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 27 Feb 2013, 2:04 am

Ray Jay wrote: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.

It is not an argument. It's highlighting a fact. Given some of you were talking about ants and credit cards, I figured why not?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Feb 2013, 12:20 pm

tom
Yes, you did indeed!


I gave you a specific example of where US government abdicated responsibility for an national industrial policy to the private sector. Its outcome was the outsourcing of an entire industry to the far east. And I offered this as an example for why the subsidization of the US electric car might make sense.

I didn't offer government intervention in the economy as a blanket solution, which is what you imply or misinterpret my words ...

Critical thinking requires the ability to differentiate between specificity and generalizations.

It also requires the ability to understand that conditions that repeat themselves in industrial development cycles can indicate what will happen in the next decade or 20 years... That's why the comparison between the loss of the display industry and the need to compete with other governments within the electric car sector is important. Fate could well be right, though that would be a departure from form, and the electric car might never become a major product segment.
In that case, every government that is involved in their electric car sectors (about 12) will be wrong and suffer.
If on the other hand Fate is wrong, and in 20 years the electric car is an accepted and thriving segment of the transportation sector, every government that is currently involved will have helped ensure that their economies are benefiting from participation in manufacturing.
If on the other hand, the US followed the ideological bent of "free market" and refused to compete with other governments and the sector prevailed .... it would be another case of losing an industry sector. All due to ideological blinders.....
Its all well and good to depend on the wisdom of the markets .... but if you believe that the global markets are not influenced by competitive government intervention... then you are uninformed.
Cleaving to the non-interventionist policy when your competitors are intervening is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. And leaving the future of your countries industrial sector to the vagaries of international corporations machinations over profit enhancement will continue to see a hollowing out of the economy.
Buts that's situational. As I agree with Ray, that ongoing subsidies in things like US agricultural are outmoded, out dated and a poor use of tax dollars- its obvious I don't think Government is the answer.... I think it has a role sometimes.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Feb 2013, 1:30 pm

woah, because the us government failed to subsidize the flat screen tv market, an entire industry was outsourced? Wow, just wow, the electronics industry was near nothing in the us when flat screens were being heavily researched. If we had funded the development, cheap electronics production would still have been made in Asia, we lost absolutely NOTHING in this example! But no, your "example" that you continue to harp on is a poor one, you urge we should fund I guess anything and everything since it "might" lead to production 30 years later? But wait, we should have funded flat screen tv research even though such electronics were long gone from the US but farm subsidies, those are bad? What if I say we should subsidize the development of Kangaroo fur as a possible new renewable energy source? seems to be just about the same to me.

and while I did read what you have stated (does anyone here disagree Ricky has NOT railed on and on how the Government should be interfering in just about every aspect of our lives?) you clearly did not read what I had said. You claim I do not think global markets are not influenced by government intervention, yet clearly I stated a few times that governments can certainly tweak things and I even suggested funding is one thing yet subsidizing sales of a loser car is another.

I also have to ask again, why is the US responsible for this subsidizing? Why has Canada not done so? Canada has plenty of US car manufacturing companies in her, should not your own country be responsible for such subsidies? Wait, Canada does not do that sort of thing, you prefer to throw rocks across the border at us for doing everything so wrong.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Feb 2013, 4:06 pm

tom
Wow, just wow, the electronics industry was near nothing in the us when flat screens were being heavily researched.


Yuu have a source? Because as far as I know;
The first-ever flat panel display was invented in 1964 at the University of Illinois. The first-ever active-matrix addressed display was made by T Peter Brody's Thin-Film Devices department at Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1968. All US innovation...
And Zenith, the last major US manufacturer, stopped making television sets in the US in 1989.. There is a move afoot today to move some manufacturing back to North America because the cost of shipping very large screens is high, But the technological developments in display are no longer made in the US, but in Asia...And the companies opening up assembly in the US, are not American any more.

tom
woah, because the us government failed to subsidize the flat screen tv market, an entire industry was outsourced?

The cost of labour was a major factor. Thats why Mexico was the first site for out sourcing. But Taiwan, particulary subsidized industries in order to establish display manufacturing . They now have 50% of the global market.
So subsidization wasn't the only reason for out sourcing, but its the reason Taiwan now has 50% of the global market...
Today, there's no display technology innovation anymore in the US.... So if manufacturing comes back to the US, it will be because labour costs in the US are now low enough to compete assemblying sets designed and engineered in Taiwan , when shipping is factored in...
You understand that means that the industry cashed out in the 80's, and over a decade, handed their businesses to Taiwan?

Tom, lets say that the electric car does take off. In that case would you prefer, the US to have an electric car manufacturing industry? Or just import the cars from Asia or Germany?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Feb 2013, 12:09 pm

exactly...Zenith was the last (last mind you) tv manufacturer to pull out of the US in 1989, all others were already long gone, radios, etc, all long gone as well. Then you go on to tell us all about the history of flat screen displays and how it went back to the 60's but please, we are not talking about the actual invention but rather the subsidizing of the market, that was not done in the 60's flat screens are a somewhat recent consumer innovation that date back to when electronics were already long gone in the States (and Canada ...you fail to answer why Canada gets off the hook for the subsidizing, why the US and not Canada?)

and if the product comes back it is because of productivity and shipping costs, thanks for pointing out it has nothing to do with government subsidizing and how we can quite easily copy the technology that these other governments have spent so much money on developing and we can easily take back! So again, why would the US be better off subsidizing a market we already lost and would easily switch to where the economics made the most sense to produce? Seems to me like you are helping me a great deal ...thanks!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Feb 2013, 4:35 pm

Then you go on to tell us all about the history of flat screen displays and how it went back to the 60's but please, we are not talking about the actual invention but rather the subsidizing of the market, that was not done in the 60's flat screens are a somewhat recent consumer innovation that date back to when electronics were already long gone in the States (and Canada

Taiwan set up the Hsnichu Technical Park in 1980 and attracted optical electronics and semi conductors out of the US through the 80s.
In Korea
during the 1970s the creation of a favourable environment for scientific activities was another major objective. To achieve this, the general awareness of the importance of S&T was increased and "scientific thought patterns" promoted. Educational activities along these lines were also emphasized by the Korean government and educational institutions.

In the 1980s, the Republic of Korea had to compete with developed countries in some high-technology industries. To succeed in such competition, R&D systems in Korea had to be reorganized into a more efficient and harmonious whole. In 1980, therefore, the government merged 16 research institutes to create nine new ones. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) took responsibility for coordinating the R&D of the reorganized institutes. To make such coordination effective, MOST supported the financing of all of these institutes except the Korea Ginseng and Tobacco Research Institute, which is financially supported by the Office of Monopoly.

Since 1982, national projects have been carried out to compete internationally in the development of high technology. The two main categories of national projects are Government Projects and Government-Industry Joint Projects. During the period from 1982 to 1984, 214 Government Projects were conducted and 38 billion won was spent on them. Three hundred and forty-five Government-Industry Joint Projects were carried out during the same period, financed by industry to the tune of 17 billion won. These projects have contributed significantly to the sharp increase in the R&D expenditures of government-sponsored research institutes. The government budget for national projects has been increasing, and reached 30 billion won in 1985 and 50 billion won in 1986.


You think there;s something coincidental about the timeline of government investment in technology in Korea and Taiwan and removal of the US display industry to these countries through the 80S, culminating in Zeniths closing?
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupboo ... 04te0f.htm
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 7:12 am

government investing helped, no doubt. Cheap labor, few environmental concerns, less governmental interference, those helped even more. Funny thing how everything you post is just what i said like this is supposed to prove anything? The US (world for that matter) electronics manufacturing had already shifted to Asia before 1980, Zenith was the LAST to go, Zenith is no good example when most had already left long before they did. And flat screen subsidizing, flat screens were not even a concern in 1980. Your posting even points out the first line "during the 1970's" further showing my point. You also earlier mentioned how some of this business may be coming back thanks to shipping and other costs ...further proof that subsidizing things is not the cure-all you wish us to believe. Yes, the government can help tweak things but someone has to pay the piper Ricky, buying an industry will cost you plenty and it's fickle, your examples also point out how much Korea spent yet over half of the flat screen market is in Taiwan (cheaper labor than South Korea)
...keep on trying to sell this super-duper example of yours, it's falling and the electric car subsidies, also falling flat
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 8:17 am

tom
Cheap labor, few environmental concerns, less governmental interference, those helped even more. Funny thing how everything you post is just what i said like this is supposed to prove anything? The US (world for that matter) electronics manufacturing had already shifted to Asia before 1980


Less government interference? Did you read this?
Since 1982, national projects have been carried out to compete internationally in the development of high technology. The two main categories of national projects are Government Projects and Government-Industry Joint Projects. During the period from 1982 to 1984, 214 Government Projects were conducted and 38 billion won was spent on them. Three hundred and forty-five Government-Industry Joint Projects were carried out during the same period, financed by industry to the tune of 17 billion won. These projects have contributed significantly to the sharp increase in the R&D expenditures of government-sponsored research institutes. The government budget for national projects has been increasing, and reached 30 billion won in 1985 and 50 billion won in 1986.


Tom, the electronics industry left for Japan, SOuth Korea and Taiwan...beginning in the 1960s, yes. Transistor radios etc.
But the high technology sector was developed through programs like I've linked. Cheap labour alone doesn't create a technological industry... It was an entree into the area for the Asian Tigers, but they wanted to own the industries... You admit they now do. Somehow you think the fact they had mostly left by 89 is a mitigating factor... I don't get that... Gone is gone.
I've argued that the US government involvement in the electric car industry through various programs is important to ensure that in 2030 the Us doesn't look back and suddenly notice that electric cars are big news and they are being imported... Only. There are an awful lot of good high technology jobs in Korea and Taiwan that were lost because the Asian Tigers put these programs in place. Not just assembling...but design and development..which is now done for the most part in those countries.Now, the US is looked at as a source of cheap labour for the very big displays in NOT a good thing.

All you're doing is chasing your tail here. And as usual missing the point. The display industries are a cautionary tale . Out sourcing isn't just a case of out sourcing labour when the competitive countries are actively seeking to develop industries that are competitive in the core competencies...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 9:00 am

rickyp wrote:I've argued (ad nauseum) that the US government involvement in the electric car industry through various programs is important to ensure that in 2030 the Us doesn't look back and suddenly notice that electric cars are big news and they are being imported... (bold added)


Yes, you have. What you've never done is demonstrate where the electricity for these cars will come from.

Solar? Wind?

More expensive, by far, than oil and natural gas.

What about our inefficient grid system?

You have no answer.

What about our grid systems lack of capacity to supply power for 10's of millions of electric cars?

You have no answer.

What about the inefficiency of electric cars? The relative lack of demand for them? The fact that the technology is still underwhelming?

No answer, no answer, and no answer.

Merely pouring money into subsidizing vehicles is not an answer.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 9:32 am

and he has also ignored why it's up to the US to invest the money, yet Canada would reap many of the rewards, why does he expect his country should not have to Subsidize this technology?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 9:41 am

and FYI Ricky, your poor example is still poor no matter how hard you try,
Here's an example for you
I'm a purchasing agent, I buy crap from countries all around the world. I have a major supplier in South Korea, They have been forced to relocate most of their manufacturing to China, even South Korea has trouble competing with the low labor rates in China. And SOME things have been coming back to the US thanks to their labor costs rising. The government simply can not subsidize everything made, if you think electric cars are the next big hope and all cars will soon be electric, hey, maybe you are right? But as has been stated, demand is not there, demand (as in your flat screen example) will simply not be driven by those who have money, other technologies are making electric desired less, the electric grid can't handle a tremendous increase, it goes on and on and on. This is a failed program, and it's going to continue to fail!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 11:13 am

Fate
Yes, you have. What you've never done is demonstrate where the electricity for these cars will come from.
Solar? Wind?


If you believe Shell oil more than Fate ..... And I for one believe that they have more expertise...

Solar could overtake oil as the world’s dominant energy source by 2060 in one scenario envisioned by Royal Dutch Shell.
Renewables could make up as much as 30% to 40% of the global energy mix by 2060, as oil loses its reign as the world’s biggest energy source, the oil giant said in a forecast on the energy sector’s changing landscape.
Renewable energy could reach perhaps “60-70% saturation if the time horizon is extended still further,” the report noted
.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... =3978-ae72

Shell also just built the biggest solar field in Europe so they have put their money where their mouth is...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 11:35 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Yes, you have. What you've never done is demonstrate where the electricity for these cars will come from.
Solar? Wind?


If you believe Shell oil more than Fate ..... And I for one believe that they have more expertise...

Solar could overtake oil as the world’s dominant energy source by 2060 in one scenario envisioned by Royal Dutch Shell.
Renewables could make up as much as 30% to 40% of the global energy mix by 2060, as oil loses its reign as the world’s biggest energy source, the oil giant said in a forecast on the energy sector’s changing landscape.
Renewable energy could reach perhaps “60-70% saturation if the time horizon is extended still further,” the report noted
.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... =3978-ae72

Shell also just built the biggest solar field in Europe so they have put their money where their mouth is...


Calendar check . . . it's 2013 and we're supposed to go all in on "could . . by 2060?"

:laugh:

From your article:

Shell says renewables may account for up to 40% of total energy demand by 2060, but it’s an optimistic projection, as logistics and storage issues would limit uses of renewable energy.

In the high-growth scenario solar will likely emerge as the dominant energy source, rising currently from its position as the 13th largest energy source worldwide, to displacing oil, gas and coal. Solar could account for 37% of all energy source by 2100, Shell forecasts.


"Logistics and storage issues?"

Gee whiz--I think that's what I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Even if your dreams come true, solar will be 37% of energy . . . in 83 years!

That will be great for my great-great-great grandchildren.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 1:12 pm

c'mon DF, government subsidies today will support an entire industry in 80some years! What a bargain
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2013, 1:23 pm

No, Tom. Government subsidies don't need to do that. They could work in the same way as they did in the US for shale gas extraction - investment early on, which then leads to the industry being able to be viable on its own within a few decades.

That's why the US is one of the current leaders in shale gas. Evil government subsidies!!!