Global warming?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That is some really colorful beltway bullshit, a great way to sound like you know what you're talking about without really saying much.

You only need look at the economic history of the US. Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D as well as govt support for transfering the techonology to the market and it has always driven the economy.

As I said, the option is a service based (low wage) econony or an export economy based on producing and supplying last year's products.

[Undertoad]

Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D

Wow. This is so obviously false that I hardly have to post to refute it.

Why bullshit so hard, man? Why is that your first instinct? I'm here calling you on bullshit and you defend your bullshit with more bullshit.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Wow. This is so obviously false that I hardly have to post to refute it.

Why bullshit so hard, man? Why is that your first instinct? I'm here calling you on bullshit and you defend your bullshit with more bullshit.

Please refute it.

Start with Thomas Jefferson and govt support for agricultural technology of the time.

Then the govt role in the trans-continental railroads, followed by investments in automation and other early 20th century technologies.

Continuing with the de facto govt subsidy of IBM for years to get the compuer industry off the ground.

And the hugh govt investment in creating and funding the Internet infrastructure.

But please refute it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why bullshit so hard, man?

An honest response says why innovation does not drive the economic engine. Obviously innovation is the only thing that creates new jobs, new industries, wealth, increased life expectancy, undermines poverty, and advances mankind. Instead of saying he is wrong like our wacko extremists do, post facts and numbers that prove innovation does not do that.

Yes, many of the most ignorant people - ie Carly Fiorina - use innovation as a magic word because she never understood it. Meanwhile she routinely stifled innovation. Her actions were the bullshit. Innovation was not the bullshit. A person who subverted innovation due to business school indoctrination was the bullshit.

None of that soundbyte spin contradicts what he has posted.

The question is whether the technology is fundamentally possible. The same soundbyte was used to promote a technology that science so obviously said could not work - hydrogen powered cars. Only those who have the longest history of stifling innovation (George Jr, Rick Wagoner) promoted that nonsense.

It does not say innovation is bad. It only says a scientifically illiterate liar who promotes innovation is an enemy of mankind. Innovation is the only solution to our economic problems. Innovation drives economic success. Your question should be which technologies do or do not make sense. That means challenging him at the science level - details and numbers. Not at the soundbyte or cheapshot accusation level.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Wow. This is so obviously false that I hardly have to post to refute it.

Why bullshit so hard, man? Why is that your first instinct? I'm here calling you on bullshit and you defend your bullshit with more bullshit.

I left off the direct positive economic impacts of the environmental programs of the 1970s (not to mention the indirect positive health impacts which also contribute to greater productivity).

Much the same argument was made about the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulatory programs of the 1970s – it will be too burdensome on businesses; it will cost too much and jobs will be lost and the economy will be crippled.

And that was the bullshit, much like you are spreading now.

What we learned from the environmental regulatory programs of the 1970 was that they helped grow the economy in a forward thinking manner, spurring investments in design, manufacturing, installation and operation of new pollution-reducing technologies.

And those technologies, developed in the US with support from govt R&D and govt subsidies made the US the world leader in anti-pollution technologies and generated a $multi- billion export economy for US companies that still plays a significant role in the US trade balance.

If we dont act soon and more decisively , we will effectively give the clean energy technologies future, from battery technology to nanotechnology applications for renewables to China, the EU, Israel, India and it will be companies in those countries that will replace the 1970s US companies as environmental technology leaders.

OR we can just "Drill Baby, Drill"

[Fair&Balanced]

Thank you, US Government's NCSA. for investing in the creation of the first web browser:



But its bullshit that government investment in innovation pays off in hugh private sector dividends.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Thank you, US Government's NCSA. for investing in the creation of the first web browser:

Al Gore Did Invent the Internet! I knew it! Here is proof!

[SamIam]

Nah, the Internet was invented by UT while he was messing around in someone's basement.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Al Gore Did Invent the Internet! I knew it! Here is proof!

And anyway, is That a Fucking Book Title, or What?

[Undertoad]

It's easy to refute; see that word "Every" at the front of the sentence? All I need to do is point to one counter-example invention that didn't include Govt R&D. I'll pick radio. Q.E. Fuckin' D.

But if we treat the statement as a generalization, and not a supposition, I'll refute it with other generalizations.

The biggest one is that government, as an entity, had no involvement in R&D until the last few decades.

Really? Yeah. Government was positively tiny during the industrial revolution. In today's world it is hard to imagine *anything* happening without government involvement. But that was not always the case! Let's go to the chart:



This chart presents government spending as a percentage of GDP. This explains why Edison didn't get any government grants. Alexander Graham Bell, no fed funding. Henry Ford? You know the answer.

Even by the 50s, government involvement in R&D was so unlikely that the March of Dimes was actually founded by FDR, but remained 100% privately funded as it solved the problem of Polio. Not one of those dimes came from government. They came from people giving dimes. That's just how it was.

"B-b-but the Internet!" ...which sat around not doing much for decades, until it opened to private interests, at which time it blossomed with the light of a thousand suns. Google get government funding? They did not, and the privately-educated Montessori kids who invented it are in the process of fighting government involvement tooth and nail.

Can the government innovate? In the late 70s and 80s it founded the Department of Energy, and was suddenly spending big bucks funding alternative fuels, in the search to replace gasoline. How'd that go? Well two generations later, we've replaced 10% of gas with a more expensive alternative in order to get political support from the farmers. Good goin'!

I do love how two of your examples are providing a competitive advantage/monopoly to certain private companies. Way to go government! Oh sure, the computer industry would have been a flop without these "de facto subsidies" to IBM!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This chart presents government spending as a percentage of GDP. This explains why Edison didn't get any government grants. Alexander Graham Bell, no fed funding. Henry Ford? You know the answer.

That chart does not definitively show that no money went to fund R&D.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can the government innovate? In the late 70s and 80s it founded the Department of Energy, and was suddenly spending big bucks funding alternative fuels, in the search to replace gasoline. How'd that go? Well two generations later, we've replaced 10% of gas with a more expensive alternative in order to get political support from the farmers. Good goin'!

It also about investing in new battery technology like the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans have done, with government support, in lithium-ion battery cells. US companies produce a miniscule share of this market.

I do love how two of your examples are providing a competitive advantage/monopoly to certain private companies. Way to go government! Oh sure, the computer industry would have been a flop without these "de facto subsidies" to IBM!

It is about public/private initiatives like SEMATECH which provides government support along with private investment so the US doesnt lose the semi-conductor market and can compete with heavily subsidized foreign companies.

It is about the NCSA super computer, the largest in the world, from which the private sector can research new technological applications.

I could go on if you like.

[Fair&Balanced]

WTF?

All I see is bullshit coming right back at me.

What a surprise.

Global warming is a myth and governments dont stimulate innovation.

Drill Baby Drill!!!!

[Undertoad]

WOW, great reply! Didn't expect that! You really got me there! Fuck, I'm out of the thread while I figure out where I went wrong!




BTW, in this discussion, I'm the one who has actually worked in R&D.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

WOW, great reply! Didn't expect that! You really got me there! Fuck, I'm out of the thread while I figure out where I went wrong!

You mean like this and this.

And posting a meaningless chart while ignoring the fact that I specifically said that it was not just R&D but government support (subsidies, tax benefits, etc.)as well.

But in fact, government R&D really started and grew with the establishment of land grant colleges in the 1860s for the purpose of promoting and supporting industrialization. Govt. grants kept many of those colleges in every state afloat for years.

BTW, you also ignored this in response to the same bullshit - economic doomsday if we regulate dirty air emissions - we are hearing today about regulating emissions.