Re: next the good jobs will go

Rita wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:24:09 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Rita wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:02:27 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Rita wrote:



On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:50:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:




Rita wrote:




On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:29:14 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Aug 2, 12:46 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8826b6b4-7f17-4c41-b053-45d0a85c0ee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





It reminds me of the steel industry years ago. First the Japanese took
the business from us. Then the South Koreans took the business from
them. Now other countries, like Brazil and Vietnam are perched to take
it from South Korea. It's become a familiar scenario: first 3rd-world
countries industrialize then they eventually migrate away from low-
skilled, low-margin industry to high-end products requiring
sophisticated science and technology.

The difference with China, though, seems to be that they're not simply
being pulled along by economic inertia. They're way out in front of
the game with a premeditated, carefully-crafted plan to become the
economic power house of the world. Will the US be able to compete? No.
Will US workers be able to compete? No.

If we are not able to compete, they WILL BECOME the next king of the hill.

As you said in a previous post, anything we can do all they have to do
is copy it and perhaps even make it better in the process. Actually, I
believe there are two different issues. One is industrial
manufacturing and the other is creating new technology. In regard to
industrial manufacturing, we won't even be competing with the Chinese
in the future. We'll be competing with the low-cost producer that took
industrial manufacturing away from China, which will probably be
Vietnam.

In regard to creating new technology, it seems to me that the one who
produces the most scientists and engineers and provides the most
financing will win. That appears to be China I think. One might say,
however, that we have the magic of creativity or ingenuity, etc., on
our side, but that strikes me as wishful thinking.


Something I've wondered about. Does China subsidize the educations
of the scientists and engineers and also the enterprises that hire
them? How much does the government direct the research into areas
it considers important for producing whatever will be done to expand
their markets?

I believe that China does indeed subsidize that education, however, I also believe that as China becomes more and more capitalistic, those subsidies are disappearing, along with the rise of a Chinese educational establishment, as mg has conjectured is developing. But the Chinese thrust is in pure research rather than technological applications, although that is still a significant portion of the employment of those scientists. One of the problems is that foreign engineers and scientists are willing to work for far lower wages than are Americans, even for American companies, hence, the lowering of salaries for those specialties. Given that, it is no wonder that close to 100% of the enrollees in pure science and mathematics graduate and undergraduate programs are foreign students. Of course, Rita, we can quickly stop that by closing the doors to those students, which IMHO is required and immediately so. Doing that will raise the salaries of those specialties, and thus motivate more American students to enter those fields.




And alternatively what does the U.S. do to identify and help
those who have the capability of becoming top scientists, engineers,
and so forth?

Little to nothing. Our educational establishment has been hijacked by the social/emotional school of educational philosophy and further diminished by PL94-132 and its successor legislation with regard to special education, leaving no money left over for promoting the education of the gifted, save what scholarships they themselves can competitively earn.

What research does the U.S. fund toward the



development of new technologies that could make us more competitive
with countries like China?

Minimal funding. Even NASA, the final frontier could not obtain sufficient funding to continue its space exploration programs even on the heels of the successful moon expeditions. NASA saved face by turning to the space shuttle program, which did little. We essentially wasted 30 years.




Or does the U.S. just say, give our corporations enough tax breaks
and they will do it themselves?

That's the Republican mantra and that's what was done under 12 years Reagan/Bush I and 8 more years of Bush II. Even Clinton failed to significantly reverse that trend. Obviously, we see the results.




And as for energy -- to replace dependence on oil does the government
need to invest heavily in the development of new technologies or
leave it to private enterprise?

The government needs to invest VERY heavily in the development of those technologies, in partnership with private enterprise. I have opined many times that the problem was well known, but private enterprise does NOT invest in pure research that doesn't promise somewhat immediate technological breakthroughs which can be translated in profit generating new products. Those steps occur, for private industry, in small steps, but what we needed was a giant leap that wouldn't pay dividends for perhaps 50 years. No corporation is going to spend the development money and not see a return for 50 years. But if government foots the bill, why they'll be happy to do the work, and likely, they will do it well. So, Rita, what is needed is government direction and government funding.




Is it just possible that the free enterprise model might not work
the best in the need to play catch-up and to solve the alternative
energy problem?

The free enterprise model can work well so long as free enterprise doesn't have to worry about the bottom line. That's were government comes in.


Have you looked at the proposals Obama has made with regard to
research in "clean" energy?

Yes. His policies go only towards generating electricity instead of using fossil fuels for energy exchange, as we now do. No doubt this will be required, and encouraged, however, Mr. Obama neglects nuclear power as an immediate alternative which is 100% safe and ecologically friendly. Regardless, he has not said word one about the real and major problem, that being a completely new power source for personal transportation vehicles, which is the major new technology which will be needed and to which I referred. Hydrogen fuel cells are not the answer, nor will they be.


He allows for all feasible solutions when he says:

Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double
science and research funding for clean energy projects including those
that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

His proposal to invest $150 billion over the next ten years is
open-ended.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#invest-in-a-clean

And you can compare them to those made by McCain:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm


Sorry to throw a little water on your parade, but all you have done is validate what I said with a much shorter sentence, "His policies go only towards generating electricity instead of using fossil fuels for energy exchange, as we now do."

Nothing contained within them deals with my stated shortcoming of developing a new technology for personal transportation vehicles.


Comparing two people, neither of whom addresses what the real problem is which will require the majority of government funding is not going to solve the problem. I would rather expect Obama to come out in favor of a major governmental initiative, which IMHO, is what is sorely needed, for the reasons I offered, and back it up with funding, as have Democrats in the past, notably JFK and the space program. I don't expect much more from McCain, and when I don't get it, I'm not surprised. But I should expect more from Obama, and when I don't get it, why that's a shame.


$150 billion over ten years is not enough?

No. Not when it doesn't direct itself to the problem.


And your detailed proposal?

Spend the money instead for basic research with the goal of developing fusion technology, or some other, as yet unidentified technology and then miniaturizing it so it can be used as a power source for personal transportation vehicles as well as for other uses to replace the sources we currently use for energy generation. The bulk of the money must go towards basic research and developing technologies which do not exist and deal with the powering of personal transportation vehicles. That does not mean that we should not spend money on making those energy sources you mentioned more efficient; we should. However, we have right now, a non-polluting energy source which can be used right now to significantly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels for the generating of electricity. I see no mention of this source in Obama's plans. Another severe shortcoming.

You see, Rita, when you have a plan, it contains both long range and short range goals which are required to solve on-going problems. Obama's plan is sorely lacking with respect to that insight. And since this technology doesn't yet exist, he had better get prepared to spend perhaps double the 150 billion.


Which given the deficit and other needs of the economy would be
very difficult to find -- that extra $150 billion. I do think this
is an area that should not be stinted on so long as there is some
reasonable chance of the research producing results.

Now you're making excuses for his shortcomings. Government spends money where it has to and doesn't were it is unnecessary. I'm sure we can agree on at least one expense of government which has cost our nation in excess of 80 billion dollars. And if necessary, you raise taxes. As far as your comments are concerned, there is NO chance of the research producing the results, because they're not focusing on the problem. In fact, taking the areas you and Obama mentioned, I believe those can be left to the private sector without significant government intervention, because of the fact that those areas are beginning to become attractive and the technology needs only tweaking. Sensing short term profits, business will not hesitate to invest in that. Both I and mg have essentially agreed that such is the case with the private sector, and we both told you that. the problem that really needs the attention of Government is long term, with NO immediate or short term goals, and therefore private enterprise will NOT make the investments necessary. But they'll be happy to spend government's money and government's role is to direct the research and provide the expenditures to make it so.

Since almost nothing is being done at present, it will take time to
get up to speed and some success would mean more investment would be
easier to sell.

We've already fallen 30 years behind because of the successive Republican Administrations and the relative benign neglect of the Carter Administration. And it will take at least 10 years of research, IMHO, before we even get some clue as to where we ought to be going.

But, better late than never. Now, if Obama was a real leader....
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: next the good jobs will go
    ... manufacturing and the other is creating new technology. ... the final frontier could not obtain sufficient funding to continue its space exploration programs even on the heels of the successful moon expeditions. ... The government needs to invest VERY heavily in the development of those technologies, ... research in "clean" energy? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT- More wasteful government spending
    ... The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in *** ... research funded by the US government ***, say that generating power in ... compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar ... been done with government money, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: space travel or war
    ... It is the today the federal government that wants to capitalize on the ... limiter of revolutionary technology that, ... would "undercut" the very foundation of our energy ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: OT- More wasteful government spending
    ... The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in *** ... research funded by the US government ***, say that generating power in ... compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar ... been done with government money, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: BO going to raise prices
    ... He supports a technology that probably will never exist or be practical? ... "Obama has said repeatedly that he supports CLEAN COAL ... field by suppporting a party that's beholden to the fossil fuel industry. ... It's because of this that energy is as expensive as it is. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Loading