• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Al Gore "Mr. affordable electric cars" with $500M stimulus money

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
At last one that can be blamed squarely on George Bush. This slush fund was approved in 2007. OTOH I have heard no one in Congress decry this practice.

Why are the taxpayers funding any of this shit? And, if anyone can answer that one, why are we funding 100 K cars?

We tossed a half billion down a rat hole with the Solyndra. There is another few billion of dubious green company loans that almost certainly will result in default after being bled by the investors. We've got places like the DOE owned facility near Boulder that is being managed to the tune of a couple of billion by outside investors, we subsidize the food for fuel program, the windmill program, and lord knows how many other similar programs, and we are trusting this bunch of idiots to reduce the deficit.

The fools aren't on Wall Street, the fools aren't on Pennsylvania Avenue, the fools are on Main Street.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
At last one that can be blamed squarely on George Bush. This slush fund was approved in 2007. OTOH I have heard no one in Congress decry this practice.

Why are the taxpayers funding any of this shit? And, if anyone can answer that one, why are we funding 100 K cars?

We tossed a half billion down a rat hole with the Solyndra. There is another few billion of dubious green company loans that almost certainly will result in default after being bled by the investors. We've got places like the DOE owned facility near Boulder that is being managed to the tune of a couple of billion by outside investors, we subsidize the food for fuel program, the windmill program, and lord knows how many other similar programs, and we are trusting this bunch of idiots to reduce the deficit.

The fools aren't on Wall Street, the fools aren't on Pennsylvania Avenue, the fools are on Main Street.

Nothing wrong with the government backing risky ventures in new technologies. So long as the business model works. My only problemn here is the production plant in Europe. Perhaps it was simply easier to get permits there.LOL

This isn't Solyndra, which BTW the BUSH folks initiated, but then put on hold when the model seemed shaky.

I don't see any evidence of poor management and in the end, we do see a real functioning product. Even if Al gore is involved,I cannot condem it as the results are frankly, spectacular.

This isn't a Chevy Volt or a Leaf or even a Prius hybrid but a true electric high end sportster. The market determines success or failure and I would surely entertain the idea to buy one of these.

When, of course, my Crossfire dies.

Meanwhile, instead of having the government create and then subsidize a car for the poor guys that is always a committee designed compromise, and frankly no one wants, let the rich pay for the development and then trickle down the engineering to a more common car we can all afford. And if an electric sports car is a status symbol, then everyone will wish they had one.

marketing genius!


franc
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Frank, there is everything wrong with the government funding this technology, or any other. Simply, government funds for the wrong reasons, and the global warming scam is a good example. The funding here is pacification for the greenies, which translates into votes or grants for past or potential contributors. If electric cars are marketable, then they will be marketed. If alcohol works as a fuel, then it will be produced. Meantime, viable energy sources go wanting as they cannot compete with subsidized energy. Even the supply of market fuels is being cut by putting sources off limits or making the permit process so lengthy and costly that it no longer becomes viable.

Your point about the rich paying for the technology is valid, but the government is not the rich, you and me are paying, in the form of yet more taxes and borrowed money.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Frank, there is everything wrong with the government funding this technology, or any other. Simply, government funds for the wrong reasons, and the global warming scam is a good example. The funding here is pacification for the greenies, which translates into votes or grants for past or potential contributors. If electric cars are marketable, then they will be marketed. If alcohol works as a fuel, then it will be produced. Meantime, viable energy sources go wanting as they cannot compete with subsidized energy. Even the supply of market fuels is being cut by putting sources off limits or making the permit process so lengthy and costly that it no longer becomes viable.

Your point about the rich paying for the technology is valid, but the government is not the rich, you and me are paying, in the form of yet more taxes and borrowed money.

By your logic we would still be staring at the moon wondering of what flavor cheese it was made.

That this can be abused is obvious. And the bigger we allow the government to become, the more money is around for such abuse.

Frankly, I would prefer our tax dollars (supposedly wasted) being at risk on such adventures than paying for inner city whores to have more babies for taxpayers to support.

With the electric car we get a viable product of some use and benefit. With entitlements we get a cycle of generations of dependents. Dependents that have a birthright to freebies and no obligation to be productive because,,,,,it's not their fault they were born to poverty. God forbid they become a useful part of the work force.

Sorry for the rant but the government should be promoting the general welfare not generaly promoting welfare. Aiding business in blazing new technologies does the former. Progressive liberal programs spending tax dollars on the nonproductive and the folks squatting on Wall Street want the latter.

Since the 1965 Johnson war on poverty our government has increased spending on benefits to the poor by 5400%. Yet today, one in nine Americans are on food stamps and 73% of minority babies are born to unwed mothers.

The American business model has been gutted and can no longer afford the luxury of R&D because it has been asked to support, along with a host of other things, the burden of of such social programs.

You want jobs here? Steel ain't coming back, Coal aint coming back, Textiles ain't coming back, printing and publishing ain't coming back.

Best we invent something new, something no one else has. Then make it here and sell it to the world. A little help from the government which stole the goose in the first place would be fine by me.


franc
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I do not necessarily disagree with pure research funding, and the space program was just that. It just seems to me that instead of funding energy research, the government has selected certain projects for uncertain reasons, and is no longer engaged in pure research. The big difference between your thinking and mine is that you believe that government is the answer, and I believe that government is the problem. Since Obama took office, energy costs have approximately doubled, and that is not because raw energy supply is decreasing, but because government actions have created an artificial shortage. Energy costs are the second largest component of manufacturing costs behind labor. Both are highly regulated. Seems to me that the logical answer is for government to get out of the way.

I think your last statement, that the government who stole our goose should fix the problem is the difference in our thinking. Aren't you presuming that the goose stealer is now going to give us back the golden egg? You seem to be advocating a smaller government role and at the same time advocating increased government intervention.

I totally agree that the government has no business funding welfare. But it does not follow that the money saved should be freed for yet another government project. The money saved should be returned to its owner. That is me.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Points taken Sir. frankly I wish we had the luxury of being "pure Constitutionalist" But that will mean different things to different people.

Let us review some history. Our Nation's greatness comes from it's growth and properity. Name anything that built our nation and then separate the government's involvement in that success story.

Railroads, steel, telegraph, Canals, bidges, roads, infastructures all took cooperation and often investment by the government. These are big items, hard assets, that can be seen as for the common good. But other things, like medicines, chemicals, technologies happen in Government subsidized laboratories, in Universities and colleges all over the nation.

"The business of America is business." That statement By T Roosevlt inherently suggests, no isnsists, that our government must support by investment of time, energy and capital, those projects that advance our economy.

And cosequently our citizens.

The railroad companies got rich by this, so did steel mills, communiications, oil companies, aerospace and so on. And thousands of entreprenuers thoughout our history. The efforts made millionaires out of some, and put enough people to work to create the largest middle class in world history.

Hide a million dollars under your mattress and see how much it improves the lives of anyone. Divide it up, give it away to a thousand people and see how little life improves for everyone.

As I have said many times before, Wealth does not simply exist. It must be created. True Wealth cannot be simply inherited or taken. It must be organized, created, exploited and supported to be sustained. And to grow.

Nothing wrong with our nation's leaders responsibly promoting such "General Welfare." The problem is not government support of emerging technologies but cronyism and corruption. That breeds Solyndra and Ethanol from Corn.

And National Health Care.


franc
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Another 529 million rathole. Turns out the Fiskar will only run 32 miles on a full battery, then it acts like an SUV. $10,000 over budget. And this one is a Finnish rathole.

From Yahoo. I left the comments, nearly as good as the article

This week the 2012 Fisker Karma ($96,895 base price) cleared its last hurdle for sale in the U.S., having finally received emission certification and fuel economy ratings from the EPA and thus allowing dealers to begin selling the car.

However, the story is not all good.

The Karma appears to have fallen short of several of Fisker’s original performance claims for the car, according to the EPA at least.

The 2012 Fisker Karma in electric only mode is rated at a combined 52 MPGe, the EPA’s newly formulated methodology for rating electric cars. Essentially, this unit reflects how far an electric car will run on the same amount of battery energy as is contained in one gallon of gasoline.

Firstly, you’ll note that the Karma’s 52 MPGe rating is well short of the Nissan Leaf’s 99 MPGe rating and the Chevrolet Volt’s 93 MPGe figure. Secondly, in electric only mode, the Karma will only take you 32 miles according to the EPA, well short of the Leaf’s 73 miles and the Volt’s 35 miles. Fisker, however, still stands by its claims that you’ll get at least 50 miles of electric only running.

Once its batteries are depleted, the Karma, like the Volt, kicks into range-extender mode where a small internal combustion engine acts as a generator and is used to top up the batteries. The real shocker is that in this mode, the Karma will only return 20 miles to the gallon. That’s right, the same as one of its V-8 powered rivals.

That little tidbit was revealed by Fisker's director of global communications, Roger Ormisher, in an interview with GreenCarReports.

To be fair, the 2012 Fisker Karma is the first product from a startup yet is still a very capable and fully fledged luxury sedan with decent performance and zero emissions when driven for short distances. We just hope that Fisker’s next model, the U.S.-built Project Nina, will improve substantially on these numbers. @yahooautos on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

More on Yahoo! Autos

1 - 4 of 13
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/epa-rat...y-20-mpg-in-range-extender-mode.html#previoushttp://autos.yahoo.com/news/epa-rates-fisker-karma-at-only-20-mpg-in-range-extender-mode.html#next








JimboComment Guidelines
profile_48d.png

Please Enter a Comment Manage Updates

ybangch16_1.gif

fb_16_012110.gif
Add Facebook
twitter_16_20101207.gif
Add Twitter








243 comments






More
Post a comment


Follow Us!




  1. Join us on Facebook!

    Add Yahoo! Autos to your social network

  2. Follow us on Twitter!

    Get top Yahoo! Autos buzz in your feed


Photos

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/epa-rat...y-20-mpg-in-range-extender-mode.html#previoushttp://autos.yahoo.com/news/epa-rates-fisker-karma-at-only-20-mpg-in-range-extender-mode.html#next






More photo galleries»


Top Rated

Category: Sedans


View more of Most Popular Cars »


RESEARCH A CAR




Green Technologies




  1. Hybrid/Electric

    Gasoline engine + electric motor = greater efficiency
    See cars»

  2. Ethanol

    Flex-fuel cars run on 85% ethanol (e-85) or gasoline.
    See cars»

  3. Diesel/Biodiesel

    Biodiesel is an alternative fuel used in diesel engines.
    See cars»

  4. Natural Gas

    Compressed Natural Gas burns cleaner than gasoline.
    See cars»

  5. Upcoming

    Some day you might drive an electric, fuel cell, or hydrogen car.
    See cars»
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Jimbo,, just to keep things straight here, the Nissan leaf and the Chevy volt are both highly subsidized with govenment money and in the case of the Volt, EPA Cola fleet and Obama White House mandates. So why is the Fisker Karma any different?

Also;
32 Miles vrs 35 miles is hardly a difference and I would give up three miles for the style and luxury of the Fisker over the rather Puritanical Volt. The Leaf is a rather fragile looking vehicle resembling a recycled Pepsi can.

Chrysler had three electric vehicles ready for launch in 2010. A minivan, a pickup and a low slung sexy sportster. They looked like their gasoline powered counterparts. Chevy had nothing but a concept. Why the WhiteHouse trashed one over the other is pure political cronyism.

Perhaps the Volt seemed more like the Volkswagon of Nazi Germany and Barry felt some kinship. Or hero worship. :unsure:

A repeat of the"people's vagon" Hitler and Doctor Porsche created for the rising German Reich. From the perspective of a Columbia University faculty lounge it must have seemed a smashingly good idea. No other logic seems to fit the scenario. But I am open to suggestions.

The biggest marketing problem with electric cars is that they all look like utility machines. No sexy lines, no pizzaz, not macho appeal. The Fisker has style, muscular lines and some masculinity. I would suggest it has more appeal to those with the cash to indulge their liberal guilt. Yet soothe their need for ego status.

An ergonomic, ecofreindly, ego treat.:brows:


franc
 
Last edited:

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Perhaps the volt was made by the UAW owned GM corporation. Perhaps the first 101 volts were ordered by the Obama administration. Ford, a legitimate private industry, seems to have been left out of the bidding. Perhaps Al Gore is one of the original investors in Fisker. Perhaps the first American product from Fisker will be made not in Detroit, where jobs are needed, but in Silicon Valley, where Nancy and Boxer have an interest in getting reelected.

Real question: If we are going to float a half billion loan, not a guarantee but a loan, to an automobile company, why not one building cars in the US? Why not in an area where automobile jobs are badly needed.

I'm fine with persons wanting to own a high performance electric vehicle, but I do not want to help in the financing, especially one created by Finnish labor. I also have a hard time believing that an auto that gets roughly the same mileage as an SUV and with its small engine probably has approximately the same performance as a motor scooter should be called a high performance vehicle. I can find no performance data other than that provided by the EPA to get it into the country, which tells me that the data is not so good.

FWIW, the auto companies are suggesting that EV's will not be free market ready anytime soon, and that subsidies will be needed for years. In addition, other "assists" to the EV market might be needed, e.g. EV only lanes. Downtown areas closed off to all but EV's. In other words, shove these down our throats.
My throat is already raw.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
The biggest marketing problem with electric cars is that they all look like utility machines. No sexy lines, no pizzaz, not macho appeal. The Fisker has style, muscular lines and some masculinity.

Actually, as I understand it. The biggest market problem with EV's is the battery, which seems to be the weak link in the technology. This is why a state of the art 100k vehicle can only go 32 miles on a charge. So, if we are hell bent on electrics, why not invest the research funds in battery research, then make the technology available free to all comers building cars and batteries in the US? That might actually work.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
I laugh everytime I think what Mark Wahlberg called Will Ferrel's Prius in the movie "The Other Guys" :yum: I hate a Prius.

Our 2012 Sonata gets over 35 MPG on a trip. Made in America by Americans. It's in a roomy car (by today's standards) with ample head and leg room. Heck, I am 6'3 and still do not need to put the drivers seat all the way back. Why in God's green earth would I ever want to drive a shoe box. Not for Al Gore, that's for sure. Oh, and did I mention I love fossil fuels.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
The biggest marketing problem with electric cars is that they all look like utility machines. No sexy lines, no pizzaz, not macho appeal. The Fisker has style, muscular lines and some masculinity.

Actually, as I understand it. The biggest market problem with EV's is the battery, which seems to be the weak link in the technology. This is why a state of the art 100k vehicle can only go 32 miles on a charge. So, if we are hell bent on electrics, why not invest the research funds in battery research, then make the technology available free to all comers building cars and batteries in the US? That might actually work.

No, that would be an engineering problem. Marketing is how the product appeals to a consumer sector who must make a conscious choice to part with their cash to aquire something. The Uber Liberal North east is littered in Toyota Priuses. Batteries, and initial costs, don't seem to be the problem.

As to your other point about financing a foreign operation, I get it. But at the time, the US was, and still is, unfreindly to new ventures.

When are folks going to get it. Capital and ideas flow in the path of least resistance. Employment, for those willing only to trade time for money, follows later.


franc
 
Last edited:

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Franc, I've got no problem with Finland producing cars for the US market. I've got a problem with the US taxpayer funding the project. We've thrown close to a billion dollars into the Fisker and the Tesla at this point, and the idea we were sold with the stimulus was that they would produce "Green" jobs. Guess who is the lead investor in both of these companies? If you guessed Lyin Al, you get an A. Tesla is not doing well, and clearly producing cars in Finland is not going to produce jobs in the US automotive industry. In fact, it will reduce them.
Your point about the US being unfriendly to new US business is exactly my point. If the gummint gets the hell out of the way and does not subsidize one business at the expense of another, the best will prevail. The other side of the coin is my guess that at least some of the doubling of gasoline costs in the country by limiting supply is related,. There are two ways to make a product competitive: make yours cheaper and better, or increase the cost of the competitor.

Another quote from Al. This one at the announcement of the Fisker subsidy in 2009:

Gore touted the subsidy as a “first step toward a completely green automotive future. While these vehicles may look expensive, they are really a moderately priced contribution to saving the planet. Those who insist on owning their own transportation should be willing to pay this price. Those unable or unwilling to pay the price for their own vehicle should contribute by using public transit. No one has the right to pollute the planet just for the sake of their own freedom to drive wherever they want at a price they can afford.”

In other words, if you can't afford the tab, take the bus. Only the rich should be able to drive where they want, and it is the government's obligation to help with the purchase. Wonder how that would play with the occupy crowd if they knew about it

Seem me that engineering problems are marketing problems. If they weren't, then there would be no need for the $7500 purchase subsidy. Few people will purchase an automobile capable of limited mileage and performance for 100K, even if subsidized. Who wants an electric capable of 32 miles before becoming a gas guzzling smoke belching internally combusting vehicle? Design may be a factor, but put an electric motor in a Ferrari and sell it for the price of the V12, and I would guess the 200 MPH V12 will win every time.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Wonder how that would play with the occupy crowd if they knew about it

They know. Haven't you noticed how they pick and choose which capitalist is evil and which one is OK.

I mean really, railing on big oil, big banks all while twitting on their beloved imac, iphone, ipod rasberry blackberry wearing their Gucci jeans. :shifty:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Franc, I've got no problem with Finland producing cars for the US market. I've got a problem with the US taxpayer funding the project. We've thrown close to a billion dollars into the Fisker and the Tesla at this point, and the idea we were sold with the stimulus was that they would produce "Green" jobs. Guess who is the lead investor in both of these companies? If you guessed Lyin Al, you get an A. Tesla is not doing well, and clearly producing cars in Finland is not going to produce jobs in the US automotive industry. In fact, it will reduce them.
Your point about the US being unfriendly to new US business is exactly my point. If the gummint gets the hell out of the way and does not subsidize one business at the expense of another, the best will prevail. The other side of the coin is my guess that at least some of the doubling of gasoline costs in the country by limiting supply is related,. There are two ways to make a product competitive: make yours cheaper and better, or increase the cost of the competitor.

Another quote from Al. This one at the announcement of the Fisker subsidy in 2009:

Gore touted the subsidy as a “first step toward a completely green automotive future. While these vehicles may look expensive, they are really a moderately priced contribution to saving the planet. Those who insist on owning their own transportation should be willing to pay this price. Those unable or unwilling to pay the price for their own vehicle should contribute by using public transit. No one has the right to pollute the planet just for the sake of their own freedom to drive wherever they want at a price they can afford.”

In other words, if you can't afford the tab, take the bus. Only the rich should be able to drive where they want, and it is the government's obligation to help with the purchase. Wonder how that would play with the occupy crowd if they knew about it

Seem me that engineering problems are marketing problems. If they weren't, then there would be no need for the $7500 purchase subsidy. Few people will purchase an automobile capable of limited mileage and performance for 100K, even if subsidized. Who wants an electric capable of 32 miles before becoming a gas guzzling smoke belching internally combusting vehicle? Design may be a factor, but put an electric motor in a Ferrari and sell it for the price of the V12, and I would guess the 200 MPH V12 will win every time.


Gore is an idiot yes. but quoting his support does not negate the valueof government cooperation with private industry.

You seem bent on this point, that the government should not be involved with private business. Period.

The Constitution does not say that, and the founders did not say that. So, if your logic is based on the fundimetal principles of our nation it is flawed. If the govenrment cannot "promote the general welfare" in any way, then the founding principles are in error.

Would you abandon the Interstate highway system? Would you abandon the space program? grants to universities that produce new crops, new medicines, newcommunications.

Do we stop asking questions about the physical laws of our universe, the by products of which are better machines, medicines, technologies and chemistry?
Should all new roads and bridges be privately operated toll roads? Are not some things done in this way are for the "common good?"

Over regulation is the issue. Cronyism is the issue. GM unions get a buyout that saves their pensions but not the company they helped ruin. Wall street builds a bubble on lies and we bail them out and lay restrictive and consumer costly Dodd/Frank regs on the system. Solyndra was losing money beyond measure, yet cronyism got them a bailout loan they squanderd in less than a year. All because progressive regulators want us to go "green." and don't mind making Al gore and his friends wealthy.

These things are wrong.

All are government choices which were based on cronyism and control not the creation of and environment beneficial to private enterprise initiatives, AKA "to promote the general welfare."


But the concept of creating fecund ground for new technologies is not cronyism or regulation in and of itself.. We have been doing it since our nation's inception. Just sometimes doing it wrong.

Right now, with this administration, is one of those times. Let us not over react. Let us remove the venal administration and curtail the tools they used to corrupt the intentions of the original systems.

We need the EPA,We need a dept of Labor. We need banking regulations and oversights of WallStreet. We need to make capital available for start up companies with new ideas. We also need to protect investors. But we need such entities to protect and back our people up, not push them over the cliff.

Let us kill the weeds without hurting the flowers eh?


franc
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm not surprised. If, I was building a new generation of cars on a new business model, the last place I would set up shop is in Detroit.

Even if the Federal government gave me a factory and got out of my way, I wouldn't touch it there.

Against the advice of my customers who were willing to set me up in China, I built my packaging plant here in the US. It has beenan uphill fight the whole way. And now I must compete against the plant they built in China anyway.

It wasn't for cheaper labor. We have automated machines.

franc
 

Catavenger

New member
SUPER Site Supporter
The biggest marketing problem with electric cars is that they all look like utility machines. No sexy lines, no pizzaz, not macho appeal. The Fisker has style, muscular lines and some masculinity. I would suggest it has more appeal to those with the cash to indulge their liberal guilt. Yet soothe their need for ego status.
Franc- so even if a car is a piece of junk that's okay because it looks cool?
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
The fools aren't on Wall Street, the fools aren't on Pennsylvania Avenue, the fools are on Main Street.

I be thinking there are plenty of fools to go around. :wink: I tend to take the more hardline approach. We, as taxpayers. should not be subsidizing anything that cannot stand on it's own two feet. Be it solar, wind, whatever. It needs to run in the black or go away. It's been asked rhetorically a million times now but always relevent. Who subsidizes me? If I want to come out of retirement (which I do not :flowers: ) and start up another electrical contracting business is the government going to give me 500K? Of course not. Why am I any different except electrical contracting isn't on any liberal's wish list of cool industries.

Sorry for the rant. :mellow:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Franc- so even if a car is a piece of junk that's okay because it looks cool?


I didn't say that now did I. I said a product should be mareable. I believe this one may be. Because it is styled and appealing. That is a very diffrent point.

Show me where it says anywhere that this car is "junk"

Take away the land grants to the railroads and you remove from our history the great expansion of our agriculture and the influx of immagrants in the second half of the 19th century. I believe most of us find that period of expansion and economic growth to be one of our nations's finest.

It most certainly defined what was is to be American and positively effects who we are today.

From the begining of our nation,the goverment has participated with the Private sector in the development of products, goods and services. from Agriculture to mining to transportation to industrial science. The fault is not when that is done but when it is done improperly.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
I didn't say that now did I. I said a product should be mareable. I believe this one may be. Because it is styled and appealing. That is a very diffrent point.

Show me where it says anywhere that this car is "junk"

Take away the land grants to the railroads and you remove from our history the great expansion of our agriculture and the influx of immagrants in the second half of the 19th century. I believe most of us find that period of expansion and economic growth to be one of our nations's finest.

It most certainly defined what was is to be American and positively effects who we are today.

From the begining of our nation,the goverment has participated with the Private sector in the development of products, goods and services. from Agriculture to mining to transportation to industrial science. The fault is not when that is done but when it is done improperly.

You make some valid points Franc. I believe we are all better served when a product can stand on it's own merits and sells because it is a product that is desirable at a reasonable price point. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs did not need government assisstance to sell their products and make their respective companies profitable. :smile:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
You make some valid points Franc. I believe we are all better served when a product can stand on it's own merits and sells because it is a product that is desirable at a reasonable price point. Bill Gates & Steve Jobs did not need government assisstance to sell their products and make their respective companies profitable. :smile:

Wanna bet?

Can you say "Internet?" Where o' where would the Apple PC be withoutout it. Or the PC Microsoft without EBay and the home computer explosion?

It is so easy in today's toxic environment to suggest we should not be supporting upstart business and technologies.

The trillion dollar stimulis One of February 2009 was an example of a very devious pay back to Cronies, Unions, Banks and Wall Street. Folks who's operation should have been allowed to fail.

That is not the same as responsible spending on things our nation needs to grow. That is just Spreading the wealth around.......to friends who support your election campaign and voter blocks who will re electyou.

If the Press was responsible, they would investigate and report this. But instead, they now just cheerlead the guys who finnacialy support their friends.

And their political party.

This is patently WRONG. But should not invalidate, for future generations, the original processes that had made our nation the envy of the world.



franc
 
Last edited:

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Frank, just pointing out the obvious, but the funds for the two Gore car companies came from Stimulus one, and hopefully stimulus last, and is an example of payback to Cronies, Unions, Banks, and Wall Street.

I think you just made my point.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Wanna bet?

Can you say "Internet?" Where o' where would the Apple PC be withoutout it. Or the PC Microsoft without EBay and the home computer explosion?

It is so easy in today's toxic environment to suggest we should not be supporting upstart business and technologies.

The trillion dollar stimulis One of February 2009 was an example of a very devious pay back to Cronies, Unions, Banks and Wall Street. Folks who's operation should have been allowed to fail.

That is not the same as responsible spending on things our nation needs to grow. That is just Spreading the wealth around.......to friends who support your election campaign and voter blocks who will re electyou.

If the Press was responsible, they would investigate and report this. But instead, they now just cheerlead the guys who finnacialy support their friends.

And their political party.

This is patently WRONG. But should not invalidate, for future generations, the original processes that had made our nation the envy of the world.



franc
I'm curious about your position as to the government funding the startup of Gates and Jobs. I don't remember any government money being poured into either company. Granted, among the first customers of Cray and IBM was the federal government, but they were the first purchasers as they had the largest need. Microsoft and Apple, to my recollection were both privately funded and directly competitive. I am not aware of any government funds going directly to ebay, Google, or any other internet business. As always, I am here to learn.

The beginnings of the internet are an somewhat in doubt. Public internet probably grew out of a system developed to disburse information between colleges, and as most colleges are at least partially funded by some government entity, generally not at the time the federal government, perhaps public funds could be said to have a role. However, what we know as today's internet is the product of private investment.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Frank, just pointing out the obvious, but the funds for the two Gore car companies came from Stimulus one, and hopefully stimulus last, and is an example of payback to Cronies, Unions, Banks, and Wall Street.

I think you just made my point.
You can repeat this again, as many times as you wish if it makes you feel good, that won't change the principles involved. The corruption of this process should not negate the original purpose of our Government and this mandate set in our Constituton.

Don't toss the baby with the bath water.

Capitalism unchecked is not stable in an of itself. To be effective for the "common good" it needs to be regulated and stimulated. A light hand, but certainly not abused in this way.
The cronyism we see here in Stimulis One and other Leftist programs is central planning behind smoke and mirrors. It is where corrupt reigns unseen and unchecked. A socialist Government is ripe for it.

It is that why we fine it so rampant in our current organization?:unsure:

franc
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
(edit to add: got called away from my desk and lots was posted in between of when i wrote this and then posted this. :pat: )


I can't agree with 'better served' if the government stays completely out. In some instances, for example the fast food industry, we are all better off for Uncle Sam to stay out of the business. We have plenty of good competition and plenty of options when we want to eat at one of these establishments.

Other industries, including the computer industry, need the government. While Gates and Jobs did not get direct support from Uncle Sam both did benefit from the governments actions in the industry. Uncle Sam helped fund the first computers that came about that were as big as a good sized bed room. The federal government was also one of the biggest customers once these computers came to market. Federal spending helped make them possible, and this was the same road that eventually led to the personal computers that Gates and Jobs marketed.

Plus Gates and Jobs and all others in the market were greatly helped by DOD and the ARPA or ARPA-NET project which eventually grew into the internet. The internet has made small computers capable of doing huge tasks since they can access resources outside of their own hardware. The internet has helped make all this possible, and the government did indeed lay the first stepping stones that led us here. (I have no clue how Al Gore can claim anything at all to do with the internet being created, other than possibly voting on funding.)
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
(edit to add: got called away from my desk and lots was posted in between of when i wrote this and then posted this. :pat: )


I can't agree with 'better served' if the government stays completely out. In some instances, for example the fast food industry, we are all better off for Uncle Sam to stay out of the business. We have plenty of good competition and plenty of options when we want to eat at one of these establishments.

Other industries, including the computer industry, need the government. While Gates and Jobs did not get direct support from Uncle Sam both did benefit from the governments actions in the industry. Uncle Sam helped fund the first computers that came about that were as big as a good sized bed room. The federal government was also one of the biggest customers once these computers came to market. Federal spending helped make them possible, and this was the same road that eventually led to the personal computers that Gates and Jobs marketed.

Plus Gates and Jobs and all others in the market were greatly helped by DOD and the ARPA or ARP-NET project which eventually grew into the internet. The internet has made small computers possible to do huge tasks since they can access resources outside of their own hardware. The internet has helped make all this possible, and the government did indeed lay the first stepping stones that led us here. (I have no clue how Al Gore can claim anything at all to do with the internet being created, other than possibly voting on funding.)

Doc & Franc, wouldn't you consider the internet an indirect help to the PC revolution? It wss to a certain degree created to fill a void. It has a use. I see it as a big difference than the gov't writing out a check for whatever and sending it to Bill & Steve. Do you?
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
(I have no clue how Al Gore can claim anything at all to do with the internet being created, other than possibly voting on funding.)

It is my understanding that the funding for the beginnings of he Internet came before a committee that Al Gore headed at the time. That and he now owns a big chunk of Google I think but could be wrong on that.
 
Top