Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank said that in a global race for green technology, the United States “can’t afford” not to spend taxpayer money on such projects,...
Some people never escape junior high, do they?
Remember the massive Gummint investment in A. Bell's technology? How about the massive Gummint investment in H Ford's? OK, then, Edison's?
Yah. I don't remember it, either.
7 comments:
Your "understanding" of history never ceases to amaze me.
The United States led the world in industrial technology because of a partnership with business, which included tax breaks, subsidies, easing of regulations, protective tariffs...AND DIRECT INVESTMENT! The military-industrial complex in particular benefitted from this formula post World War II, with government helping to pave the way for innovation.
Now, if you want to at the past in what accelerated the United States to become an industrial juggernaut by the late 1800's, three major pieces of legislation come to mind--Pacific Railroad Act, the Morril Land-Grant Act, Hatch Act. All played enormous roles in helping to stimulate business and technological growth.
Furthermore, "Funding A Revolution: Government Support For Computing Research" (1999) examines how federal support AND funding played a critical pat in launching and sustaining the computer revolution in the 1960's and 1970's.
And, looky here, I wonder what top American business leaders are saying about government investment in new energy technologies.
www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2011/09/top-business-leaders-issue-new-report-critical-role-government-investmen
Money Quote--“Neither the private sector nor the government are making investments in research even remotely commensurate to the vast opportunities in the $5 trillion global energy market,” said Norm Augustine, who is also a former Undersecretary of the Army. “Energy innovation is a matter of national and economic security given oil reliance, nuclear power, climate change and related issues, and must be treated that way by Congress and the Administration in terms of investment priorities.”
Note that the Bipartisan Policy Center is a think tank founded by Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell.
Yep, the "cool kids" rule! They are the adults moving forward in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.
My, you are smart!
Especially when you change the subject.....
I don't argue that the "intercontinental" RR--Obozo's name--was not a good investment, nor that the I-highways were not.
And I fail to see how land-grants aided Edison, Ford, or Bell. But then, you're the expert, right?
AND.....I have advocated that the Gummint should be funding basic research: math, physics, some bio-chem.
As to the 'luminaries' you cite in the 2-last graf: notice that none of them remain in office? There's a reason for that.
As to 'energy investments': Obozo and Interior should just get the hell outta the way in the Gulf, the West, and offshore.
Finally: the "cool kids" don't have the votes anymore--nor the armaments (if necessary) to stop the return of reason and moderation.
Solyndra and the other Obozo graftees are, perhaps, the last of their kind.
Buh-bye!!
"Especially when you change the subject."
The subject was "massive gummint investment" in technology, in this case green projects.
YOU attempted to make the point that the gummint didn't invest in Bell or Ford and things turned out fine.
HOWEVER, I provided specific examples that it was wise policy for the United States to become financially involved in certain endeavors, which at the time were also heavily scrutinized because in part this involvement broke away from laissez-faire policies.
Does green technology have its flaws? Absolutely. But Edison, Bell, or Ford weren't prevented when they had bumps in the road!
"And I fail to see how land-grants aided Edison, Ford, or Bell."
I'm not surprised. The RR land grants provided the impetus for railroads to hire workers, who were paid wages, who then settled in towns, which then needed services, which led the inventions of Edison, Ford, and Bell to become profitable because of growing demand and available markets. Results take time, and the payoff was enormous.
"...notice that none of them remain in office? There's a reason for that."
Who cares if they are not in office anymore! They are using their clout and influence to tap into a $5 trillion market that is our future. And having a hissy fit won't change that fact. The job creators--VISIONARIES--cited in the report agree that more gummint is best in this particular situation. And they have the evidence to back up their position.
It's high time we get the hell off of our fixation with petroleum.
"Finally: the "cool kids" don't have the votes anymore--nor the armaments (if necessary) to stop the return of reason and moderation."
Read the report again. The "cool kids" are driving the discussion in a reasonable and moderate fashion. The future is in that technology. The same arguments were made by those who doubted the viability and profitability of railroads and automobiles that, combined with government financial help in those industries, would forever change the landscape of America.
They were fools.
Edison, Bell, or Ford weren't prevented when they had bumps in the road!
Nor did they take the taxpayers for umpty-billions in losses.
The RR land grants provided the impetus for railroads to hire workers, who were paid wages, who then settled in towns, which then needed services, which led the inventions of Edison, Ford, and Bell to become profitable because of growing demand and available markets.
So it was really the Pilgrims and Spaniards who made Edison, Ford, and Bell wealthy--not the Gummint.
Keep up the logic, and you'll work back to thanking God for creation.
Fool.
"Edison, Bell, or Ford weren't prevented when they had bumps in the road!
Nor did they take the taxpayers for umpty-billions in losses."
Because the government policies of the late 1800's and today regarding technology are two ENTIRELY different mind sets. Get with the program!
"The RR land grants provided the impetus..."
And how this statement is illogical or untrue? Try to refute it with reason and evidence, rather than some nonsensical statement next time. I know you can do it, just try harder!
Fortunately, the Cool Kids will find another Shiny Object soon for you to chase around.
Even MORE fortunate, the USGummint will be run by actual adults, not self-obsessed windmill-tilters.
Meantime, there's a squirrel in your yard.
Alinsky Tactic #2202--"When unable to refute someone else's points, strike back by pointing out to the anticipated results in the next election cycle".
"Shiny object's", "windmill-tilters", and "squirrels"...yep, sound evidence. You win :)
Post a Comment