The U.S. has already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937 with "the mistake of 2010," Paul...


The U.S. has already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937 with "the mistake of 2010," Paul Krugman writes: "withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment." Spending cuts and rate hikes would be even bigger mistakes, he says. "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are."

Comments (344)
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    This first "stimulus" which was just govt pay-outs to the politically favored has proven to be a waste of $800 BILLION taxpayer dollars as it tried to perpetuate unsustainable govt spending. QE has only lead to inflation, and thus, another failure.

     

    Every Krugman article is just more proof that he's a complete, moronic, govt shill.
    3 Jun 2011, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    The world is far different than it was in 1937, Krugman. We don't have fixed exchange rates or capital controls and labor is very mobile. All of the stimulus spending bleeds out into the rest of the world. And I don't even think the stimulus worked in the 30s either.
    3 Jun 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    It has has been said that generals always fight the last war (and it was true at one time), but in this case I would say that it is economists like Krugman that are fighting the last recession, not this one.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Bouchart –

     

    I follow and generally agree with what you say until your last sentence in your comment. It seems to me that the retrenchment of the Hoover Administration during the 1929-32 period contrasts poorly to the 2007-11 periods of the Bush and Obama Administrations during which fiscal stimulus and monetary easing prevented a deflationary collapse which would, both in the US and globally, have far exceeded the chaos and misery of the Great Depression. We all are too inclined to focus on the cost, great though it be, and the fact that the recovery has been slow and weak, which is true, and therefore to dismiss the positive impact of these recent stimulative and expansionary policies. The better view, I suggest, is that they should be judged primarily on the basis of the calamity they avoided.

     

    You are correct that national economies today are much more integrated into the global economy than was the case in the 1930s and that this disburses across the world the isolated effect of fiscal stimulus and monetary easing in one country, even of a economic powerhouse such as the US. It follows, however, in my view, that for the US now to compound the mistakes being adopted in the EU countries that are prematurely adopting fiscal austerity (I speak generally but also recognize that Greece, Ireland and some other peripheral EU member States do need to reign in public expenditures) at a time when China, Brazil and India also need to curtail monetary and fiscal policies to prevent domestic inflation is an unfortunate formula for global slowdown or return to recession globally. North America and the core economies of Europe should continue expansionary policies (and seriously address the need to reform their banking systems) to keep the recovery on track.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    We have similair debt problems to other struggling countries and a committed transfer payment obligation load that is already too large for our economy to handle. Especially on its current trajectory. Right now we borrow $.42 for every dollar spent.

     

    Beyond these problems the most disturbing aspect of our current state is that we don't know how to diagnose the problem before we start applying remedies. At the same time politicians bad mouth business and talk about more taxes which lowers the return on capital. In summary our discourse is disjointed, not in harmony with end goals and it is too high level. Nobody knows what jobs could/would/should be created.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    TomasViewPoint –

     

    I’ll grant you this: Proceeding with various ad hoc mixes of fiscal stimulus and monetary easing for a protracted period without a clear plan of what is to be achieved (especially if the amounts of stimulus and easing are not calibrated to address appropriately the needs from time to time to stabilize and promote recovery) creates a very real possibility that over time an unmanageable public debt will accumulate, the money supply will have expanded unduly but real recovery will not have been achieved. Analogous criticisms can be made of mindless austerity or tax reductions. In short, the public policy requirements applicable to both national governments and central banks vary at different phases of the business cycle, especially at times like the present of deep economic, social, financial and fiscal challenges.

     

    It is dispiriting to see governments in North America and Europe shifting back and forth from monetary and fiscal expansion to fiscal austerity and monetary tightening (or amongst various mixes of these four approaches) over the past 30 years guided primarily by apparent short term fads and expedients and without due regard to the longer term implications of these gyrations.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Excellent comment.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    I think the reason they are shifting back and forth is that they really did not have a clear idea in the first place or a focus on what the results would be. Nor the expertise or prepared plans to deal with the crisis. This is especially true on the fiscal side. The monetary side knew what they needed to do to avoid serious problems and the fiscal side took a page out of Keynsian economics because it freed them up to spend money on pet projects and pay back supporters. Never mind if it did not really drive employment to a material extent. They really hoped that brute force effort would move things in the right direction.

     

    The problem with misdirected fiscal policy is that a country cannot afford to have unlimited tries to get it right because the debt keeps mounting. So then policy lurches the other direction.

     

    My view is that the fiscal side should have been aiming directly at industries that hire a lot of employees since they are 2/3rds of GDP. The best method may have been tax policy or just send out stimulus checks.

     

    Ironically financial services is a big employer that employs a ton of tellers and operational personnel but everyone was bashing FS so they pulled back. Retail hires a lot of people but government was getting religion on saving, spending less and more taxes. These are great ways to discourage hiring which in turn presses down on the economy. Putting money into more roads which is a heavy capital equipment low employment industry has not really moved the numbers.

     

    Our government has done a good job of driving unemployment although they are too dumb to understand that is what they are doing so what is the point of spending more? We have a horse doctor trying to do heart surgery.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Tomas –

     

    There are much strength to the US congressional system but, at least in the opinion of this Canadian observer, it has significant difficulties establishing and carrying through with a complex fiscal policy in a time of extended crisis like the present. The concept of ‘checks and balances’ has its merits but it defuses responsibility of leadership across many quasi-autonomist individual Members of Congress and Senators and, while the President has much symbolic power (and carries the can for the state of the nation), that office entails little sustained capacity to maintain control of the legislative agenda or public policy generally.

     

    By contrast, under the parliamentary system of government the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet colleagues are formally responsible to the House of Commons and politically accountable to the general electorate for maintaining a coherent and successful public policy. Further and importantly, the PM and Cabinet only have attained office because they have the support of the party or parties commanding a majority in the House of Commons. It follows that that party or those parties and the PM and Cabinet need to work closely together because their collective electoral fate in the next election depends on their having maintained a coherent unity of purpose and having been successful in legislative and executive terms in addressing the needs of the country. In other words, they are responsible and have the capacity to discharge that responsibility

     

    In short, the parliamentary system appears often to be better geared to provide effective legislative and legislative leadership in times of economic and fiscal challenge like the present. (By contrast, the parliamentary system gives little scope for the maverick or independent individual and, arguably, the individual MP is constrained by party loyalty in ways that restrict his or her capacity to speak up for the unique interests of their constituents)

     

    I went on at some length as I have above because it appears to me that over the past 20 or so years the US congressional system has made it difficult for a sustained, coherent and effective fiscal policy to be adopted and maintained for a sufficient duration to be adequately effective. This is despite the fact that many individual public and elected US officials are very talented and creative.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    Great comment and perspective.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • beantowntrader
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Krugman still has his face in the books. Did he not see the $787B stimulus package in '08. There was also QE1 and QE lite, and QE2. Fed borrowing rates are at historic lows for all of 2009, 2010, and continuing 2011. What about Fed's discount borrowing window that has continued even after so call experts defined America's 2008 recession as over. The government never took away the stimulus or fiscal support. As a matter of fact the continuing drop in the economy is due to the many years of "kicking the can" mentality within the US government.

     

    The US government would need not only the continuous fiscal support but add more in order to support the US economy. Of course this is not self-sustainable hence sooner than later the economy will fall off a cliff. We maybe there now, but I am sure the government will do all it can to financially support the US economy.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3405) | Send Message
     
    While the great recession was in some ways as bad as that in 1980-1981,(unemployment and inflation were higher in 80 recession) its a far cry from the depth of that of the 1930's. Neverthless, comparisons of all three periods are useful. What we will find is the rebounds out of the recession of the 1980s and the depression of the 1930s added a far larger rebound in terms of real GDP growth than what we're experiencing in this so-called rebound. In fact, this is one of the more pathetic rebounds even when compared to more mild rebounds in the 1990s, and 2000s.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • chicagorational
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    easily deeper than the 80s and stagflation. which is worse, waking up and realizing that groceries are $20 more/person/week (a generous assumption), or waking up and realizing you're $100,000 poorer than you thought in home equity, not to mention other equity
    3 Jun 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    Check out the depression of 1946-47 also. The Great Depression was a series of deeprecessions from 1929 through 1947: serial recessions. The Great Stagflation of 1965-1983 was a series of deepstagflations (inflations attempting to stimulate organic growth and failing) -- there were 4-6 deeprecessions between 1965-1983, culinating in the 2-3 created when Volcker finally jacked up Fed rates to 21%. The Great Deflation we began in 2001 will exhibit a series of crises and bubbles (attempted inflations), recessions, double-dips, and will continue through 2019.

     

    We have recessions during real expansions (inflations) and we have expansions during real contractions (deflations) but the recessions during expansions are weak and the expansions during the contractions are also weak.

     

    Time fixes things. We don't.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3405) | Send Message
     
    "Time fixes things. We don't. "

     

    Never a truer statement. But politicians will continue to claim otherwise and the general population is never the wiser.
    4 Jun 2011, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • User 488512
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    The problem with all the money printing is that its not getting to the people that need it. A possible cure for the housing overhang: Dismantle all the empty houses. Then there'll be a housing shortage and we can begin a new 20 year housing bubble which will also lower the unemployment rate.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Burn down some houses and also ship some to the Tornado hit areas. Nothing like a shortage to drive pricing.
    4 Jun 2011, 12:58 AM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    I think the Insurance lobby is already fighting against this on Capitol Hill...but you do have the full support of the FireFirghter's Union.
    4 Jun 2011, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    Wow! Who knew that the Seeking Alpha site is infested with so many tea partiers?

     

    That's how America will fall. Not with a bang, but with a million ant-science anti-intellectual tea partiers drowning out any iota of rational analysis.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Varan,

     

    And who are you going to borrow the $$ from?

     

    Who do you suggest will pay it back, and when, both interest and principle?

     

    And when it does not work ( as in the last Trillion or two)
    What then?

     

    The can is getting heavier and that much harder to kick down the road.

     

    It's not politics, just arithmetic, sorry.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Injecting your politics into a discussion about the economy = epic fail.

     

    It is very easy to spout bumper sticker slogans, so instead why don't you explain to us your plan to get the economy moving without putting us in debt like Greece and Portugal?
    3 Jun 2011, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (561) | Send Message
     
    I agree...seekingalpha had these really good investing discussions, technical analysis etc...who knows, so many idle people with nothing but time to put down and condemn those who are trying to save us...notice they never have solutions, or if they do, they are like 3rd grade level thinking. They would have been happier had McCain and Palin won. It is true, that things would have been over with much much faster (depression, likely nuclear war).
    3 Jun 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Sheik Rattle Enroll
    , contributor
    Comments (607) | Send Message
     
    There's an infestation of gold bugs, they'll leave when the bubble pops.
    3 Jun 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • bdarken
    , contributor
    Comments (613) | Send Message
     
    What does it mean to be an intellectual?
    3 Jun 2011, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    TopCat

     

    What level of Federal debt do you stop at and what sustainable jobs is the government creating?

     

    Government spending does not make an economy. It only reflects what they take out of an economy.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:01 AM Reply Like
  • Michael2343
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    Sorry but on the macro scale all currency is fiat currency and can be created or destroyed at will by banks. When individuals hoard cash that is great for them but it does nothing for the economy, if it is not spent or invested. Its a drag on the economy.

     

    That behavior will be punished in the long run by printing more and more and more money. That is the only tool that the banks have. Frankly, a negative interest rate or carry tax would be a good thing. Americans have the money but many are not spending it and they are bringing about the very thing they fear.
    4 Jun 2011, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • TechnologyMike
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    Well you people (liberals) are in control now and current fiscal policy really seems to be working! Perhaps if everyone that perused Huff Post could do basic arithmetic you would understand the rational behind everyone's arguments.
    4 Jun 2011, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    It is not my job to spend money on things I don't need for the sole purpose of increasing the velocity of money. And quite frankly, what you propose about negative interest rates is insane.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Think of it logically techy mike, not like a liberal or a conservative. The answer flys into you after you add up all the pieces. This is not economy 101. This is post graduate school logic, and it's working.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10765) | Send Message
     
    Thumbs Down Cubed
    5 Jun 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10765) | Send Message
     
    What's my inducement to put it into the bank? 2% for 5 year CD. I'd rather by a diamond.
    5 Jun 2011, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10765) | Send Message
     
    Varan doesn' t have a plan, because there is no plan. No one has a plan. I showed some numbers last week that it's too late. We've passed the tipping point and the best thing that could happen would be for the bust to occur and let's start over. If we continue we'll be paying nearly $1 Trillion in interest in 5 years on our national debt.
    5 Jun 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10765) | Send Message
     
    Thumbs Down on Sheik !
    5 Jun 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    Krugman notwithstanding, the situation is elementary:

     

    The private-sector economy will not get going again until bank lending to that private sector gets going again. That can't and won't happen as long as interest rates remain so low that no bank has any incentive to risk a private-sector loan for a paltry reward, when, alternatively, it can park the money in Treasuries risk free. Change that dynamic, and much of the problem will begin to resolve itself.

     

    The real solution is to provide incentives to corporations to invest and spend, via tax cuts, investment tax credits, etc., coupled with allowing interest rates to gradually rise. This will provide both demand for funds and supply thereof from banks. If these steps are taken, it's less important what Government does in the short term about spending, as long as it pays market rates for its own money and doesn't warp the whole system, as QE has perpetuated.
    3 Jun 2011, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • MarketGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (3983) | Send Message
     
    well said tack.

     

    Case in point, I give you a 66 year historical chart plotting labor's (see: middle class) share of wealth. hmmm, middle class is 70% of real GDP? uh oh...

     

    www.zerohedge.com/site...
    3 Jun 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Middle Class? What middle class? That's gone the way of the neanderthal man...extinct. Welcome to the new society of the Super rich and the Ultra poor.
    They should have titled this article "Chicken Little" The sky is falling....!
    3 Jun 2011, 11:02 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    From the NYT: "American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms."

     

    So record profits are not enough?
    4 Jun 2011, 02:20 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Actually that number does not sound all that high. $1.66 trillion is not all that much considering that there were around $33 Trillion in total sales in 2010.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Could this be the reason why many jobs may never come back? (talking about the new Hillshire Farms plant)

     

    "The plant has a range of automated processes that can reduce processing time and staffing requirements by about 50 percent, said Sara Lee (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) vice president of operations John McAndrew"

     

    I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg - many corporations are flush with cash right now, and it seems that at least some of them are using that cash to automate and upgrade, thus reducing the need to ever hire new workers.
    3 Jun 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    wind:

     

    We can fix that; just make automation illegal, or like the old railroads, which had to keep union "firemen" on board, even though they switched to diesel.
    3 Jun 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    Advances in computerization over the past 20 years or so has drastically reduced the demand for labor. Paper pushers don't add that much value.
    3 Jun 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Luddites for the win!
    3 Jun 2011, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    If you think automation is throwing a "Monkey Wrench" into the system, wait another 20 or 25 years when "human level" intelligence is available in a computer, and fusion gives us all the energy we need for practically nothing. It could be great or it could be ugly. Either way, I won't have to worry about it, but, some of you will.
    3 Jun 2011, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    "wait another 20 or 25 years when "human level" intelligence is available in a computer"

     

    Why would we cripple our computers that way ? They would spend all day waiting in line for the IPad and never get anything done.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Michael2343
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    Those jobs have been condensed into a smaller group of technical folk.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    And alot of those technical jobs are being shipped overseas. :(
    4 Jun 2011, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    UE in IT is low. If you are any good at anything in the IT space you should be able to get a job unless you are hiding.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Well, I do hiring for IT and let me tell you there are alot of 10+ years skilled people who were having alot of problems finding work.

     

    We pretty much had our pick for certain positions.

     

    Many of those jobs are shipped to India now.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I am looking to hire a bunch in the next 30 to 60 days so hopefully I can find them.

     

    Jobs in India are not a zero sum game. As in 1 job goes away in the US and 1 job appears in India.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    When some of my peers were being outsourced, their jobs were replaced 1 to 1 or 2 to 3 to 1.

     

    Their companies were not hiring additional IT workers to offset that.
    5 Jun 2011, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    If it was those numbers in aggregate then the UE of IT workers would be really huge. A lot of companies do more projects and expend more hours which takes US employees to manage.

     

    Depends on the employer.
    5 Jun 2011, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    The trend is moving away from exclusively project based and is now also including full time operations.

     

    It also puts more strain on those managers who have to work at night to manage the offshore teams.
    7 Jun 2011, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • tka1115
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    It's been in the back of my mind for a year or more but it is becoming crystal clear to me that both Keynesians and Austrians are about to feel fully vindicated in their beliefs, in the same way that we are still debating the Great Depression.
    The problem is the wildly excessive expansion of credit over a period of decades. The solution is the unwinding of that excessive credit. The pain of unwinding the credit will be in proportion to the amount of credit to be un-wound. Unwinding the amount of credit we had in 2007 would have been less than the pain we will incur to unwind the amount of credit we have now. Problem is nobody in authority has the cojones to take the pain.
    As a nation we would have been better off to take the pain,close banks, bankrupt companies, etc., use (a modest portion of) the govt debt capacity to feed people and relieve personal suffering, and get govt out of the way so the people could start moving forward again..
    3 Jun 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Letting the markets collapse including banks and autos wouldn't have helped....when people say, oh I'm a free market guy and we should have let the auto companies to collapse, it is out of touch, out of reality thinking.....we were close to the financial abyss, TARP was a success, restored jobs, gained interest and boosted confidence....

     

    I am still undecided about QE-3, but one thing I can assure seeking alpha commenters is that Ben Bernanke would take very seriously this latest Non-Farm payrolls number.

     

    About Krugman, he still doesn't get it, the Obama 700B stimulus was wasted, it he wanted to create jobs the majority of it should have gone to infrastructure, not paying back the union political money, and maintaing the states fiscal profligacy...

     

    And Krugman, why Obama took all his political powers and signed a healthcare bill that punishes the jobs creators, the small businesses? Why he never made his number one priority jobs, especially private sector jobs?
    3 Jun 2011, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    Joe:

     

    TARP was both necessary and a resounding success. However, it's becoming more evident that QE hasn't and isn't flowing into the private sector because the ultra-low rates, combined with risk-free Treasury returns, have short-circuited all the monetary flows into an immediate recycling back to the Treasury department, where they can be and are used for public-sector follies, rather than any real investment in stimulating private-sector activity.

     

    As long as the Government vacuums up all the new capital and artificially perpetuates low rates, the banks will find little incentive to make riskier loans to private enterprise. And, as long as the Government imposes more rules and mandates on corporations, they will have little incentive to increase spending or hire new employees. So, in reality, QE and its related offspring are suppressing both demand and supply in the private sector.
    3 Jun 2011, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Tack, I agree with most of your points, but the Fed has a mandate, and seeing the lackluster data, chances of QE-3 happening are increasing....

     

    The stock market is not liking the recent data and has started to drop, and that worries me more than yields, if the stock market keeps dropping we need to provide confidence fast. There is a big correlation between stocks and credit flows....
    3 Jun 2011, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    Joe:

     

    Don't get panicky about a short-term dip in the stats, especially employment. The private-sector data was better than the overall, and it's been expected that we'd hit a soft patch after the Japan fiasco. Panicky policy adjustments would be very bad for the market and the economy.

     

    The Fed has no mandate to micromanage the economy. It's original mandate was to manage the currency, specifically to protect the dollar, so recent actions have been a broad expansion of their charter, by their own decision.

     

    The problem is being caused by bad corporate tax policy and piled-on mandates, coupled with the Government sucking up and directing all the capital. Extending this approach is not likely to yield any positive benefits, as the private sector will languish.

     

    We don't need Draconian austerity, but neither do we need more Soviet-like Government-run economy.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Tack, I am not in panic mode, the S&P 500 would have to drop below 1,000 for I to be in that mode. A thing no one has touched is how resilient oil prices have been, with such an economic sensitive commodity, being flat signals the global recovery is still on.

     

    I'm just pointing out, that Core CPI is still too weak, and the Fed wants 2.0%

     

    I"ll finish saying that I agree with most of your points.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Jeez Joe, I don't think I usually agree with you, but your right on here. While I can't say the stimulus was a failure, it wasn't any raving success. The money should have gone to infrastructure. Cripes, this country is falling apart. Additionally, a boat load of money should have gone to improving our energy efficiency. Alternate energy, Picken's plan, tax brakes for automobiles that get 50 mpg or more, almost anything is better than sending 6 or 8 hundred billion a year to people that hate us.
    3 Jun 2011, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • Michael2343
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    I'm already making plans for QE4.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Michael2343
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    This is wrong. We don't allow our national infrastructure to collapse. Understand that and understand why!
    4 Jun 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    The 700 Billion was not to create jobs, that's the excuse. The 700 Billion is the only yhing holding up the market until we unwind all the credit excesses. Think of 10 to 1 hedge. There will be no QE3. The markets can now correct down but be assured that money is in the banks.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    The QE's are in the banks. That's what's holding up the markets. Doesn't anyone see the inflation going on? As prices increase, the amount of disposable income for super duper new cars and ultra fancy vacations will go down. The market will collect from the inflation. Think recession # 3.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10765) | Send Message
     
    Tarp and QE were all about saving the Fed's member banks. They could care less about lending to "main street". Maybe in due time, but primary objective was cleaning up bank balance sheets.
    5 Jun 2011, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    "Mistake of 2010"

     

    I'll give you the mistake of the last two centuries.

     

    Nobel Prizes for both Obama & Krugman.

     

    Two people that are not even capable of simply math.
    3 Jun 2011, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    While we're bashing Nobel Prize winners let's throw in Arafat too.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Duke67
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    Then please don't forget Al Gore.
    4 Jun 2011, 04:17 AM Reply Like
  • MarketGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (3983) | Send Message
     
    "Two people that are not even capable of simply math." -1980XLS

     

    Might I add common sense, ethics, and perception of the real word beyond their Alice in Wonderland political bubble to that lack of capability?
    4 Jun 2011, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • jlindaue
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Global turmoil, excessive entitlement states (Western Europe, USA), unwilligness of politicians to make tough choices, unfriendly business environment, excessive regulation (financial, health). Labor markets are slowly (plus private jobs, minus public jobs) correcting. the 2008-2018 time period will be looked back as one of the bad decades.

     

    End result will be a continual decline of living standards for average americans, governments and individuals need to take accountability for their actions.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Ohrama
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    Paul Krugman is the one who has not learnt the lesson that we live in a dynamic (changing) world. 2008 was not same as 1930's. Then the GB was in a decline, the Europe was in war-turmoil, most of Asia was under colonism and basically undeveloped (and exploited for their natural resources) and intelligent people were migrating to U.S.A in big numbers. The bubble at that time was the result of individual greed (perhaps due to the elite who migrated with lots of money?) and then burst. This time (2000 and 2008) bubbles were direct result of government intervention, the local population and leaders have become complacent and lazy (the give me society; the draft dodgers and coast guard served ones for president etc.), heightened competition from developing countries (No longer excellence in math or engineering is the sole property of this country alone), we are not attracting the super elite in big numbers into this country anymore, and if I spend little more time thinking I can come up with more differences. So, pumping money alone is not going to pull this country out of the mess and into the 1970's prosperity for all.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    how do you come you that conclusion? just your gut feeling that the differences that you outline exist does not pass muster as analysis.

     

    Look, except for the anti-intellectuals and the wackos, any economist would agree that Krugman has studied these issues thoroughly, methodically, and systematically and is an expert on the subject matter. His analysis cannot be dismissed by half baked ideas such as yours and others' that one sees here on this thread. By dismissing him, you are exposing your own ignorance of economics.
    3 Jun 2011, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    "the draft dodgers .."

     

    You really should not talk like that about Cheney and Bush. :)
    I loved Sarah's comment today on how Paul Revere was warning the British that we were not going to take it anymore.
    With 1/4 of the US on this trip what other possible outcome can you expect, Civil War # 2 if Obama wins again?
    3 Jun 2011, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    varan

     

    If you have something specific to say that supports your point of view or have a point of view then say it besides carrying water for Krugman. If you really know what you are talking about then state the economic policy points. Apparently since Ohrama has half baked ideas you must then be a fully baked genius.

     

    You have taken shots at people but have not said anything yet that has any weight.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:06 AM Reply Like
  • superpatrol
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    the 2000 and 2005 bubbles were caused by idiots, not the government...
    4 Jun 2011, 01:34 AM Reply Like
  • Ohrama
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    Varan:
    I am glad you decided to call me an anti-intellectual since most others assume otherwise based on my credentials and job experience. Perhaps if you had had added your bio we would know if you are a (ex) grad student of PG etc and how qualified you are to talk about economics. You remind me of what they called FOBs (Friends of Bill Clinton) who would go to bat for Clinton (regardless of what might have been the real truth) during the Jennifer Flower and Lewinsky news times. And I am neither a democrat or a republican or a tea-party person!!
    4 Jun 2011, 03:04 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    "..By dismissing him, you are exposing your own ignorance of economics..."

     

    And with that attitude, you are dismissing the fact that a lot of other economists with as good or better credentials do not agree with Krugman. Edmund S. Phelps also won the Nobel prize and disagrees with Krugman on many things.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Uhmm... what is the difference?
    4 Jun 2011, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    There is no uniform (accurate) vision of these things. There are opinions. Windsun is correct of course.

     

    There is a saying: "Economists are the only profession that can be wrong 100% of the time and not lose their jobs."

     

    Economics is not a science. It is a form of magic.
    4 Jun 2011, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    It is technically a social science. There is no lab where theories can be tested which is why there is so much disagreement and there are a lot of variables. Throw in economists with a political axe to grind or politicians adopting parts of economic theory for their own ends and it can be very confusing.
    4 Jun 2011, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    I read an article a while back about a university project assignment for students to track down all of the variables needed to accurately predict an economic event.

     

    They gave up at around 3100...
    4 Jun 2011, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    It's called the science of econometrics. It's most used in trying to predict commodity prices given a set of complex input variables.

     

    Perhaps the toughest course I ever took...heavy on advanced statistics.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
    3 Jun 2011, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Mause
    , contributor
    Comments (4026) | Send Message
     
    There is a big difference. In 1937, the government really did try to balance the budget in the current fiscal year and did so by raising taxes. The Federal Reserve really did try to tighten monetary policy. This time, the Congress will engage in an elaborate kabuki dance and at the end of the exercise we will still have a big current deficit and we will certainly not have higher taxes. The Fed may let QE 2 expire but, heck, there was a time when zero interest rates were considered to be a stimulative monetary policy by themselves. The debate is similar to the 1937 debate but the outcome will be very different.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • Fueled By Randomness
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    I thought the quote was "Those who refuse to learn from history read the New York Times."
    4 Jun 2011, 02:10 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    I thought the quote was: "Those who learn from history also are doomed to relive it."

     

    But, at least you know what's coming.
    4 Jun 2011, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Here is a proposal for some QE3 dollars:

     

    1) Just like Luke AFB, fund solar panel installations from US manufacturers for all major military bases. This is a multiple win scenario. You cut down long term energy costs in the DoD budget, backup installation power, and generate high tech jobs.

     

    2) Lay down new railroad track. This is the perfect time to do this. Real estate is cheap and railroads are the low cost, low energy provider. Build a high speed special RR east-west freight corridor. This could take some of the traffic off the Chinese controlled panama canal. Route it through some of the hardest hit areas such as the upper third of the US. Run it from say stockton CA to philly.

     

    3) Pump a bunch of money into agency SBIR programs.

     

    4) Build a huge government owned solar concentrator power plant in the mojave desert. Make it large enough so that the government could sell/swap the power at market rates to offset the electric bill of the federal government.

     

    5) Invest in US mines that could possibly supply exotic elements currently available from unreliable countries.

     

    6) Dump more money into the US commercial space program.

     

    7) Redo all federal facilities with Cree solid state lighting. Cut down on energy consumption and building maintenance.

     

    8) Fund a high speed internet backbone analogous to Eisenhower's interstate highway effort.

     

    9) Pour money into NASA.

     

    10) Build a superconducting super collider and have money flow down through the tech supplier chain.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:57 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, good thinking, and I think that's where QE3 needs to go because that is direct into jobs and means REAL trickle effects by investing into infrastructure that provides economic growth for decades to come.

     

    Many of our current technologies had their birth from huge government sponsored programs.

     

    Typically it was the bleeding edge government programs that created new technologies, as the government could pool large resources and afford to take losses so there was no worry about ROI. Then these technologies spilled out into the private sector, once the technology could be duplicated and commoditized to a scale where it was affordable.

     

    Your ideas are pretty straightforward and I don't see why we aren't moving in that direction. It's clear banks and large corporations are beyond stable and have a huge cash cushion to withstand another 2008, yet they are not creating jobs, so direct intervention is needed to make up for the slack in labor demand.

     

    Spurring innovation is also big, yet is just seems to be treated as a footnote and lip service.

     

    We need BOLD, creative thinking.
    4 Jun 2011, 04:00 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    I am not going to go over every point, but here are a few:

     

    10) We tried that, and it was cancelled by congress for massive cost over runs.
    9) GAO estimates that some 30% of all money spent by NASA in 2007 was wasted. "The Government Accountability Office found that NASA spent at least five times more by flying employees on its own planes in fiscal 2003 and 2004, compared with the cost of commercial coach tickets. The extra spending totaled about $20 million." - and it goes on forever. The GAO in 2009 said that NASA was the most wasteful out of the 30 agencies it checked. Just Google "NASA waste fraud" for hundreds of examples.
    8) Internet services are not the job of the government. The last time that was tried, a typical fiber optic cable system cost several times more than commercially installed lines - $250 million was allocated in 2008, and much of the money spent duplicated existing services.
    6) - if it is commercial, it is not government.
    5) those mines exist, but the EPA won't let the company mine them
    4) - great, another government run utility, no thanks.
    2) - why can't railroads pay for the railroad track? They probably know where it is needed a lot better than the government does. And for example: "Calendar-year 2010 profit increased 47 percent. UP Chairman Jim Young said 2010 was the "most profitable year in Union Pacific’s nearly 150-year history."

     

    etc etc etc.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    "Many of our current technologies had their birth from huge government sponsored programs.."

     

    Not near as many as you might think. In fact the vast majority came from private funding or from universities. There were some spinofff from the space programs, but not nearly as many as is popularized or that people think.

     

    I think you will find it difficult to find many real examples of what you stated above. It is a selling point often used to get government money, but that does not make it true.

     

    In fact, do some research - you will be very hard pressed to find any of today's major industries or technologies that stemmed from government projects since WW2.

     

    There is some justification for the government funding really basic research, such as the Hubble telescope and the Human Genome Project. But that would not do anything for employment unless you have a Doctorate degree.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Why don't we just blindfold ourselves, take a bowl of clumpy oatmeal and chuck it against a wall and see how much sticks also.
    4 Jun 2011, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    The problem is that due to all that stolen money summarily woodchipped & fed into the glowing fires of bureaucracy we will never know what would have really happened if entrepreneurs were allowed the chance to direct their own forms of investment instead of your crony Stalinism. How many drugs and cures DIDN'T get discovered due to monies being robbed by Big Bro and destroyed by crony Stalinism? How many new forms of energy didn't get brought to market due to the EPA and continuing to rip off Exxon Mobil to the tune of over $50 billion a year, when they could have reinvested it elsewhere? What kind of new technology will we never know about since government habitually confiscated profits and incentives in the space ever since the Apple 2 E plus? And then destroyed the monies 100 times over in the failure called the Post Office, now on its 17th bailout in a row. We could do this all day.

     

    You want to harp about 'crony capitalism', we all know it was never about capitalism in the first place which is why I have renamed it crony Stalinism. A concept people such as yourself should understand.

     

    'BOLD, creative thinking'?

     

    LOL.

     

    Try conformist, crony agencies on the take.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33 -

     

    You state that one "will be very hard pressed to find any of today's major industries or technologies that stemmed from government projects since WW2". On the contrary, think of the the establishment of the internet which started as an adjunct to the US national defense communications system. Think of the commercial aircraft manufacturing and the airline travel and delivery industries that were shaped and fostered in the US to provide support to military aircraft development and production. Think of the many uses of plastics and other materials that were pioneered by military research. Think of the output of the research hubs at many US universities that have subsequently been commercially exploited (the impact on the medical field being particularly noteworthy). These are only some examples and I would go so far as to say that a key element to the establishment and maintenance of US technological pre-eminence since WW II has been the commercialization of processes arising out of public sector programs.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Everyone typically starts down this line of cliché riddled reasoning with the internet and usually ends with plastics or a derivative thereof.

     

    *yawn*

     

    But what they fail to mention every time is the huge costs involved. What the Big Gov cheerleaders also fail to mention is that rubbers and plastics were already in development at the same time the military began experimenting with them. Its not a stretch to assume the private sector would have hit the market(and pay dirt) at the same time as the public. We all know how well they applied it.

     

    Same for the internet which is really just a glorified phone line with data code and graphics.

     

    NASA is about the only valid argument to be made here, and at an extraordinary cost.

     

    And finally what they fail to mention is not only the inefficiencies of each 'development' but the failure rates of what never came to market. Nor do they mention the wonderful government 'services' such as the USPS or the corrupt public pension redundancy program within the State Dept.

     

    Nor is it ever mentioned what the private sector could have actually done if given the chance and left alone and allowed to retain more of its profits and incentives.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    We might have all owned an airplane by now rather than driving the same technology that government encouraged through the years with their investments in roads, etc. Government is not a Private Equity fund which makes good bets because if they did we would not have to pay any more taxes.

     

    I am not much of a fan of NASA for that reason even though it is quite cool.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt,

     

    It appears that yet again my arguments have failed to impress you. Quel dommage! I note, however, that you don't refute the examples I give.

     

    I suppose you can argue that if one scientist hadn’t discovered a particular thing at some point in time, then some other one elsewhere at some later time would stumble onto the same discovery. Likewise, if some public or private enterprise hadn’t considered how production of that thing could be scaled up to a significant level for exploitation, then another one would somewhere else at some other later time. Likewise, if one entrepreneur didn’t successfully introduce the product to the market in some form than some other entrepreneur would make a commercial breakthrough for some other form of the product at some point. The real question, however, is how did this chain of events (discovery, innovation, exploitation and marketing) actually occur for many of today’s leading products and the answer in many cases is through the symbiosis of public and private sector initiatives and institutions I’ve alluded to in my earlier comment. Further, many of these developments took shape and proceeded much earlier than would otherwise have been the case in the US if the public sector involvement had been absent. Further, it is likely that other countries (and not the US) would have been the place where these innovations were first and most successfully exploited commercially.

     

    Was there waste and inefficiency entailed? Definitely but such is often the case as well in examples where public sector involvement was not involved.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Pretty much the entire computing platform including the Internet is derived from government funding. You wouldn't be posting here were it not for DARPA. Before that it was the NASA investments, and also daily usage things we all take for granted like GPS.

     

    This isn't big government cheerleading, it's simple understanding of the history of technology and who has adopted what.

     

    Dismissing of the internet as simple technology is only done because it supports a lopsided, dogmatic paradigm, when in reality it's much more complicated than that.

     

    Internet was originally designed with the vision of creating a communications network that would survive a nuclear attack from USSR. There's alot more to it then just a phone line with nice graphics. Is the phone just a glorified telepgraph or pony express then?

     

    Who cares about the trillions in economic growth it has supplied over the years.

     

    Right now it works the other way, where the government is now on the other end of the curve and adopting technology that is created privately.

     

    There is plenty of waste in government, but the fact remains that it is the only entity which can sustain huge losses and pool large resources in the absence of a profit motive.

     

    I'm sure we should start shutting down libraries and museums too because they aren't beating quarterly earnings estimates.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Banks, being the stewards of the private sector, are sitting on plenty of free government money right now. By privatization standards, they should be able to find good entrepreneurship and fund these fantastic new programs.

     

    Companies are also sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash, and we should be seeing a renaissance in new technology correct?

     

    Instead we are getting the iPad 3, Facebook, and CRM at 308 P/E. These are not disruptive, economic growth technologies, they are simply subsets of internet and mobile.

     

    Show me a railroad, telephone, electricity, internet, superhighway, or sustainable fuel source, and then I might actually be impressed. Until then it's just a bunch of robots moving capital back in forth and not truly generating any real benefit or economic growth to society.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Michael2343
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    I think you realize though that QE3 goes straight to the treasury and funds existing programs?

     

    There's no re-allocation on a per-QE basis.

     

    I agree we need a new-deal like you are suggesting, but the public is too savvy and greedy to accept that. They want to hoard their cash out of the mistrust they have for banks and investments, and anything that weakens their cash position (government spending) they do not want.

     

    We will be in trouble until they can be forced to spend.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    867046 –

     

    You give interesting proposals for infrastructure and analogous productive development through public sector expenditure. The difficulty here (as with so many similar projects) is that they typically entail significant lead-time for planning and design before actual job creation and economic stimulation occur. Consequently, the immediate impact on jobs and economic activity you envision would be delayed for one or more years.

     

    Also this set of proposals conflates
    (a) monetary easing, which essentially is what has been happening when the Federal Reserve implemented monetary easing in various forms during QE1 and QE2, and
    (b) fiscal stimulus which occurs when the Federal Government deficit spends money provided by the Federal Reserve through the purchase of Treasury Bills and Bonds.

     

    While I remain in the minority that continues to favour deficit spending to shore up the economy until the recovery becomes more vigorous, I therefore look to more ‘shovel ready’ projects in this regard.

     

    One idea needs to be emphasized in this context, however. When the current fiscal, financial and economic crises are finally resolved (as they will be one way or another over time), it should become an article of public policy that ongoing planning take place at the Federal, State and Local Government level with the objective that a stockpile of useful ‘shovel ready’ projects (things that are not currently of high priority but are suitable for quick implementation should an economic downturn arise) remain on tap from time to time. Think of the waste and confusion that could have been avoided in the fourth quarter of 2008 and early 2009 if such pre-planning had been in place and think also of the productive gains, both long term and as an immediate response to the credit crunch and economic crisis in 2008/9, that would have resulted.

     

    4 Jun 2011, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    "Nor is it ever mentioned what the private sector could have actually done if given the chance and left alone and allowed to retain more of its profits and incentives. "

     

    You can either tax the gains or tax the personal income for folks, one or the other. Left alone? Heck there's Billions of untaxed income overseas. Too many loopholes.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    The internet would have come along without or without that, but probably at a slower pace.

     

    But Arpanet was not a government project as such, it was simply a transition from the old Teletype machines and land lines to improve communication between computers. It was not a massive government project - at it's peak only a few dozen people were involved, and that was mostly at Berkely and MIT. And it large part it goes back to what I said about basic research - once the TCP/IP framework was worked out, the nerds took over and propelled it to what it is today.

     

    There have been a lot of spinoffs from from such things as military aircraft, as you say - but my contention is that it was the basic research that did that.

     

    My beef was not with you, but with the previous post of 10 ways to spend QE3 - none of those projects involve any new research or technolody, and many have proven in the past to be nothing more than boondoggle heaven.

     

    Just for perspective, the Super Collider project was cancelled in 1993 because it would end up costing around $12 billion, which seems pretty petty in light of the amount spent on bailouts and stimulous lately. Obama cancelled the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility after spending $12 billion, and after collecting some $45 billion in extra fees from plant operators.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    In defense of the USPS, 99% of their problem come not from internally, but from congressional mandates, which forces them to do stupid things.

     

    And before bashing the poor old post office, think back to the last time you used a ZIP code, and in how many ways ZIP codes are used today by everyone from individuals to mega-corps. USPS basically invented the ZIP code.

     

    www.nytimes.com/2001/0...
    4 Jun 2011, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    I don't really have a problem with the government getting involved in funding basic research type projects. But far too often projects expand and go far beyond their original mission, such as NASA. DARPA did all it's cool stuff, then shut down, and the private sector took over. NASA has been a pork barrel boon, especially for Florida politicians, as "mission creep" set in. NASA itself to a large extent has been a victim of the politicians - billions for new projects at NASA, but they have to scrounge on eBay for spare parts for their ancient mission control room equipment.

     

    Same thing happened with our air traffic control system - billions in pork barrel massive airport expansion projects, but none of the stimulous cash went to fund the NexGen system - probably because there was no way for a politician to attach their name to it.

     

    In many cases it would probably be more correct to say that it is not "government" that screws things up, but the political system.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Blame congress for most of the Post Office ills. For example:

     

    ""For the Postal Service to improve its financial situation, the government must let the USPS manage its financial affairs in the most effective manner possible, like any other business," he said. "Essential to that process would be for Congress to fix an onerous congressional mandate from 2006, which obligates the Postal Service to make annual payments of $5.5 billion to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. No other institution in America, public or private, has to do this." (it is currently over-funded by about $15 billion).
    4 Jun 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    DARPA is actually alive and well, and pushing lots of robotic and AI type of technology.

     

    I do agree with your mission creep and political angles though.

     

    Alot of these investments take years and it's hard for a politician to attach his name to it.

     

    I see this same weakness in the private sector as well, where we are pushing too much quarterly, instant gratification measurements over long term benefits. Many times those long term benefits eclipse the short term gains exponentially.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    You have a point there, but one of the problems with all that cash is that it is sitting in places like banks that have little interest in new technology research themselves. Just between us chickens, I don't think those places are filled with visionaries...
    4 Jun 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    " The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in 2003 that “current funding from all levels of government and current revenues generated from ratepayers will not be sufficient to meet the nation’s future demand for water infrastructure.” The CBO estimated the nation’s needs for drinking water investments at between $10 billion and $20 billion over the next 20 years."

     

    Guess how much of the stimulous package went to those kind of projects that were already identified?

     

    www.infrastructurerepo.../
    4 Jun 2011, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    A lot of technology is created because there's a problem to solve. The Government is exceptional at creating problems. Occasionally, not often, they're noble ones, like how to get to the moon.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Bob

     

    I would argue this a bit different. Innovation springs from observation and most government employees are not in position to observe much. Furthermore the return on capital is less because the cost per innovation is extraordinarily high. This high cost can crowd out other areas of exploration that are starving for funding.

     

    So if I had $1 Billion to invest in government workers discovering the next great thing or private workers in Silicon Valley I would be heading to Silicon Valley. The government is not a good PE fund.
    4 Jun 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Good points there - as one poster noted a while back, "most innovation is in spite of the government, not because of it". One of the main problems obviously is that much of where the government puts money is politically driven, not scientifically.

     

    For some reason, I watched the Yucca Mountain hearings on c-span last week, and after much grilling and evasion, the DOE finally flat out admitted that DOE decided to cancel the project based purely on "social" issues, and does not have a clue about what to do next. One of the very few hearings actually worth watching:

     

    Long view, but some interesting facts www.c-span.org/Events/.../
    4 Jun 2011, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Tomas –

     

    I suggest that you are typecasting both ‘government’ and its employees too narrowly.

     

    I am equating ‘government’ in the context of this discussion as the public sector (i.e. thereby including any organization or institution that receives the preponderant part of its necessary funding from tax revenue directly or through government agencies). It follows that many organizations including universities and research institutions are within this purview. I justify this broader scope on the basis that such universities etc would not exist (certainly to the current extent) if public funding (and therefore public policy impute) was not forthcoming.

     

    Secondly, the mental image you project of ‘government workers’ is of people whose imagination and enterprise is deadened by bureaucratic routine. It is true that such deadening bureaucratic routine exists within many organizations both within the private and public sector. The converse also applies, however, as there are centres of innovation and excellence within many governmental bodies as well as within enterprises in the private sector. The real challenge is to create and sustain such lively activity in all organizations (but this is a separate topic).
    4 Jun 2011, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Bob:

     

    My statement was that "most government employees are not in position to observe much" as I was aware of state colleges and universities. That does not provide cover for the majority of government employees that are not in position to observe much or do anything creative.

     

    The typecast fits to the majority with respect to innovation. They are not deadened by bureaucratic routine but rather the issues are that; 1. There is no incentive to innovate at any level 2. Organizational structure is command and control which does not encourage innovation 3. Risk aversion is emphasized not creativity and 4. Policy is a binding legal statute that if violated can result in jail time. This is not a slam on the staff. Look at what they have to deal with.

     

    I work with government and believe me there is nothing coming out that provides any wow moments with the exception of colleges and universities. In fact I often find they are using old technology with exception of DOD which gets their technolog from the private sector and the process to get anything done is very painful.

     

    Put another way if you take out DOD, NASA and universities and colleges then good luck finding innovation.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Lightway

     

    The computing platform did not come from WDC but I guess since Al Gore invented the internet why not make a bigger claim.

     

    Do some research on computing platforms and you will find they go back way before WDC thought they could solve all problems.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Windsun

     

    Why have government doing basic research projects? Why not give the money to 10 different PE funds and let them drive the research? They will bring back more money than you gave them for more research projects.

     

    The government comes back for more money from you to keep the spending train going.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    IBM is filing and getting more basic research patents than any other company in the world right now. How is that for innovation?

     

    How many has the Federal government filed for? They are spending most of the money so have to focus on them.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    876

     

    INSANE LIST as rewards are either obscure and/or long term and UE is pushing 10% and the real UE is more like 15% plus.

     

    "Pour money in NASA" is hilarious. We don't have money to "pour" and we really need to focus on people here on terra firma rather than outer space as we have serious problems.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Sorry but I do "computing platforms" for a living so I've already done the research, stop trying to politicize it and dismiss the facts by bringing Al Gore into it.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    That technology from private companies you cite the DOD buys exists only because it is government funded. Also look at how much universities are subsidized by government as well.

     

    The best partnerships work between government, academia, and private firms, they don't exist in some vacuum where profit is the only motive.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    I don't mean that government should do the research, was speaking of funding only.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Actually if you look at the small, high tech companies funded/created by SBIR's, they are led by Phd's. Frankly, SBIR is one of the least known/advertised ways that the government starts/incubates small high tech businesses.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    We are debating where innovation occurs not who pays for it. If innovation was possible in the public sector then they would have no need to go to the private sector.

     

    The next debate question is what is the government investing in and what is it crowding out? We are really good at killing people but not sure that is a big bragging point.

     

    I would suggest that if we give the government $10 Billion and a PE firm $10 Billion to invest in we would get much more back from the private sector PE firm than the government.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:51 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    As usual, the retro-gold bug-palinesque grasp of reality is totally clueless:

     

    There are a large number of profitable, stable very high tech companies whose very existence is due to far seeing government program managers who funded them very heavily in their early days. This funding helped them survive and prosper. Frankly there is no private organization that can top DARPA in supporting/investing in startup/early stage companies.

     

    Among the endless list are:

     

    Cree - ONR, DARPA
    Sensors Unlimited (now a part of FLIR) - NVL, DARPA
    Intevac - NVL, DARPA
    Teledyne imaging - NVL
    eMagin - NVL
    iRobot - DARPA

     

    This number is in the hundreds. Just look at the number of young companies DARPA has funded.

     

    One of the most notable, Cree in its early days was essentially shoveled money by the Office of Naval Research. Later on DARPA dumped some money into CREE. ONR through it's funding, jump started the whole area of wide bandgap semiconductors in the US.

     

    IMHO the whole STTR/SBIR program effort through all the government agencies is one of the most sucessfull small high technology company incubators in all of the US. Starting with a max of $75k for a phase 1 award and graduating up to a phase 3. Please tell me what private sector entity can kick start a whole new industry for $75k? Oh and by the way, all of the above have participated in various SBIR efforts. To just scratch the surface, google "DARPA funding".
    5 Jun 2011, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    Really? You have done the research? Where? Ever hear of the abacus? What do you think that is? And every computing device since then?

     

    I have over 25 years in high technology working on both coasts developing companies and technologies so bring it on.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    It certainly is lesser known - I had never heard of it until mentioned here. In looking over what they have done, it might have been better to just give them the entire $777 billion in stimulous...
    5 Jun 2011, 03:49 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Go for it champ, you will lose.

     

    Kinda a big leap between abacus and ARPANET, boring Al Gore references aside.
    5 Jun 2011, 03:52 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    I will just let everyone do their own research as this is too well documented to bother with your blatantly false assertions. Five minutes on the web will show you are making up your claims.

     

    Do you have any other astounding beliefs we should know about? Government discovered gravity?
    5 Jun 2011, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Congress is a terrible manager of business. They overreach when they take on enterprises that need DAILY attention and creativity. Put the USPS in private hands and the business will improve and the people will become more creative and flourish.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    "Also look at how much universities are subsidized by government as well."

     

    And look how expensive tuition is as a result. The subsidy itself is causing the costs to skew. Every time there's government intervention there's non-market based artificial inflation from the price of stamps to oil.

     

    As far as education, its my belief that the next game changer is going to be a giant shift away from colleges and universities and to more and more economical online sources. The pretense has gone on long enough.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    867

     

    Enough of the weird Palin gold bug crap. I am neither and it is boring.

     

    Any entity that is handed billions of dollars per year for multiple decades is going to have something to show for it. Hitler made strides in rocket science so why don't we laud him as he plundered Germany for resources to advance his own agenda and besides the fact he was an egotistical nut who destroyed everything around him. If the DOD did not show any accomplishments in the past 30 years then that would be the most incredible display of incompetence as they had tons of support and funding. I would state unequivocally that their return on capital is less than what Private Equity firms target every year.

     

    I look at your list of companies and I don't see any big employers and this is one of our fundamental problems. We don't need tiny companies subsidized and coddled by the government to run this economy of $14 Trillion we need big companies that employ a lot of people.

     

    You want to know who started an industry on very little? How about personal computers? Ever hear of Apple? They started 2 guys in a garage. Microsoft started out of dorm room. Both of those employ a lot of people.

     

    However the overriding point of this stream was that most government employees were not in position to innovate and outside of a few hundred guys in DARPA, the DOD and the university systems that holds true.
    5 Jun 2011, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    While I'd agree online will become more of an option, the "government intervention" has been part framework of the education system for decades.

     

    Maybe you'd prefer everyone go back to k-12 in the same school house system we had back in the day.

     

    It's only recently that the bigger cost runups have occurred, and the for-profit colleges who have been the darlings of WALL STREET over the past 10 years, are much more expensive than their state-sponsored counterparts, yet deliver a much worse product and strain the loan system by pushing people into college that shouldn't even be there. It works just like the housing bubble did.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Apple, Google, Verizon, ATT

     

    All make huge revenue streams from government research. They are sorta big I guess.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    You could go to the wiki pages for ARPANET and Internet and it takes 30 seconds.

     

    This was all 100% government and government-university sponsored technology, the private companies followed.

     

    I researched this topic 20 years ago, it's just understood, and is 101 conversation, which is why I don't go get the links because it's common knowledge. You are making fun of Al Gore, but you're doing the same revisionist garbage he is.

     

    But if you want, here is the wiki page, get your facts straight son:

     

    The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of 2009, an estimated quarter of Earth's population used the services of the Internet.

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    5 Jun 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    State sponsored college = getting money and many other tax breaks from the government. So while the student's cost is less, the average cost of educating the student is often much higher in state-run colleges.

     

    As far as getting much worse results, I have not seen that.
    5 Jun 2011, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    I disagree, as the total cost of the tuition in for-profit colleges is much higher, and the Federal government is basically footing the bill for the loan.

     

    "For-profit colleges account for only 10% of students enrolled in higher education, but those students receive 23% of federal student loans and grants, and account for 44% of defaults."

     

    The graduation rates of these for-profit schools is terrible. This is a case where government investment makes no sense:

     

    "Six-year graduation rates for first-time students in bachelor’s-level programs are markedly low, according to a 2010 report by the US Department of Education: 25 percent at proprietary schools, compared with 55 percent at private nonprofit colleges and universities and 64 percent at public ones. "

     

    www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubs...
    nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2...
    www.forbes.com/2010/08...
    5 Jun 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    A lot of DOD related companies and general employee services companies. We are not arguing if the Fed Gov spends a ton of money we are arguing if they really drive innovation. The point made was that government fostered/started the companies listed and they are all small and that is with multi billion dollar annual budgets.

     

    Frankly government should stay involved in security technology because they need to be ahead of the curve. But it is not apparent they are a good investor in other technologies.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    Don't try to slip out of the noose you placed around your neck. Here are your words; "Pretty much the entire computing platform including the Internet is derived from government funding."

     

    Really?

     

    So go to your beloved Wiki and type "computer" and start reading. Then come back and tell me you were talking about something else. I am waiting for some slick Willy explanation.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    My bad.

     

    I was hoping the Bernank had a time machine that would send him and his money helicopter back to Sumeria to prove my point and show the direct link between government spending and the abacus.

     

    Your "computer" page shows nothing but government and academic sponsored programs, and this has always been the case. Profitable industry has always followed.

     

    Maybe you're reading a different page.
    5 Jun 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt,

     

    The reason why the USPS loses money is because of the indirect subsidy of republicans. It's very efficient to deliver mail/packages in urban areas where the majority of liberal antibusiness socialists live. It's very inefficient to operate the USPS in rural areas where the majority free market, anti welfare, self sufficient republicans live. Yet another example of blue states subsidizing red states for the benefit of the overall welfare of the United States.

     

    To paraphrase Adm. Zumwalt, there isn't a blue US or a red US there is the United States of America.
    5 Jun 2011, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    You cannot stand on other peoples' shoulders and then only give credit to people and entities of the last 50 years that are in your line of sight who are standing on shoulders of people who never had a government sponsor. Mathematics has been around a long time and people have been creating platforms for calculations as far back as we can look.

     

    The amount of invention and innovation that goes into a modern computer took many centuries to discover and it was not cut from whole cloth as you read in that Wiki article.

     

    Regardless my point in this comment stream is any entity that receives billions in capital is going to discover something. That does not mean they should be doing that R&D and that it could not be done cheaper, better and faster elsewhere.

     

    One of your best cases for government involvement that you could have mentioned is the CDC as coordination is a critical function of this entity.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Dude,

     

    Don't try to dunk on me.

     

    1) Robert Goddard in the US invented rocketry. What the Germany did was derivative.

     

    2) You republicans constantly trumpet small companies as the agents of job creation. Please get your story straight. Are small businesses job creators or not?

     

    3) Business size likely follows some kind of power law distribution. So there are a lot more small companies than big companies.

     

    4) Private equity firms don't necessarily do things in the economic and national interest of the United States.

     

    5) Most employees are not in a position to innovate whether public or private.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Dude,

     

    You sound like an manager or finance guy working in high tech, doesn't count.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Dude,

     

    Lightway is even more correct than you think. Do you really understand the basis for most of the developments in modern computing?

     

    1) The government funding of early computers like Eniac was to speed up the calculation of artillery tables.

     

    2) The government exclusively funded all the early development of high speed computing (CDC and Cray) for nuclear bomb simulation.

     

    3) Early high speed electronics based on GaAs chips was kick started by a government Mantech program. This technology was used in the early Cray's and also forms the basis later on for some of the chip technology in cell phones.

     

    4) The push for fundamental software reliability is basically another government funded initiative.

     

    5) Early work in parallel programming and processing was the exclusive purview of the national labs in the beginning.

     

    etc etc
    6 Jun 2011, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    So Wyatt, there is no cronyism in the private sector?
    6 Jun 2011, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Dude,

     

    Only an operations guy would think like this. There is a tiny inconvienence regarding patents, in the vast majority of cases, they haven't been reduced to practice. IBM as a tech powerhouse is so yesterday. DARPA funds a lot of cooler stuff.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:41 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    867

     

    If you want to go to the headwaters of aeronautics and rocket science then you need to go back further than Goddard.

     

    Small business in the private sector has created jobs not government creating companies with massive investment and not a lot of employment to show for it.

     

    PE firms outperform government investment without breaking a sweat. That is the point. If we want the biggest bang for our buck then we need capital in the private sector not the public sector. This is another version of guns and butter arguement.

     

    Private employees are in a much better position by a mile to innovate than government employees.

     

    Shaq
    6 Jun 2011, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    867

     

    I have done most every functional role in high tech and did coding back when the compilers sucked and the language was so low level you were barely above zeros and ones. Green screens and green bar reports were awesome back in the day.

     

    So I would say I have seen several evolutions in IT and earned my IT stripes.
    6 Jun 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    867

     

    Computers are just machines and people have been playing with devices for a long time trying to find easier ways to do computation which just might be why they are called computers.

     

    Here in the US we think this all started when we woke up and decided to get in the game. But look back further at all the devices that people made and look at the advances in electrical engineering which made this possible.

     

    If you look at some computer historical chronologies they think everything started with the PC which is even more of an egocentric view.

     

    The US Government and specifically the DOD was not always around for all these advancements.
    6 Jun 2011, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    867

     

    You don't know what you are talking about when you think I work in operations but it does reveal your computer geek "copy boy" mentality. Don't tell me you wear a black t-shirt and eat M&M's all day, get fat and memorize irrelevant stuff.

     

    Only someone biased like you would put up that statement about IBM. Some of IBM's basic research is really good but you probably don't know much about that as you are into "cooler stuff." And I am not even an IBM fan.

     

    DARPA should fund cooler stuff for the budget they have but still where are the patents? If they could make some money off this stuff they could self fund. But apparently it is easier to get money from the taxpayer.

     

    How many patents has DARPA filed? By the way if IBM is "yesterday" which is true in some ways then who is "today?"
    6 Jun 2011, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Computers and the internet and all that stuff would have come along with or without the government. The timeline mght have been different - perhaps sooner, perhaps not - but it would have come. Some things, like Radar, might have come along a bit later if not for the military uses, but as more and more information is readily available to more people, technology accelerates. As the number and variety of inputs gets larger, more and more "outside the box" thinking occurs.

     

    So to say that government is "responsible" or "caused" anything is probably a bit much. It might have accelerated it in many cases, but it did not cause it.
    6 Jun 2011, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    You can speculate on what might have happened Windsun, but you don't have history on your side, there's just way too many examples with nuclear, aerospace, and computing technologies to count.
    6 Jun 2011, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    Some advancements out of government we could have done without as they are related to killing people more effectively. If we could have replaced those discoveries with other inventions in the private sector we might have a very different life right now which a person can only imagine.
    6 Jun 2011, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    No disagreement here.

     

    I think the human race does killing technology better than anything else.

     

    Man on the Moon = V2 rocket derivative
    7 Jun 2011, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately your argument is worthless in this era of record corporate profits. If companies were the ultimate innovative resource, stock buybacks wouldn't exist.
    2 Jul 2011, 02:19 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    There is no progress during the "NIGHT". Why not? Because we lose our direction at Night, quite literally, light vanishes and our eyes are put out.

     

    Evolution of the Physical World occurs during the Day-Cycles, the periods of Business Expansion (1911-1929; 1947-1965; 1983-2001) -- when the eyes are open. Evolution 'rests' during the Night-Cycles, Time stops -- Time is the direction of evolution. And progress stops. Night-Cycles: 1929-1947; 1965-1983; 2001-2019. Our eyes close; and our ears (our ears synthesize quite literally into the mystical Third Eye -- we see with our mind's eye instead of our physical eyes).

     

    The Day-Cycle is run by men who are engineers, problem-solvers, creators of civilization. This force of organization loses its power at night. Dis-organizaiton takes over. Culture is created at Night, through Nature; Civilization is created by Day, City-building.

     

    The Night-Cycle is run by men and women (more gender equality at Night) who are right-brain, who do not 'solve' problems (a left-brain activity) but understand the pattern of problems and the sequence of problems -- what follows what -- who use languge, art, and metaphor as the Day-Cycle brains use mathematics and physics and science. Science rules the Day-Cycle; Metaphysics rules the Night-Cycle. Instead of engineers and bankers and lawyers -- city-builders -- the Night is run by poets, prophets, philosophers, and real religious visionaries (not false evangelical prophets making millions off their lost victims).

     

    The Day-Force builds cities, worshipping Man; the Night-Force demolishes cities, whorshipping Nature, punishing Man. (Notice that diseases, extreme weather, natural catastrophes, droughts, floods, are always more dominant during Night-Cycles periods than during Day-Cycle periods.)
    4 Jun 2011, 07:29 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    In a 24 hour world, it is always daylight somewhere.
    4 Jun 2011, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    Yes, and so some part of the globe is progressing, while another part is resting. It's quite a wonderful system.
    4 Jun 2011, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    If the world stops spinning, all the night people and day people in the wrong zones will be screwed :(
    4 Jun 2011, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    You're right. That's why the Earth doesn't stop spinning.

     

    Actually, there are some people -- those living in the Soul -- who are both Day/Night and live in and flourish in both periods. In the bible they are called the Chosen People, the Chosen Ones. This is because the Soul is eternal.
    4 Jun 2011, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Put this one in the new age section Michael or sci fi. Maybe next to Lord of the Rings in other 'geek lit'.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Let's put it another way.

     

    Currently I am putting my money right now into areas of the globe that most resemble Thatcher/Reagan pro-growth optimism. Places like Chile, Colombia, Indonesia and Singapore. Places that have years of organic growth, pro-capital policies and unlimited freedoms tempered by respect of private property. We can throw in Israel to a degree. I can't just look at demographics alone here. Even though Pakistan and Iran have good young demographics, they are corrupt, disgusting ideologies that inform them in the long run. Perhaps I would change my mind if Iran was able to let the youth rise up and take their country back from the bearded mullahs, but who knows when if at all that will ever happen.

     

    So for me, its not about day and night cycles, its about freedom tempered by consistency of law and dictatorships where the law becomes transitional and whimsical.

     

    America is no longer in the first camp. I will find other countries to put my money to work.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    What time does the chanting start?

     

    I want to be early.
    4 Jun 2011, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Chile, has been one of my most profitable investments ever, the government let's the free market run it's course.It also nourishes and attracts capital.... Excellent country to invest.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Or you could actually read what he wrote and learn from an alternative point of view instead of Monday morning quarterbacking.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Colombia also has death squads that hunt down homeless people in Bogota and kill them.

     

    I guess you could call that respect of private property and unlimited freedoms. Look and see what is there, not what ideology makes you think it should be.
    4 Jun 2011, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • ColdLogic
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, but what the f*** is this? Day cycle/night cycle? It's like you've bastardized the concept of economic expansion and contraction (due to the federal reserve's manipulation of the money supply) with some hocus pocus magical bullshit. It's star wars bullshit. Nature (including humans) reach an equilibrium, which is punctuated now and then by govt interference, creating massive bubbles (expansion of production beyond actual consumer demand) followed by the inevitable contractions (when bills become due and there aren't the sales to pay off debts from the bubble's economic expansion). This process occurs due to the false signal of prosperity created by easy credit, originating from the federal reserve, who does it in response to government's neverending demand for more spending power.
    4 Jun 2011, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    I can tell Michael is alot more well rounded than alot of you are able to comprehend, he has most likely studied these things over the history of time. He is also pulling alot of eastern philosophy, mythology, and spiritual studies (Biblical) into what he is describing so that's why you're reacting so badly to much of it and start mocking it.

     

    While you're looking at things through economics classes, like Keynes or Austrian theory, he's pulling cycles that date back before any of those ever existed and describing them through a different lens that doesn't focus so much on balance sheets and cash flows.

     

    But to be blunt, I think too many of you are worshiping and circle-jerking at the Holy Grail altar of privatization as the epicenter of anything that exists.

     

    That thinking lines up more with the Golden Calf than the Holy Grail.
    4 Jun 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    No, Mr. Clark just invent new words for things that already exist, like expansion and contraction in outputs....he changed expansion to day, and contraction to night.....

     

    He is just a good salesman of his books....I could have probably paid him top dollars to be in my M&A team....he would have surely closed some deals...
    4 Jun 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Learn from who? Yoda? The Maharishi? Or Charles Manson?
    4 Jun 2011, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Think you got your timelines messed up. It's like trying to tell me Led Zeppelin invented the blues or something.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    I learn directly from God, Wyatt.
    5 Jun 2011, 03:52 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, Lightway. The language of the Day-Cycle is science. The language of the Night-Cycle is poetry. The long Night-Cycle -- think of America before the European arrived or the so-called Dark-Ages in Europe -- brings poetry back into the foreground. You can't see what I'm seeing unless you have developed your poetic eye.

     

    Pearls and swine.

     

    Comfort is good; power is good. But comfort and power are transient. Then poetry will help get one through the dark -- where poetry becomes the map.

     

    In a metaphorical sense, the Day-Cycles represent the Lord giving, Night-Cycles represent the Lord taking away.
    5 Jun 2011, 03:58 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    Words are surface events. You have to go deeper into concepts and philosophical understandings. Start with Plato.
    5 Jun 2011, 04:00 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    You will turned away at the door, Wyatt. Fools are not allowed in.
    5 Jun 2011, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (10868) | Send Message
     
    Actually, I study Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Sufiism, Judaism, Christianity, Plato, Goethe, Shakespeare, Dante, James Joyce, Tolstoy, Dylan Thomas, Vico and Ficino. Lord of the Rings? Never read it. Was it good?

     

    Put me in the section with the writers I mention above and I will be pleased.
    5 Jun 2011, 04:06 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Yawn!....nonsense.....
    5 Jun 2011, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Admission of defeat.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Killer454
    , contributor
    Comments (957) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is wrong again - as usual.

     

    He is merely parroting a meme that Keynsean leftists have been peddling for a good while now in trying to gin up excuses for Obama's failed "stimulus" and angle for more of the same.

     

    I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial printed a while backl that refuted this nonsense.

     

    The 1937 dip was the result of tax increases and the passage of the National Labor Relations act of 1935 which had the effect of creating labor strikes.
    4 Jun 2011, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm. Didn't know the NLRA was created in '35. Makes sense. We've suffered severe losses ever since. And you'll notice the intrusion by Big Bro into labor which would soon morph into Big Labor which would be used as a cheese funnel for campaign contributions in exchange for more and further intrusions would never be a neutral intrusion.

     

    How come, for instance, Big Bro never acted as an agnostic arbiter as per the Constitution? Why did Big Bro take sides? Why did Big Bro get involved at all? I, as an employer, have just as much a right as the person I hire. No more, no less. Why did Big Bro take sides? We all know why. Corruption.

     

    Why isn't there, instead of a National Labor Relations Board, a National Business Relations Board? Why not err on the creator of jobs side instead of the taker of jobs?

     

    Seems to me the government got it wrong. And we will offshore and offshore and offshore and offshore and then, after that, offshore some more. Then we will hire Rockwell International and robotics every damn plant in the union from auto manufacturers to grocery checkout lines. I don't give a damn anymore.

     

    You want Big Labor, you got it.

     

    Instead, we'll give you the leftovers and rename it small labor.

     

    You had a great thing going America, at one time. Then you got greedy and the government got in your head and you forgot the Constitution.

     

    Enjoy what's left of your 'jobs'.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    "Hmmm. Didn't know the NLRA was created in '35. Makes sense. We've suffered severe losses ever since."

     

    Dude, what gains before? The 1929 crash? The Tulip Bubble? The 1860's Crash that kept the US stagnant for 40 years? I did not know the NLRA was a Time Traveling Police Force. Please, the markets go up, the markets go down.....and you make a billion in either direction. :)
    4 Jun 2011, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    The NLRB has been a drag on productivity ever since its invention, sucking the life out of efficiency which is why business is offshoring and investing in robotics.

     

    The goobermint backed the mob, Hoffa with his billy bats breaking kneecaps in parking lots, extortion, blackmail & turning labor into slaves by forcing them to pay their vig.

     

    Henry Ford weeps.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    If a man came from Mars and read and believed the posts here, he would be forgiven by thinking that America has been taken over by Bolsheviks, it's constitution has been usurped, and the country is in a severe economic depression.
    4 Jun 2011, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    I agree. One would also think the people working for $10 are bat shit crazy when you can get welfare, food stamps, sec. 8, obamacare, etc. for keeping your couch from floating away.
    4 Jun 2011, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    statistics please. how many people eschew a job for welfare, foodstamps, sec. 8 and obamacare? 10%? 20%? All blacks? All mexicans? All martians? And what effect that does that have on the economy? I want concrete statistics so that if you are correct, I will be there in the next rally to kiss every pissed off American.

     

    You guys have misplaced rage.
    4 Jun 2011, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    UR really itching to call me a racist, huh? Unfortunately, I grew up in an all white area; we only had poor white people to hate for being poor. Oh, wait a minute, I was one of them. You probably think I am some pissed off anti social asshole that only looks out for himself; I am not. I am the first person to help someone stranded on the side of the road, or give a homeless person a few bucks for food, or fill in the blank. I think highly of Americans, which is the reason I have contempt for all the bullshit programs that make it more rewarding to be shiftless and lazy than make one's own way in life like previous generations. I don't look up to people who live off the system(you may not think there are any; I have two in my immediate family), but the last thing I will call them is stupid to eschew work for a free ride if someone offers it.
    5 Jun 2011, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    I never said eschewing work for entitlements, we are way beyond that; now there are generation born into the welfare life. If you don't think giving people money/food/housing in exchange for nothing in return doesn't have a negative effect on the economy, you have either figured out the solution to humanity's problem of homelessness and hunger(just give em everything for free) or are plain wrong. There is nothing wrong with falling back on the system when needed, but staying there is another thing entirely. If you want statistics, try google.
    4 Jun 2011, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    You could apply the same thinking to the banks.

     

    Give me unlimited free money and cash in on a coupon instead of investing into the workforce or new businesses, oh hey look I'm a genius now.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Hey. i want my billion @ 0% annually from the Fed discount window so i can hedge it 10 to 1 on a 7.5% bond from GE! Now taht's money!
    4 Jun 2011, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    I call this BS. There is no empirical research to prove what you are asserting.

     

    The most negative effect on the economy is due to the fact that our politicians are in the pockets of corporations, not because some poor black kid who grew up in a poor family also goes on welfare.
    4 Jun 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (15971) | Send Message
     
    ""The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money "

     

    -- Margaret Thatcher
    4 Jun 2011, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4560) | Send Message
     
    Hi Tack –

     

    Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840 wrote “La propriété, c'est le vol!." (Property is theft). Could it be that the truth lies somewhere between Proudhon and Maggie Thatcher on this point?
    4 Jun 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    No. Not even close.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Nah. Why would they want to?

     

    Labor is too expensive here and full of whiner law regulation, PC speech codes, EEO suits, ADA shenanigans, 'harassment' suits, wrongful term suits, gender bias suits, OSHA shakedowns, etc...

     

    Thank a crat for that.

     

    We'll go overseas now.

     

    Thank you very much, but John Galt's getting a new address. Buh-bye.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5299) | Send Message
     
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:45 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Thus said the kid without a job. Enjoy that. Unemployment I hear is a real kick.

     

    Time to pick up the shovel. No one else wants to. Be my guest.

     

    The government has made it a bit too ... uh... prohibitive.
    4 Jun 2011, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    If I agree the banks' free money is wrong, does that mean you agree with me about the welfare?
    5 Jun 2011, 01:00 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    There's no empirical evidence to prove the neg. effect on the economy is due to politicians, either. When huge numbers of people are given money without society getting anything in return, common sense dictates it isn't gonna have a positive effect. Either way, why does it have to be a black kid on welfare? Don't whites receive it as well?
    5 Jun 2011, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    USA is the easiest place in the world to hire and fire. The workers are not the whiners in this case.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Um, no. Tenured teachers? Any unionized shop?
    5 Jun 2011, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    The problem with free enterprise is perfectly illustrated by the existence of US ITAR regulations.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Hey Wyatt, Joe, and Tomas,

     

    What do you think about this Suburu plant in Indiana story? They were able to save money by going green, much in the same way Japanese plants employ kaizen.

     

    None of this was pushed on them by the EPA.

     

    Government could enact a similar initiative with saving energy waste, as 867046 explained above in his list of 10.

     

    www.businessweek.com/m...

     

    In its 22-year history—a period that has spanned three recessions, a global financial crisis, massive U.S. auto bankruptcies, and the departure of Isuzu, a founding partner, from the operation—SIA has rolled out more than 3 million vehicles and has never resorted to layoffs. Instead, it's given workers a wage increase every year of its operation. Staffers also enjoy premium-free health care, abundant overtime ($15,000 each, on average, in 2010), paid volunteer time, financial counseling, and the ability to earn a Purdue University degree on-site—all in a state that has lost 46,000 auto jobs and suffered multiple plant foreclosures in the past decade. And the truly astonishing thing is how it achieved all this: through a relentless focus on eliminating waste. "This is not about recycling, or a nice marketing to-do," says Dean Schroeder, a management professor at Valparaiso University who has studied the plant. "This is a strict dollars-and-cents, moneymaking-and-savings calculation that also drives better safety and quality."

     

    Toyota made kaizen—the Japanese principle of constant "change for the better," with a special focus on efficiency, aka "pushing lean"—famous. SIA, you could say, has instilled green kaizen, or pushing green. Starting in 2002, SIA set a five-year target for becoming the nation's first zero-landfill car factory. That meant recycling or composting 98 percent of the plant's waste—with an on-site broker taking bids for paper, plastic, glass, and metals—and incinerating the remaining 2 percent that isn't recoverable at a nearby waste-to-fuel operation to sell power back to the grid. Within two years, the results spoke for themselves.
    5 Jun 2011, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    What is your point about this Japanese company making cars in Indiana?
    5 Jun 2011, 02:05 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Somebody fails at reading comprehension
    5 Jun 2011, 03:53 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    Waste elimination and efficiency improvement have for a long time been the mostly ignored best way to save energy and money. I forget which city, but just by switching to LED traffic lights they saved over $7 million a year.

     

    But in many places, especially many cities and counties, it is very difficult to sell such programs. If you look around, and especially if you work for or around some local agencies you see things that are so outdated that even dinosaurs would be ashamed. Some areas are much better than others - a few are just horrible, like NYC in some areas.
    5 Jun 2011, 03:56 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    A point is clear and concise not a cut and paste job. You are having a problem with this concept.

     

    If you really understand what you are talking about you can say it in a sentence or two. I am also not bothering to read all your comments to piece your point together.

     

    General sense I get is that government is really good with almost everything they touch and your ears are plugged to the reality and you give them credit for things they did not do.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Lightway, cutting waste to maximize profits is good....

     

    But see how much tax credits were giving to evergreen solar and still the company closed a plan and eliminated 800 jobs without the state being able to recoup anything....

     

    blogs.forbes.com/erics...

     

    So much for "green" jobs...
    5 Jun 2011, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Fess up, you didn't even read it, and no, your senses are off, that's more of you projecting onto a boogeyman.

     

    You think government is 100% bad, I'm just showing you the other side of it, so you brand me your enemy.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    You're mixing up two ideas Joe, and being disingenuous in the process.

     

    Those tax credits are the same thing that ANY company can get, regardless of whether they do "green" technology or not. If you have been following the incentives issue more closely, many states are re-evaluating tax breaks for ANY business because the businesses are often not providing the jobs they said they would.

     

    This game has been going on for the past two decades, where companies will threaten to jump to a new state for tax breaks, or even to another country.

     

    Let's mention Caterpillar and how they are blackmailling the state of Illinois over taxes. (I put Fox News link here cause I know you guys will read as gospel):

     

    nation.foxnews.com/ill...

     

    The Suburu example is different, they went and maximized profits by doing "green" initiatives on their own, showing that you can enact environmentally sound practices and maximize profits. Typically your team will whine about the EPA and how it is crippling their business, when here we seeing being responsible and making money are the same thing.
    5 Jun 2011, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1607) | Send Message
     
    Conclusion: green industry is not cost effective and need taxpayers money to survive more than any industry....so it can be inferred that no more taxpayer money should be given, so they can prove they can make money without such a BIG help of government....."green jobs"..what a joke!
    5 Jun 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    The Fox news prod and the "you guys" is a bit too HuffPost'ish, and adds nothing to the discussion, especially since it was just a link to the original story on another non related site. When you start putting people that post here in your own self-categorized monolithic boxes, you show a bit of tunnel vision yourself.
    5 Jun 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Joe, I agree.
    And any that don't should be reminded by looking at a 1 yr chart in
    ESLR, HEV and AONE that all sucked up lots of taxpayer money, like pigs in the trough.
    The only one that remotely may have benefited from that $$, is Obama, in the way of buying votes from special interests.
    5 Jun 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Big oil gets billions in government aid, what is your conclusion there?

     

    Banks (including your beloved Goldman Sachs) have received trillions in bailout money, which eclipses anything alternative energy programs have received exponentially.

     

    What is your conclusion there?
    5 Jun 2011, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Windsun yes it is, and it's an intentional troll, and I am fully aware of what you're talking about.

     

    They just don't know I know lol.

     

    You haven't been in on the history with these particular guys where I've posted neutral links from places like Bloomberg Businessweek, Forbes, etc, but was accused of "HuffPo" from the getgo.
    5 Jun 2011, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light:

     

    I did read it but it was not obvious to me that I should be celebrating or believing some Japanese company going green to maximize profits. I guess every other corporation in America missed the fact that going green makes you tons of money.

     

    I don't mind green ideas but to think that is a big jobs engine has not been proven and is obscure at best. But that appears to be what is being foisted on the American public by WDC as an economic jobs initiative. I don't see it and the UE rate is not getting it either.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Lightway,

     

    They might get a few tax breaks, but they they are profitable, and pay billions in net taxes.

     

    That's probably why you hate them

     

    If they paid any more, you would be paying. Companies collect taxes and pass on the costs to customers.

     

    If you can't understand that you should stick to CD's at a bank along with Michael Moore Documentaries, not equity investing.

     

    Stop letting your political leanings affect common sense investing.

     

    Has any of the Major diversified Oil companies lost 75% of their value in the last year? XOM, COP, CVX

     

    ESLR HEV AONE.

     

    Do a chart on them before you make youself look like an idiot.
    I rest my case.
    5 Jun 2011, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    If they make so much money why do they need government tax breaks? You failed to explain that, and nice try of minimizing it with "might get a few tax breaks." What about the trillions in superhighway infrastructure that entirely supports their demand? Who pays for that? Government via us tax payers.

     

    You also completely side stepped banks which received the largest tax payer support (government bailouts) in the history of human civilization.
    5 Jun 2011, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    The reason you miss is it because it's on the bleeding edge.

     

    If you're a true IT guy, you should understand the point of using "green" servers which are using much less power and also require less heat which in turn uses less power.

     

    If you want another example see the carpet company below.
    5 Jun 2011, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    Big sigh.

     

    WDC is touting green jobs not saving money on server farms. I don't believe there are many green jobs. This is mostly cost savings and subtle transformation using the same or smaller employee base.

     

    If there are a ton of green jobs to be had but they are bleeding edge than someone tell WDC to shutup because help is not on the way anytime soon.
    6 Jun 2011, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Your comment is based on flawed economics. Why is it always assumed that industry has no long term cost impact on the enviroment?

     

    For example, what would be the free enterprise solution to mercury released into the environment from coal combustion?
    6 Jun 2011, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4419) | Send Message
     
    The vast majority of the so-called green jobs are either low tech (installation, roof work, and the like), or job transfers from other fields. Large installations like solar farms might create jobs for a while, on installation, but they are not permanent jobs. Just for example, we can install a home sized solar panel system of 5KW or so in 2-3 days max. It takes 3 people - one electrician, who already works for us, and two day laborors.

     

    Solar panel factories have now become so automated that what took 10 people 10 years ago can now be done by 2. Most of the rest is just assembly line stuff, no different than soldering wires on an iPod or inserting plastic toys into a box.
    6 Jun 2011, 04:19 AM Reply Like