Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 8:42 am

Ray Jay wrote:Better to have cheap flat screen TVs subsidized by foreign governments and foreign taxpayers.

Possibly. But those countries will look at ROI and figure it is worth it. The US subsidises a lot of its own economy anyway. Another way of looking at this though is if no-one inthe US is workimg on building something, and all of the profits go abroad, what is the US doing to earn the momey tobuy them?

The foreign governments will get their subsidies back through taxes on profits and on wages, they are also not 'subsidising' unemployment as much as a result. It is interesting to look at these thinhs holistically and outside of ideological silos sometimes.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 9:17 am

Flat Screens are a BAD comparison that you want to keep insisting on. Consumer Electronics is all but dead outside of Asia, subsidizing that would have been a colossal waste of money, electric cars ...maybe! But to continue on the flat screen angle only weakens the point. Government funding of research of better engine and alternate designs, great, good plan! But to subsidize a loser, to try and force such a product to market that is not efficient is just plain dumb.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 9:23 am

Tom, isn't this company somewhat close to your neck of the woods:

http://www.corning.com/displaytechnolog ... /GGTV.aspx

Their manufacturing facilities are in Asia but there's still a lot of value added in the US and many good jobs as a result.

Danivon:
Have you seen the Japanese public debt level? It is over 200% of GDP.


And this is an argument for what? Japan's economy has struggled for 20 years now.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 9:28 am

Danivon:
Another way of looking at this though is if no-one inthe US is workimg on building something, and all of the profits go abroad, what is the US doing to earn the momey tobuy them?


Corning made over $1.7 Billion US last year so clearly all of the profits didn't go abroad.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GLW+Inc ... ent&annual

It is interesting to look at these thinhs holistically and outside of ideological silos sometimes.


Exactly.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 9:33 am

Sweet looking tv! Yes they are not too far from me, but they make GLASS and not televisions. Heck, where I work we manufacture some electronics items, high end pro audio stuff and they kick ass (unfortunately nothing you or I would ever be able to use unless you were in the broadcast market), but we simply can not afford to compete with Asia on any large volume items, as stated "consumer electronics" are DOA outside of Asia for the most part. Value added is great, but should we subsidize this glass tv screen by millions of dollars so Corning can employ another dozen people? The market will determine what is needed, governments can certainly help tweak things of course, but we are talking tweaking not driving demand as the goal is for these electric cars.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 10:14 am

GMTom wrote: Value added is great, but should we subsidize this glass tv screen by millions of dollars so Corning can employ another dozen people? The market will determine what is needed, governments can certainly help tweak things of course, but we are talking tweaking not driving demand as the goal is for these electric cars.


I agree. Even the tweaks can be dangerous as they inevitably grow.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 10:22 am

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:
Another way of looking at this though is if no-one inthe US is workimg on building something, and all of the profits go abroad, what is the US doing to earn the momey tobuy them?


Corning made over $1.7 Billion US last year so clearly all of the profits didn't go abroad.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GLW+Inc ... ent&annual

It is interesting to look at these thinhs holistically and outside of ideological silos sometimes.


Exactly.


The fallacy of comparing big-screen TVs with electric cars: people want bigger, better TVs. They don't want small, limited in range electric vehicles. Furthermore, what is the benefit of putting MORE strain on an electric grid that is already straining?

This is more promising than any car we've seen so far. What we need is more and better storage in addition to more and better production of energy.

Rickyp constantly argues we must have more government "investment" or the Chinese will corner the solar panel market. The Chinese are losing their shirts and pants in that market.

If they want to go broke building cars no one wants, let them.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 10:35 am

I don't know whether Tom or Ray , you are being deliberately obtuse...
However I wasn't arguing that the US should subsidize an American display industry today.
I was using the example for what happened to the display industry as an example of what can happen when the US government shoves its head into an ideological hole and refuses to compete with an industrial strategy in the world economy.
The reason displays are DOA in the US is because of decisions made in the 80s and 90s Tom....
I bring up those past decisions because the ideological argument is being made about the electric car...

Currently there is government involvement in the electric car development in many countries. Including at this time, the USA. Should the US decide to follow the policies of the 80s and 90s typified by the display industry .... it might well be that in 20 years Tom is saying "Oh the electric car industry is DOA in the US. Its only in Germany and the orient..."

What happens when an industry out sources its core competencies? It loses them in its home geography. And you get companies reporting lots of profit, but employing few Americans. So, maybe some executives take home a huge pay check, but there are few middle class and working class employees ... The back bone of a middle class society.
Corporations don't care about the long term health of a society when they make decisions...

On the other hand, hundreds of long term subsidies for agriculture and other businesses continue unabated. And do nothing to help develop new employment areas, but do deepen profits at certain big agra companies...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 10:48 am

rickyp wrote:Corporations don't care about the long term health of a society when they make decisions...


On the other hand, President Obama doesn't care about the long term health of our society either. If he did, he would not pour money into losing propositions. He would not be so bent on dividing us by gender, race, class, and education. He would not be propagating new regulations when the old ones aren't yet understood. He would not, with a straight face, predict everything but a zombie apocalypse if Sequester goes through (then again, he still has time to predict that).

The man is creating a chaotic, divided, and broke nation. That does not auger well for our long term health, but it gives him short-term political capital, which is all he cares about.

How is he "better" than a corporation?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 11:00 am

Ricky:
On the other hand, hundreds of long term subsidies for agriculture and other businesses continue unabated. And do nothing to help develop new employment areas, but do deepen profits at certain big agra companies...


I agree that we should not subsidize agriculture. It's a perfect example of what happens when companies learn to feed off of the public trough.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 11:14 am

and another example of subsidies going bad. and the flat screen market, thanks for continuing to deepen your hole. Nobody said "now" but the electronics industry outside Asia has been dead for far longer than flat screens have been around. Trust me, I work in the industry, you can not compete in volume! I don't care how much the government tries to subsidize it, we can not compete! Stick with what we do best, cars are a fine example. I do not think these electric cars are a good bet but you can make your arguments in that arena, consumer electronics???? Aint gonna happen! That market has been gone FAR longer than when flat screens were being developed. Work on what you do best, invest on what you do best, invest on something that people want.
Flat screens ...not what we do best
Electric cars ...not what people want
you need both to make it work.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 12:46 pm

tom
Nobody said "now"


except you who keeps saying it.
tom
I work in the industry, you can not compete in volume! I don't care how much the government tries to subsidize it, we can not compete!


I'll repeat Tom. The decisions to out source the elctrocis display business began in the 80's and finished in the nineties. They had agreat deal to do with South Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese govenrment subsidies and eventually Chinese...

The reason you can accurately say "you can not compete" is because nobody in the US govenrment decidced to compete in the 80s and 90s. Or even before, but the dipla businesss really ip and left in the 80s.
Applied to electric cars, we're talking about a strong electronic car industry, somewhere in the world, in 2030. Whether its the US ....we'll see,.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 1:14 pm

there you go again, the government can make everything better. That simply is not the case, it could not do so in the electronics industry years ago, it is going to no further good by attempting to do it with subsidizing electric cars today. I agree research being partially funded by the government may well be worth the cost but subsidizing car sales is simply a foolish idea. In fact, you yourself have to agree based upon what you say here, the Asian governments helped fund research, did they subsidize each sale? A subsidy like we are talking about for the Volt ("supercharging sales") is the govt attempting to create demand by giving cash back programs to consumers that simply do not want them. Should they give the cars away? Surely that will create demand? Where does it all end for you? Governments are not the drivers of a market like this, people will buy what is in demand, electric cars are still a long ways from being in demand and the unforeseen consequences of adding to an electric grid nearly maxed out, a sudden explosion of new (also costly) electric demand. Look how they mangled the whole ethanol mess! No, the government should "help" by funding some R&D ...maybe, creating demand is not what they should be doing. You insist government interference is good, it is not!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 2:25 pm

tom
there you go again, the government can make everything better.

yeah thats what i said.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Feb 2013, 2:33 pm

"yeah, that's what I said":
The reason you can accurately say "you can not compete" is because nobody in the US govenrment decidced to compete in the 80s and 90s.

an example of what can happen when the US government shoves its head into an ideological hole and refuses to compete with an industrial strategy in the world economy.

Should the US decide to follow the policies of the 80s and 90s typified by the display industry ....

the governments of South Korea and Japan and Taiwan heavily subsidized the development of flat screen manufacturing capacity and the development of the technology. ...consider the jobs and the permanent industry that has been created in these three centres,...

The Asian Tigers subsidized in order to build an industry in their country, that has previously been American. They made their nations more interesting to companies seeking to out source for short term profits

Yes, you did indeed!