A Free Market Dilemma...

[amicus]

I am watching an ongoing series on Discovery Channel, "Powering the Future" a wide spectrum look at all possible energy sources presented in a mostly rational manner.

There is a bit about China made Batteries for Electric Cars and Hybrids and the statement, "They gave us a 500,000 square foot building and state of the art technology..."

To digress: just recently I watched a news byte about the Obama Simulus Plan that funded an Electric Battery company in the Midwest.

The Chinese plant is, of course, government owned and managed.

My dilemma is a question as to how private enterprise can openly compete with a Communist nation?

To my understanding there was not a single penny of taxpayer, government money, invested in Henry Ford's first factory, it was all private and market investors.

I can understand offshoots of military and space, government run industries, being utilized and expanded in the private market, but other than that, the commodities market, how can private interests compete with entire governments?

It also seems that most of the huge wind generating blades and generators are imported from European sources that are also government funded, and that solar panels in volume are Asian made by government run companies.

I know the answers, of course, but what does it portend for the future?

Amicus

 

[Carnevil9]

Calm yourself, Amicus. Government can never compete with private enterprise. Government cannot create anything at all. It can provide money (which it took at gunpoint from private enterprises), but can it provide motivation? Can it provide inspiration? Can it even provide competence? NO!

There is no power in the universe (except maybe love ) that is stronger than the motive for profit and personal success. As such, a privately-owned and operated organization will always run rings around any government-backed operation. History shows us this time and time again. Think of all the great inventors throughout history: Edison, Ford, Whitney, Westinghouse, Jobs, Gates, Google, etc. No government lackeys on that list. None........Carney

 

[amicus]

Yeah, Carnevil, I know all that and agree with you...however...The Chicom's are building 900 pound batteries for electric cars that no private entrepreneur can compete with. Chinese labor is cheap, the government provides all the resources and raw materials and can ship the product half way around the world and still beat the best competitive prices on the free market.

I was about to type that the Lithium battery technology was probably stolen by the Chinese, but I can't back that up at this point and will need to do a search.

The German's didn't get past Heavy Water under Hitler and if not for the Atomic Spies, the Russians would still be rubbing sticks together; so I grok your insistence that innovation is a result of free minds, but still, once the technology has been standardized, any doofus country can duplicate it. Venezuela is supplying Iran with Uranium in exchange for what?

As I said...dilemma...multiple dilemma's...such a deal!

ami....and thanks...

edited to add: from a wikipedia entry

In 1989, Goodenough and Arumugam Manthiram of the University of Texas at Austin showed that cathodes containing polyanions, e.g. sulfates, produce higher voltages than oxides due to the inductive effect of the polyanion.[19]

In 1996, Goodenough, Akshaya Padhi and coworkers identified lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) and other phospho-olivines (lithium metal phosphates with olivine structure) as cathode materials.[20]

In 2002, Yet-Ming Chiang and his group at MIT showed a substantial improvement in the performance of lithium batteries by boosting the material's conductivity by doping it with aluminum, niobium and zirconium. The exact mechanism causing the increase became the subject of a heated debate.[21]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Government isnt free to innovate, improve, or change; so whatever government does is static, and management is by committee and static policies. Sooner or later government industries cease being state of the art and lose market share. India is the best example of this.

Back in the 50s India created a government car company. The car never improved or evolved beyond 1953 or so. Government management forced the price of the car to rise above the prices for foreign competitors. The car couldnt compete in the market and no one wanted to buy one at home.

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry, folks, but governments can and do support innovation by providing money and resources for projects that have no immediate commercial future.

Marconi's experiments with radio transmission were sponsored by the British Post Office - then a Civil Service Department.

Most of the world's flagged airlines are government supported and their purchases support research and development by Boeing, Airbus and engine manufacturers.

Governments supported research and development in wartime - Radar, Sonar, rockets and jet engines are just a few examples. NASA couldn't have survived without massive government funding.

The research is probably better when there is a real working link between government and industry, but that doesn't mean that either working alone can't generate innovation.

Og

PS. The British Airship industry is an example that proves my contention that government and industry working together are better. The government-built R101 was a disaster before it crashed. The government-funded but commercially built (at a loss) R100 was a success but was cancelled because of the deaths on R101.

 

[nerk]

In 1942 a group of investors founded a privately funded think tank, named after an obscure island off New York's coast. In less than three years, they had created an atomic bomb.

In 1962 CEO John Kennedy promised to put a man on the moon.
In 1969 the NASA corporation put a man on the moon.

Government innovation cannot hold a candle to the free market.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Uh, the Manhattan Engineering District was never created or operated by private investors. The US ARMY ran the show.

 

[oggbashan]

In 1942 a group of investors founded a privately funded think tank, named after an obscure island off New York's coast. In less than three years, they had created an atomic bomb.

In 1962 CEO John Kennedy promised to put a man on the moon.
In 1969 the NASA corporation put a man on the moon.

Government innovation cannot hold a candle to the free market.

Who paid NASA?

The US Government.

Og

 

[nerk]

In 1942 a group of investors founded a privately funded think tank, named after an obscure island off New York's coast. In less than three years, they had created an atomic bomb.

In 1962 CEO John Kennedy promised to put a man on the moon.
In 1969 the NASA corporation put a man on the moon.

Government innovation cannot hold a candle to the free market.

You MORON!
Kennedy wasn't CEO of anything in 1962!
He was POTUS!
and NASA isn't a corporation!

Were you being sarcastic or something?????

 

[Huckleman2000]

This is only a "dilemma" insofar as your faith in the free market is dogmatic. You're trying to reconcile facts with your religious beliefs.

For the non-believers, the situation is serious, and clearly government intervention is necessary. The US needs to re-develop and sustain its manufacturing capabilities as a matter of national security. An economy where innovation is the only product cannot sustain itself in a world where intellectual property rights aren't respected or enforced and manufacturing is outsourced to lowest-cost factories in areas where workers and resources are exploited mercilessly.

There are legitimate questions and policy differences that should be debated by our representatives, and corporate interests should be respected, but not be considered sacrosanct. The so-called "free market" is a man-made construct, not some immutable law of physics that mankind cannot alter.

 

[nerk]

Seriously confused:
if we believe that the free market is inherently superior to a state run economy, how are we threatened by the Chinese state run economy, which is inherently inferior?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Government has a long and successful record of funding research that private industry won't touch, and then making the technology available to the private sector. And why not? The information gained from government-funded research belongs to all of us, since we paid for it.

The Salk vaccine, nuclear power, genetic engineering, the internet, communication satellite technology, all were originally funded with government money. I forget now how much university-level research is funded by government grants, but it's probably something like 75-85%. I do know that, overall, about 3% of the GDP is dedicated to funding research, which is about the norm for first-world countries.

Without government funding, we'd know nothing about astronomy and astrophysics (not much money to be made there), geology (aside from what you need to know to explore for oil), oceanography, meteorology, ecology, epidemiology, paleontology, anthropology, and a whole raft of other subjects. And what we did know would not be made public, because it would belong to the private sources who funded it. Science as we know it would grind to a halt.

I think it's fair to say that the explosion in science and technology we've experienced over the last 60-70 years is almost entirely due to government-funded research. (The transistor comes to mind as one exception. It was invented and developed by Bell Labs.) If fusion ever becomes a viable power source, it will be due entirely to public funding. There are no private companies involved in nuclear fusion research.

Why anyone would disapprove of government-funded research is beyond me. We all know how science has improved our lives. To scrap all that just for the sake of ideological free-market purity is just ridiculous.

 

[amicus]

Why anyone would disapprove of government-funded research is beyond me. We all know how science has improved our lives. To scrap all that just for the sake of ideological free-market purity is just ridiculous.

~~~

http://www.google.com/search?source...1T4SUNA_enUS270US276&q=dr+mengele+experiments

The National Socialist Government of Germany funded research is beyond Mab's ability to recognize the connection between individual human freedom being expressed in a free exchange of goods and services. Beyond Physics, Metaphysical, beyond the conceptual ability of the Left in general as all their knowledge is empirical, ahm, the touchy feely kind.

Follow the link provided above to witness the results of government funded research.

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/radium/RaDisc.html

Read the above to get an idea about how true science, free from government direction and funding works. What did government do with the initial scientific studies of the peaceful use of atomic energy?

They turned it into a bomb.

Politicians...define them as you will; most in both State and Federal Legislatures are...lawyers...those best suited to labor through the mountainous rules, regulations and laws of local, State and Federal governments.

Government employees...define them as you will, are hired to follow the laws made by the Legislature.

Let us not be influenced by Mab's science fictional discription of his fantasy government; note also the absolute lack of documentation for a single claim made.

Marxists always believe and strain the credulity of any foolish enough to listen, as they promise to deliver peace and prosperity to all, if you just turn over everything to them.

The government of the United States is not a fictional creation, it is a Constitutional Republic that gave itself the right to Tax the people for certain enumerated tasks that government is best suited to manage. The Military, the Courts and the Police; all intended to protect and preserve the rights, liberties and properties of the Individual.

Mab would just love to be a Dictator in America. To join with those already in small dictatorial positions in the government to decide your future.

Take for example the fabricated energy crisis along with the fake global warming hysteria.

Environmental activist lobbies, elected and influenced politicians to halt the expansion of Nuclear Power Plants, to hinder and delay, or outright ban exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and even coal (in Montana), and have indeed produced a future energy shortage.

Now, government funded committees, with hand picked 'scientists', are spending public money to decide between alternative methods of producing energy for the future. If corn ethanol is an example, be prepared to pay more for everything when government finally decides which energy source to fund.

Obama already said that the cost of electricity will 'skyrocket', if his grand energy plan is passed into law.

For those of you who were impressed by Mab's rant, do a little research, begin with Astronomy, which doesn't pay much, according to dr. menegele; discover the history of astronomy, the first telescope, the 'private' astronomical societies that promoted research.

Go through each of Mab's claims about science and discover where the patents lie...in private hands from private research, in private laboratories.

One cannot refute the claims of Mabeuse that the German government was successful in funding torture methods by paying another willing Doctor and his cohorts. One cannot refute the Manhattan Project that created the first atomic bomb, yep, government paid scientists and workers and funded, in secret, the entire plan.

This is a perpetual conflict of ideas and ideals between those who want their mommy to run their lives and those who desire freedom and liberty and the right to decide their own future.

Mab wants his mommy.

I want my freedom.

You choose.

Amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

In 1942 a group of investors founded a privately funded think tank, named after an obscure island off New York's coast. In less than three years, they had created an atomic bomb.

The research had been going on for a good number of years, certainly after 1939, and it wasn't private. It was pure research at University level (science was more open in them days).
See Richard Rhodes' excellent book "The making of the Atom Bomb".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Seriously confused:
if we believe that the free market is inherently superior to a state run economy, how are we threatened by the Chinese state run economy, which is inherently inferior?

All of our jobs and industries are moving to China, and our political system is slowly evolving into an oligarchy with political elites and moguls at the top, protected by bureaucrats, soldiers, and courtiers. The average American will soon sell his soul to be a court spear carrier.

 

[Huckleman2000]

All of our jobs and industries are moving to China, and our political system is slowly evolving into an oligarchy with political elites and moguls at the top, protected by bureaucrats, soldiers, and courtiers. The average American will soon sell his soul to be a court spear carrier.

Fair enough; however, some of us think this is a bad thing.

 

[amicus]

This is only a "dilemma" insofar as your faith in the free market is dogmatic. You're trying to reconcile facts with your religious beliefs.

For the non-believers, the situation is serious, and clearly government intervention is necessary. The US needs to re-develop and sustain its manufacturing capabilities as a matter of national security. An economy where innovation is the only product cannot sustain itself in a world where intellectual property rights aren't respected or enforced and manufacturing is outsourced to lowest-cost factories in areas where workers and resources are exploited mercilessly.

There are legitimate questions and policy differences that should be debated by our representatives, and corporate interests should be respected, but not be considered sacrosanct. The so-called "free market" is a man-made construct, not some immutable law of physics that mankind cannot alter.

~~~

If memory serves...and it usually does, may I recommend Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of a theory or explanation of societal transitions from hunter/gatherer to Agrarian to Mercantile to Industrial and to Post Industrial.

There is no going back to a manufacturing age and no need to. Just tonight I watched a re-run of a John Deere factory in the US that ships equipment to 35 Nations around the world. Most of the manufacturing work was done by computer programmers and robots on the assembly line.

Manufacturing is still alive and well to the extent it need be, Huckleberry, it is just not your Father's factory lunchbox and grimy soot filled airspace.

Usually it is the Liberal accusing the Conservative of wanting to return to the good old days; why and how have you switched horses in the middle of the stream?

Read the Tofflers, three books, I think...not as an answer to all questions and problems of post industrial America, but a series of possibilities as times change.

Amicus...always glad to be helpful....

 

[colddiesel]

~~~

If memory serves...and it usually does, may I recommend Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of a theory or explanation of societal transitions from hunter/gatherer to Agrarian to Mercantile to Industrial and to Post Industrial.

)

Refreshing to see you recommending this left wing, trade Unionist, academic to support your contentions Amicus.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fair enough; however, some of us think this is a bad thing.

It is bad! And ultimately its bad for the elites & moguls cuz the jobless peasants will revolt and hang them all. We've just about painted ourselves into a corner. On the other hand people are docile and dum; they eat bugs and sleep beneath trees all over the planet, why not here! Its the negrofication of America.