years ahead of time). Dr. Venter’s techniques are now standard used in the field of molecular genetics. Meanwhile the US government wasted billions on the Human Genome project that was done with private capital using 1/4th of the money and less than 1/2 of the time.
-Now, there’s Gleevec. And Dr. Venter’s private companies genomic medicine is rapidly changing cancer therapy
-Animal cloning (which will soon lead to organ cloning).
-Genetically modified, heartier crops.
-Exponential growth of computing power, data compression, memory and software.
-Google (the government would still have us at Alta vista with webaddress result if left up to them).
-Cable modem/Broadband
-Peer-to-peer networks/You Tube/Facebook (go on VPGore or any other 80s era democrat and crow about email, sir!)
-Multi-slice/Isotropic CT imaging
-tPA and the plummeting death rates of heart disease.
-Herceptin
-Drug-eluting stents
-Gardasil
-The rise of private space industry, which goes hand and hand with the deadly failures of NASA in the last 20 yrs.
-Horizontal Slickwater Fracking
Anybody could continue with the incredible innovations in the last 20 years that have been brought to market free of anything but the most nominal contributions by government involvement (mostly with safety checks). But, the basic premise of your link is proven deeply false and are only kept alive as democrat-big spending talking points.
Now, here’s what critics of these incredible new technologies will contend: Not all new products and concepts are the [i]right products [/i]because they were not approved and vetted by the liberal elite before public use. That’s why it is easy for liberals to tax medical device manufacturers because they dont really think its the best idea to give such therapies as stents to cardiac patients or provide more advanced imaging to all patients. Liberals would rather have government and their own sensibilities control which technology is out there and not. That’s a shame for anybody that what to see improvement of life through medical innovation or all facets of life improved or enjoyed more. This is why you are virtually blind to the exponential growth of private innovation in America.
Give it a rest-the US government is broke and private industry developes pretty much all things, even the most important products, better, quicker, and more efficiently.-
[b]Give it a rest-the US government is broke and private industry developes pretty much all things, even the most important products, better, quicker, and more efficiently.[/b]
Whats really funny is 10 -30 yrs ago Conservatives use to say we have to always increase military spending because they do all the research and development that leads to advances in Private industry
So which one is Should the governemnt spend money on R and D or just let the private sector do everything
This is ike the Iraq debate………………first They had WMD’s and were going to harm us…………….then it became this and that ………….and finally Oh well Sadaam was bad
The ever evolving conservative logic-
If we fail to make these R&D investments, the US will be *more* broke a generation from now as other countries pass us by and steal our GDP.
-
Quote from dergon
If we fail to make these R&D investments, the US will be *more* broke a generation from now as other countries pass us by and steal our GDP.
I dont know why you are persistently repeating this liberal mantra over and over agian, without listing modern proof. What you are stating is a failed notion of government as the primary source of non defense-related R&D and innovation. The paper you cite in your last post is nothing but John Podesta-inspired (if not written) early Clintoneque talk. However, I cited several (breaking it all up approximately 50) scientific innovations brought to the public by private industry since the time that non-nondescript paper was written. Many of these innovations turned into products are now vital parts of a lot of our lives. So, if you are going continue to repeat this mantra above, let alone believe in it, please cite evidence of government innovation and production in the last 20 years that can legitimately compete with my list.
-Protease Inhibitors (Hoffman-LaRoache) along with Atripla pretty much halted the AIDS epidemic.
-Bird Flu Vaccine//Pentacel 5-in-1 vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur)
-Craig Venter. First his private company Celera genomic sequenced the human genome first (despite starting more than 1/2 decade after the govt sponsored Human Genome project, and being gentlemanly enough to finish as a joint project with the govt, so the project was finished 3 years ahead of time). Dr. Venter’s techniques are now standard used in the field of molecular genetics. Meanwhile the US government wasted billions on the Human Genome project that was done with private capital using 1/4th of the money and less than 1/2 of the time.
-Now, there’s Gleevec. And Dr. Venter’s private companies genomic medicine is rapidly changing cancer therapy
-Animal cloning (which will soon lead to organ cloning).
-Genetically modified, heartier crops.
-Exponential growth of computing power, data compression, memory and software.
-Smart Phones.
-Free online, publicly accessible Internet software (word processing, etc)
-Free online, publicly accessible comprehensive encyclopedias
-Free online, information/newspapers from everywhere around the world
-Free online advanced education training
-Online access to all medical journals-most of which can be freely accessed.
-Online education.
-Aunt Minnie.com
-E-readers.
-Google (the government would still have us at Alta vista with webaddress result if left up to them).
-Cable modem/Broadband
-Peer-to-peer networks/You Tube/Facebook (go on VPGore or any other 80s era democrat and crow about email, sir!)
-Multi-slice/Isotropic CT imaging
-DICOM , imaging compression, and remote medical imaging.
-tPA and the plummeting death rates of heart disease.
-Herceptin
-Drug-eluting stents
-Gardasil
-The rise of private space industry, which goes hand and hand with the deadly failures of NASA in the last 20 yrs.
-Horizontal Slickwater Fracking -
RVU & billainsworth, you are out of your mind if you sincerely don’t think there is a list of technologies as long as your arm that the feds funded without any prior attempt from the private sector to lift a finger.
First, I object to you invoking the VA since the primary focus of this aspect of the discussion is specifically about [u][i]technology[/i][/u] development, and that obviously does not include the VA.
Furthermore, the feds have made relatively little investment to develop new energy technologies up to this point (the singularly infamous [i]Solandra[/i], notwithstanding), deferring, instead, to the fossil fuel industry to take that helm, and yet we [i]continue[/i] to witness a laggard energy industry, with the possible exception of a few isolated efforts like the Prius and Tesla. In fact, the 40 billion bucks the feds keep giving the oil companies in tax breaks is supposed to go into new energy technology research, but the oil companies squander that and, instead, simply come up with new ways to extract the same old non-renewable oil from more disperse, harder-to-get-to places between shale layers or dissolved in sandstone, etc., until the price of such technology raise the price of gas to over 10 bucks a gallon.
And [u]YOU[/u] think that [i]Obama[/i] is the one who’s burning money?
But after all, what’s the private sector’s incentive for innovation? It’s [u]profit[/u], of course. So then, what happens if a back-of-the-napkin idea for a new technology requires billions of dollars of front-end funding of the basic research before there’s any evidence that the technology can even be commercialized? Answer: it has virtually ZERO incentive (from the perspective of [i]profit[/i]), because no one else would bite off something that risky either.Other than your hi-viz poster-child cases like Solandra, you have no systemic failure to report in federal funding of technology. On the contrary, year after year we see federal dollars funding the most forward-thinking technologies in areas where the private sector wouldn’t dare visit either because of the financial risks involved, or because they are virtually all looking only for short-term gain, not long-term development. And then, the lion’s share of those federally-funded technologies is available for FREE for anyone in the private sector to commercialize. You’d have to live in a cave to not notice that basic phenomenon all around you!
As the Wicked Witch of the West has been quoted to say in various ways in these discussions: you’re not only merely delusional, you’re really most sincerely delusional.
-
Quote from Lux
Other than your hi-viz poster child cases like Solandra,
LOL…there is a long list of failures.
[link=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/]http://blog.heritage.org/…green-energy-failures/[/link]
Funny you mention the Prius as a success….the Volt, the one with govt subsidies, has failed miserably -
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
Other than your hi-viz poster child cases like Solandra,
LOL…there is a long list of failures.
[link=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/]http://blog.heritage.org/…green-energy-failures/[/link]
Funny you mention the Prius as a success….the Volt, the one with govt subsidies, has failed miserably
Say, has someone been fooling you into believing more half-truths again?
Now let’s see how thoroughly you can muster up the list of [u][i]successes[/i][/u] with the same vim and vigor.
-
The government did invent the $500 toilet seat. Gotta give em credit for that. Oh yea and VA “healthcare”
-
Quote from billainsworth
The government did invent the $500 toilet seat. Gotta give em credit for that. Oh yea and VA “healthcare”
See, I gave you a simple task so that you would have a chance to redeem your credibility by demonstrating a modicum of objectivity and scientific thought and assembling a simple list of technologies that eventually became commercialized thanks to federal funding of the basic research…and you failed totally and miserably.
Not that I thought you’d really come through. But at least we now know for sure that you simply refuse, or are unable, to rise to even the most basic challenges of logic and rationality that we all confront in the real world.
-
Quote from billainsworth
The government did invent the $500 toilet seat. Gotta give em credit for that. Oh yea and VA “healthcare”
It seems like you are trying to conflate two separate issues issues. Waste, fraud and abuse in governmental programs and inefficiencies in their administration are separate from whether government funding should support R&D, or any other societal goal for that matter.
-
dergon:
billainsworth obviously doesn’t understand R&D. Most companies that invest in far-reaching basic research understand full well that the majority of their initial projects will fail. Pharmaceutical companies are among the most notorious victims of such a phenomenon, since the vast majority of their drug projects fail while only a small single-digit percent might have any chance of commercialization.
In fact, in that list of so-called “failures” that billainsworth links us to in an earlier post, note that 19 out of the 33 companies in that list have actually file for bankruptcy (note that this does not mean they have “failed” or have gone out of business). The remaining 14 in that list of 33 companies represent 43% who are still in operation. That’s a FAR better rate than what we find in the private sector which generally can only boast something like a 5% survival rate after 5 years (technology companies have a far worse survival rate). And don’t forget that billainsworth’s dire list only includes what he considers to be the “failures”. When you add the government-funded success story that actually have thrived (a list that billainsworth staunchly refuses to acknowledge), then the success rate of such government-funded basic R&D goes through the roof.
By any logical, rational, and objective measure, the government’s funding of technology R&D in the USA has been a smashing success that has significantly improved American’s way of life, cherry-picked ideological naysayers like billainsworth, notwithstanding.
-
Lux, you know nothing about economics. The monetary losses of these companies is just part of the damage done by govt manipulation of the R&D market. Go read on “opportunity cost”.
-
Quote from billainsworth
Lux, you know nothing about economics. The monetary losses of these companies is just part of the damage done by govt manipulation of the R&D market. Go read on “opportunity cost”.
Yes, billainsworth, you indeed have convinced us that you are the seer of this discussion. It’s now clear to any logical thinker that shutting down any aid to preschool should be immediate and thorough since you can find no evidence that it [i]”makes any difference”,[/i] and that the public school system should be leveled to the ground for fear that it may actually be more harmful and wasteful than no publicly funded education at all, and that the government should immediately shut down any funding of basic research in biomedical, aerospace, energy, and all other technologies.
And in spite of the plethora of evidence over decades to the contrary, the private sector will look out for our own good and has earned the public trust to invest heavily, with no guarantee that the technology can become commercialized, and with no regard to the fact that the more far-reaching technologies could take 10 years to commercialize, and with no concern about whether such technologies will allow them to claim a quarterly profit to their shareholders.
And of course, go ahead and ignore the fact that there is ZERO venture funding available to facilitate your vision, that the vast majority of R&D projects fail on their face, and that huge technology industries like aerospace and energy have failed miserably over many decades to confirm what you believe they are quite ready, willing, and able to do, and that you have provided zero evidence that your plan will work.
And yet you insist we all should somehow feel confident in summarily rejecting the need for any such logic or rationality and, instead, should embrace your extreme ideology for “preserving” our way of life.
Well done.
-
1. You are making an irrational to assume the failure rates of companies with subsidies should fail at the same rate as companies without. You are getting free govt money, your failure should be a fraction of the control group.
2. Any “study” that lauds govt interference in the R&D market is flawed because they do not take into account the opportunity cost of that lost capital or the damage done to competitors who have to fund their own research.
3. My VA simile serves to show the govt is much more incompetent and costly than the private sector on every level. Why is R&D any different? -
How about instead of the VA we use the interstate highway system.
It was passed by congress and funded by the US taxpayer. It led a to great expansion of US GDP by vastly decreasing the cost and time of transport within the domestic economy.
There would be no way that a private company would have undertaken the 40 year project to build the system. It required government action. That investment brought real and tangible benefits to the citizens of the United States. -
So the logic goes, if the VA has problems, R&D must also have problems.
Not exactly sound thinking. But Bill never let that get in the way.
And the VA isn’t quite as bad as all that. It has improved a great deal. Funding matters.
Does Bill ever present any evidence? He’s just another right-winger making bold conclusions based on no facts. A $500 hammer is not an argument for a government that never works. The private sector has multiple examples of malfeasance that makes a $500 hammer look like a very petty example indeed. Just a few example quickly appear in my head, Enron, Tycho, & banks’ CDOs leading to the global recession.
And who bailed them all out of their superior efficiencies and governance and finances?
Stop the Kool-aid Bill & sober up. It’ll do you good. -
Quote from Frumious
. The private sector has multiple examples of malfeasance that makes a $500 hammer look like a very petty example indeed. Just a few example quickly appear in my head, Enron, Tycho, & banks’ CDOs leading to the global recession.
And who bailed them all out of their superior efficiencies and governance and finances?
You are so misguided you can only be a university professor. The global recession was caused, not by capitalism, but by the lack of it. The fed PRICE FIXED interest rates unnaturally low SPECIFICALLY TO CREATE a housing bubble to fix the deflated internet bubble.
Quote from Leftist Paul Krugman, 2002
[i]To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, [b]Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.[/b][/i]
[i][b][/b][/i]
Add Fannie and Freddie to the toxic mix, who were insuring loans written to deadbeats—removing the risk part of the capitalist risk-reward equation and off they went! Fannie/Freddie, of course, failed miserably. Now in the lefty fantasy world of competent governance, the govt would have seen the crash coming, right?
Quote from Chris Dodd,Democrat Sen-CT
I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, [Fannie/Freddie] is one of the great success stories of all time.
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004Quote from Barney Frank, Democrat, Sen-MA
The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.
[i]Senate Banking Committee[/i][i], Feb. 24-25, 2004[/i]But at least we had the Keynsians to save us–or not:
Quote from Bernanke
The housing market, after flying high for five years, has lost altitude but appears headed for a safe landing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday.–USA today 5/18/06
So when the E.coli hit the air re-circulator, did those wonderful govt types make the Wall Street insiders pay for their misdeeds? Heck no—-in fact they got rewarded with lavish payouts courtesy of the taxpayer. And who went to jail? noone. Where were the govt regulators? dunno.
Here we have a whole cadre of government types with their liberal economics professors in tow and they totally missed the biggest bust in a generation.Quote from neocon tool VP Cheney
I don’t think anybody saw it coming”
Nobody? VP Cheney? don’t you mean nobody except the small government, private sector libertarian types who predicted the collapse—in detail too excruciating to be just chance:
[link=http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Profit-Economic-Collapse/dp/0470043601/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top]http://www.amazon.com/Cra…f=cm_cr_pr_product_top[/link]
Capitalism didn’t cause the bust—it was the lack of capitalism. Big govt interfering in the markets with artificial interest rates and housing subsidies because of liberal ideals, like “everyone deserves a house”; who cares if they can’t afford it? Then the govt paid out favors to its “private sector” buds [NB: This is NOT capitalism].
And you actually trust these government idiots with your money?
Quote from taxpayer champion Rand Paul
“Don’t send your money to Washington. People up here are not to be trusted with money”
The next crash—a result of more the liberal (and neocon) mantra of interest rate fixing, money printing, even bigger government and confiscatory taxation— the term “Government Bubble” fits well—will make ’08 look like a Sunday School picnic. Wonder where your “well spent” (haha) research funds and precious social welfare programs will steal cash from then? -
Quote from billainsworth
1. You are making an irrational to assume the failure rates of companies with subsidies should fail at the same rate as companies without. You are getting free govt money, your failure should be a fraction of the control group.
2. Any “study” that lauds govt interference in the R&D market is flawed because they do not take into account the opportunity cost of that lost capital or the damage done to competitors who have to fund their own research.
3. My VA simile serves to show the govt is much more incompetent and costly than the private sector on every level. Why is R&D any different?WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG…AGAIN!
Enough is enough! Where do you GET such utter nonsense?
1. If I invent something that is eventually shown to fail the commercialization test, what difference does it make where the funding comes from? What matters in this discussion is whether the invention works and can be commercialized REGARDLESS of who pays for the basic research. The only difference in federal funding vs. me having to pound the pavement for non-existent venture funding, is that with the feds’ funding I get to find out sooner rather than later whether my idea will survive in the private sector. But the idea is still the same idea no matter where the funding comes from. You have no idea what the failure rate is of basic R&D projects, whether funded by the private sector or the feds.
2. The feds incorporate a VERY attractive opportunity cost advantage in the projects they fund, in part because many of their projects end up working and being the best solution in spite of the private sector backing away from those same technology projects because of the high risk involved, and in part because the fact that the feds funded a given R&D project lends credibility to that field of science which then often has the effect of stimulating additional development by the private sector where no such stimulation would have occurred had the feds not made the first entre to “test the water”. Sure there the hitch with fed funding regarding whether the invention actually works and can be commercialized. But, for example, what was the opportunity cost of the fed funding of GPS? Why couldn’t the private sector reply with its own alternate opportunity? If anything, federal funding of technology spurs private sector interest and can just as easily stimulate additional alternate solutions in order to create competition. Just look at the opportunities that opened up from all the inventions drawn from the space program. Likewise from all the biomedical research the feds funded. There would be less need for the feds to fund a given technology if the private sector took up the “opportunity cost” and pursued its own initiative to develop that technology itself. Perhaps you can name a few opportunities that were stifled by federal funding of technology.
3. The VA has saved the lives of untold thousands of veterans. Now, you can moan all you want about the VA not being all it outta be, but you simply cannot cite the VA as a failed venture. Nor can you cite it as an example of how funding the VA creates undesirable opportunity cost (last time I checked, healthcare is expanding; the government’s funding of the VA has not caused private sector healthcare to contract). It’s just the way the feds want to do it for our military. If you’re going to complain about military-related spending, then complain about the US blowing hundreds of billions of tax dollars in unjustified wars, and not on the fact that the VA healthcare doesn’t meet your high standards. In any case, the VA is not a “technology” which is essentially what this debate has been focusing on.
I’m sorry to say that you’re fishing in water that’s over your head.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Your earth-shaking discovery is that not every investment is a success.
No my earth-shaking discovery is that the govt has a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE record of picking winners and losers and we should therefore not expect that to change in the future.
Quote from Frumious
WOW! Like who would’ve seen that coming.
That’s what Bernanke–and other govt economists– said when the bubble burst!!
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
…solar energy is still not competitive.
You make false assumptions about the aging infrastructure. Have you been keeping track of how decrepit the electrical power system is in many regions across the country? In fact, the entire rationale for implementing the smart grid to begin with is that each local company’s hardware is so old and insufficient that it MUST grab support from the other “troops” when it gets whacked by even a slightly challenging storm rather than beef up its own “armor” to prepare for the local peak load.
But what about areas that do not enjoy even THAT kind of relatively intact infrastructure? Other developing countries need a more practical solution than requiring everyone who needs power to hook up to a central system. And so when Ringo Starr recently purchased a multi-square-mile island off the coast of Belize which includes a large residential and recreational development, he decided that the entire island will be powered by solar energy.
-
Quote from Lux
. And so when Ringo Starr recently purchased a multi-square-mile island off the coast of Belize which includes a large residential and recreational development, he decided that the entire island will be powered by solar energy.
Good for Ringo!!! He moved to an island and picked a solution that worked best for him. I’m jealous. I’m stuck in the US with a govt constantly telling me what’s best for me.
-
Quote from billainsworth
I’m stuck in the US with a govt constantly telling me what’s best for me.
And thank God for that! Otherwise, you’d be shutting down the entire public school system claiming that parents should be able to find plenty of schooling for their kids without any government funding of that education and that we first would need to run a study with educated students compared to kids who never had any education to prove that education really even makes any difference.
Under such circumstances, the name of this country might as well be The United States of Afghanistan.
-
Something tells me that Billingsworth is so informed that he can’t find a single “success” story of government investment & his whole portfolio of examples of failure is his sole example of Solyndra.
What should one expect from someone who thinks education is dangerous.
-
Quote from Lux
And thank God for that! Otherwise, you’d be shutting down the entire public school system
[\quote]
Shut it down? Heck no! I’d bulldoze the whole thing. The whole putrid rats nest of waste and abuse would be leveled and I would start again based on evidence-based education. We have a great school system already—it’s called private schools—and contrary to leftist ideology–private schools are CHEAPER. We spend $26,000 per student-yr in DC for some of the worst outcomes in the country. You think that’s sustainable? If we just made administrators answer to parents, not to politicians and unions, we’d be much better off.-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
And thank God for that! Otherwise, you’d be shutting down the entire public school system
Shut it down? Heck no! I’d bulldoze the whole thing. The whole putrid rats nest of waste and abuse would be leveled and I would start again based on evidence-based education. We have a great school system already—it’s called private schools—and contrary to leftist ideology–private schools are CHEAPER. We spend $26,000 per student-yr in DC for some of the worst outcomes in the country. You think that’s sustainable? If we just made administrators answer to parents, not to politicians and unions, we’d be much better off.
And I can’t wait to see your evidence showing that private schools would not only be at least as good as public schools when made available on a “universal” basis, but would still retain the same quality and run in the same economic structure once any child, including those who are totally indifferent to education, is admitted to them. Do you even know anything about the private school industry?
Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?
Whew. It sure is exhausting trying to wake up the extremist psyche.
-
Quote from Lux
, but would still retain the same quality and run in the same economic structure once any child, including those who are totally indifferent to education, is admitted to them.
One of our major malfunctions is we ignore the gifted and waste way too much on kids totally indifferent to education.
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from Lux
, but would still retain the same quality and run in the same economic structure once any child, including those who are totally indifferent to education, is admitted to them.
One of our major malfunctions is we ignore the gifted and waste way too much on kids totally indifferent to education.
Sorry, I am unaware of,
[ul][*]evidence that we ignore the gifted[*]the differential in cost between groups of different affinity to education or scholastic aptitude [/ul] …at least in the public (aka “universal”) school system.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RVU:
Talk about a [i]”museum-like memory”,[/i] you are WAY off base if you think technology will explode if you[i] “just leave it to the private market”. [/i]As has become typical of extremists, the allegations you make about others actually reflects YOUR OWN thinking, not theirs.
Tesla and Solyndra are merely collateral damage that you and yours keep harping on in a feeble attempt to “prove” that Obama’s economic policies are failed at best, or corrupt at worst. You completely disregard any of the other countless success stories going on in this country as a direct result of Obama’s economic policies. It’s very telling that we don’t see you giving Obama any credit whatsoever for the recovery of the auto industry, stablization of the banking and housing industry, or the tripling of the stock market, just as there are countless success stories regarding the development of new technologies (e.g., the retinal implant that’s been getting a lot of airplay was developed in collaboration with the federally-funded Lawrence Livermore National Labs).
And so I TOTALLY disagree with you about the quality of scientists that [i]”work for a behemoth federal”[/i] bureaucracy. Your characterization is disingenuous since a huge amount of our science talent works at government funded institutions like NIH, NASA, Livermore, and academia which would instantly vaporize if not for R01 federal grants. How can your ideology allow you to be so quick to overlook such a productive, high talent system?
By all objective economic accounts, the simple truth is that Obama’s economic policies are helping many, many thousands of small businesses succeed, including mine and just about everyone else’s I know who’s running a business (including both “libs” and “cons”), including technology labs all across the country, as the economy continues to pull out of the catastrophic free fall that he inherited. Any other representation of Obama’s economic policies to the contrary is pure ideological delusionism. I know for a FACT that private venture capital funding of new technology has all but dried up. In truth, venture capital these days is almost completely used to expand an already proven techology in order to commercialize it. Without federal funding of the more forward-thinking technologies, this country would be drawn to a grinding halt in basic technology R&D.
I mean, why on earth do you think it would all work out if we simply put the entire shebang into the private sector and let the market drive the development? I’m sorry to tell you that the current status of venture funding and also the criminal negligence of the oil industry to withhold any energy technology development other than trying to scrape the remaining oil that’s dissolved in the surrounding bedrock until the price of gas skyrockets out of control clearly shows that such a strategy is positioned to completely fail unless other entities – like federal government funding – take on the responsibility to ensure our society can continue to sustain and improve its way of life. The same can be said of aerospace and medicine.
I believe you are just wrong and are basing your position on only the hi-viz companies like Solyndra, Tesla, IBM and Apple, and you’re not giving any credit to the many thousands of chem, medical, physics, and engineering labs that are at the cutting edge of technological development as a direct result of their tight association with the federal government.
-
Quote from Lux
I believe you are just wrong and are basing your position on only the hi-viz companies like Solyndra, Tesla, IBM and Apple, and you’re not giving any credit to the many thousands of chem, medical, physics, and engineering labs that are at the cutting edge of technological development as a direct result of their tight association with the federal government.
What is REALLY easy to see is the successes of govt subsidies. Just ask the big govt types, they will be happy to give you a laundry list of these “winners”. The lo-viz companies are there problem. You don’t see the small innovative companies that are pushed out of business by Uncle Sucker subsidizing R&D for their politically connected competitors. Why should the govt be picking winners and losers in the first place????
-
-
[b]One of our major malfunctions is we ignore the gifted and waste way too much on kids totally indifferent to education. [/b]
I tend to agree with this comment. The problem is how do you solve it without throwing money at it.
I agree that gifted kids need to be put in a position to maximize their potential. The only real way to do this is to increase funding for it.
The indifferent to education child. That is probably real. I wouldn’t use that term but i can go along for sake of argument. My question is what do you do with them? If you don’t find a way to educate them or at least train them for something in the future then you end up paying the price down the road of having an adult with no skills to make a meaningful living. These kids are certainly at higher risk for “living off the dole” either in poverty incarcerated etc. I think you would agree.
So what do yo do to some way educate or train them so they have a better chance of becoming well functioning members of society who pay taxes and can support themselves.
You pretty much have to throw money at programs that can accomplish this.-
kpack, surely you must know by now that billainsworth would just as soon make Soylent Green out of those kids.
-
I like Murray’s simple truths about education:
1. Ability varies
2. Half of children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America’s future depends on how we educated the gifted.
Let’s wake up and realize not every student is cut out for HS algebra-trig-calc and four years of college. We need better vocational and on-the-job training programs and what we ESPECIALLY need is for self-righteous ivory tower liberals to stop over-promoting the four year degree and thereby disparaging vocational education. We have roughly doubled the total numbers of BAs/ BSs since the 80s—but the number of science grads remains unchanged!!!!
Anthropology/english/sociology majors are graduating with a worthless piece of paper and morgatage (loan debt) but no house!!
This is all a symptom of TOO MUCH public money in education—colleges use public money to buy politicians who make laws to discourage any pathway except the traditional 4 yr degree.-
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/15/laser_intended_to_be_used_on_mars_can_spot_adulterated_honey.html]http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/15/laser_intended_to_be_used_on_mars_can_spot_adulterated_honey.html[/link]
OK so its European govt/space program and I am sure Billain will tell us that the private honey industry was on the cusp of developing a Mars capable laser-
I do agree with you on vocational training although this makes me chuckle:
“America’s future depends on how we educated the gifted”
Guess your grammar puts you in the bottom half 😉-
As Dubya once said, [i]”Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”[/i]
We probably should get back to the OP here, and bring the “education” discussion over to Bill’s other rant:
[link]http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=374448[/link]
-
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Let’s wake up and realize not every student is cut out for HS algebra-trig-calc and four years of college. We need better vocational and on-the-job training programs and what we ESPECIALLY need is for self-righteous ivory tower liberals to stop over-promoting the four year degree and thereby disparaging vocational education. We have roughly doubled the total numbers of BAs/ BSs since the 80s—but the number of science grads remains unchanged!!!!
Anthropology/english/sociology majors are graduating with a worthless piece of paper and morgatage (loan debt) but no house!!
This is all a symptom of TOO MUCH public money in education—colleges use public money to buy politicians who make laws to discourage any pathway except the traditional 4 yr degree.
I’m not aware of liberals [i]”over-promoting the four year degree and thereby disparaging vocational education”, [/i]at least not any more than conservatives.[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i] -
Quote from billainsworth
I like Murray’s simple truths about education:
1. Ability varies
2. Half of children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America’s future depends on how we educated the gifted.Let’s wake up and realize not every student is cut out for HS algebra-trig-calc and four years of college. We need better vocational and on-the-job training programs and what we ESPECIALLY need is for self-righteous ivory tower liberals to stop over-promoting the four year degree and thereby disparaging vocational education. We have roughly doubled the total numbers of BAs/ BSs since the 80s—but the number of science grads remains unchanged!!!!
Anthropology/english/sociology majors are graduating with a worthless piece of paper and morgatage (loan debt) but no house!!
This is all a symptom of TOO MUCH public money in education—colleges use public money to buy politicians who make laws to discourage any pathway except the traditional 4 yr degree.
This is the key realistic message that must get spoken power. There are students of differing abilities and therefore there should be no egalitarian assumptions that each student is the same. The smarter kids interested in science in any district should be given more funds at every rung of education. Instead, the system makes sure it babysits every below average kid so the administrators can collect bulky municipal union checks. The plain truth that libs cant accept: the education of an individual start/finishes at home. Liberals and most democrats are deniers the bad socialization from student parent’s and family’s bad life choices far more influences an individuals academic success than the 1/2 billion+ dollar schools built in the inner city. It’s frankly a waste of money. If you come from a one parent household, and from parents who are not vigilant about their child’s upbringing, that matters more than the 5 to 1 per pupil disproportionate funding that already goes into inner city education.
Also for the solvency of federal loan promises and practicality of post-secondary education, all state issued engineering science degrees should be 1/3 rd the total price (if not free) of a bulls*it and worthless liberal arts degree in musicology or anthropology. They should not be treated equal because of the importance one has over the other. Thankfully some governors get it like in Texas, and soon Florida. I dont need to be saddled with some unemployed anthropology’s major’s debt who thinks it is underneath him to make up a hotel bed or mopping a floor for money in a bad economy. Degree of marginal work utility should be made a lot more expensive, while engineering schools tuition/board should be virtually free.-
Quote from RVU
Also for the solvency of federal loan promises and practicality of post-secondary education, all state issued engineering science degrees should be 1/3 rd the total price (if not free) of a bulls*it and worthless liberal arts degree in musicology or anthropology.
I don’t agree with that. I don’t want politicians deciding which degrees to subsidize. If we end the public-money-fueled education inflation, tuition will drop dramatically. Back in the 40s, students could work part time and be able to afford tuition.
-
-
-
-
Nice work, RVU, government investment did NOT help the development of GPS because after ti was developed it sat on a shelf. It did? Well, it was used only by government! But after it was released to the public and private sector for commercial development it developed commercially. Ergo, the government did not development GPS. Further, as the RAND study says, eventually GPS would have been developed by the private sector, it’s just that government investment accelerated the successful development.
And? This proves government has no benefit and that government investment had no involvement in it’s development? Because eventually it would have been developed by the private sector anyway?
It’s hard not to be persuaded by these arguments. Unless you don’t drink the Kool-aid.
All this “picking winners and losers” is just anti-government lies and propaganda. The position by the RVU and billainsworth types is first, government is bad! All things must be filtered through this world view and anything that does not fit must be either ignored, explained away or just throw up a wall of gobbleygook to throw off any semblance of rational thought.
Nono other than Alexander Hamilton thought that government should be in the business of picking winners and losers, something we have always done in this country.
[link=http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/alexander-hamiltons-manufacturing-message/]http://globalpublicsquare…manufacturing-message/[/link]Two hundred and twenty years ago today, Alexander Hamilton presented his[link=http://books.google.com/books?id=gCk5AAAAMAAJ&dq=report%20on%20manufactures&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false]Report on Manufactures[/link] to the U.S. House of Representatives. This report, commissioned by Congress almost two years earlier, urged legislators to regard manufacturing as an integral component of the emerging American economy.
Arguing against those who insisted that the government should leave industry to itself, he insisted that deliberate government encouragement was needed to ensure that American manufacturers continued to thrive.
Hamilton also highlighted what he saw as a more serious impediment to American manufacturing strength: The apprehension of failing in new attempts. In his view, excessive fear of failure undermined entrepreneurialism, which seriously hampered the nations ability to lead in emergent branches of industry.
Hamilton maintained that such a degree of countenance and support from government, as may be capable of overcoming the obstacles insuperable from first experiments would lower the barrier to entry for entrepreneurial manufacturers and thereby allow the nation to benefit fully from the creativity and inventiveness of its citizenry.
As Hamilton well understood, the work of innovation involves far more than just the development of new ideas; maintaining a healthy innovation ecosystem also requires a strong manufacturing sector.-
Far be it for me to say that GPS would be non-existent if the USA hadn’t developed space technology in the first place. Where do you think those satellites came from?
The notion that the government somehow does not contribute to the leading edge of technology develpment (let alone HINDER it) is simply ludicrous. There are volumes of data that show the government spurs on private sector commercialization of government-funded technology in virtually every field known to man.
-
Quote from frumious
The position by the RVU and billainsworth types is first, government is bad! All things must be filtered through this world view and anything that does not fit must be either ignored, explained away or just throw up a wall of gobbleygook to throw off any semblance of rational thought.
Govt is BAD!!! It is. Govt is completely incompetent. I could examples for days. Haven’t you ever worked or clerked in a VA? Look at the current economic crisis—a product of the quasi-govt Federal reserves 1% interest rates and HUDs insistence people that are not credit worthy get loans.
Whenever the govt touches anything, price goes up and quality goes down. Healthcare and education are two great examples. In DC per pupil public school costs are over $25,000!!! And the outcomes are near the bottom.
Look–there is a role for govt—-someone cited GPS. But when you are listing all these amazing govt successes—you are making a mistake to assume: 1. The private sector could never had developed this product 2. No small innovative companies were hurt by the govt subsiding their rivals. 3. Govt successes are de rigueur.
-
-
Funny you should list Toyota, since the Japanese government was a very large investor in the early R&D on modern batteries.
Those Toyota patents on the Prius were in large part to close collaboration with the government in research programs.
A large number of patents came out of the AIST, Kyoto University, the Tokyo Institute of Technology. These places all get large amounts of support from the the Japanese government.
The Japanese government spends significantly more on a %age of GDP basis on R&D than does the US.
