A Take on Occupy Wall Street

[Navy1960]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.

Agreed, that we have limited funds to be throwing around and again I am all in favor of developing our domestic capability. However, would you not agree that our domestic capability to manufacture such things has decreased quite a bit since the the time when Henry Ford could build an enitre car in one plant?

I'm also led to believe that the company in question here, while building a high end car, was using that money for the development of a low cost electric car here are they not?

"Not a single dollar of the [Department of Energy] DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America," a statement from Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said. "All expenditures are reviewed by [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] on behalf of the DoE." Press Secretary Jay Carney told ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper Friday that the funds provided to Fisker "are not being used, as I believe the CEO said to ABC, are not being used for its facility in Finland."

Obama Admin. Defends Fisker Cars From Solyndra Comparison - ABC News

So someone on one side or the other is simply telling a whopper, if the company made a public statement like that, and it turns out not to be the case, then that statement right there is going to get them in a heck of a lot of trouble. While I don't like the idea of money being spent overseas for such things, Tipsy, technology is a global effort these days, and would be very hard for any company to simply build all its products here regardless of what they are. I would be very much in favor of something along the lines promotion of the assembly and whenever possible manufacture here and transition here for any of these sorts of things. I do understand your point, and would be very disappointed if the capability was already here and taxpayer dollars just went to help a company prop itself up with no benefits to the American public.

 

[Samson]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.

Isn't there a thread about this?

 

[Navy1960]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.

Isn't there a thread about this?

apologies Samson, we got sidetracked there a moment.

 

[Katzndogz]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.

Agreed, that we have limited funds to be throwing around and again I am all in favor of developing our domestic capability. However, would you not agree that our domestic capability to manufacture such things has decreased quite a bit since the the time when Henry Ford could build an enitre car in one plant?

I'm also led to believe that the company in question here, while building a high end car, was using that money for the development of a low cost electric car here are they not?

"Not a single dollar of the [Department of Energy] DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America," a statement from Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said. "All expenditures are reviewed by [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] on behalf of the DoE." Press Secretary Jay Carney told ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper Friday that the funds provided to Fisker "are not being used, as I believe the CEO said to ABC, are not being used for its facility in Finland."

Obama Admin. Defends Fisker Cars From Solyndra Comparison - ABC News

So someone on one side or the other is simply telling a whopper, if the company made a public statement like that, and it turns out not to be the case, then that statement right there is going to get them in a heck of a lot of trouble. While I don't like the idea of money being spent overseas for such things, Tipsy, technology is a global effort these days, and would be very hard for any company to simply build all its products here regardless of what they are. I would be very much in favor of something along the lines promotion of the assembly and whenever possible manufacture here and transition here for any of these sorts of things. I do understand your point, and would be very disappointed if the capability was already here and taxpayer dollars just went to help a company prop itself up with no benefits to the American public.

Do we need the technology to build cars that cost $100,000? No. We don't. If we do, we don't need it right now. We could wait until the bummer is out of the white house and we have some money.

 

[Navy1960]

The main reason why we should not pay Finland to build electric cars over there is because we cannot afford to put millions in the Finnish economy while our own struggles. The cars are going to cost $100,000 base price. We are paying tax money to build cars that only the very rich will be able to afford. This is sensible to who? Especially as we war agains the rich here.

Stop spending for innovation elsewhere. Let it develop here. After all, we didn't pay Daimler to build cars in Germany when Henry Ford was cranking out less reliable cars. We didn't pay ANYONE. It developed from the Model T into the Mustang.

IF we were flush, had scads of money and manna was falling from the sky, sure, we can afford to throw a little around. Now? No.

Agreed, that we have limited funds to be throwing around and again I am all in favor of developing our domestic capability. However, would you not agree that our domestic capability to manufacture such things has decreased quite a bit since the the time when Henry Ford could build an enitre car in one plant?

I'm also led to believe that the company in question here, while building a high end car, was using that money for the development of a low cost electric car here are they not?

"Not a single dollar of the [Department of Energy] DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America," a statement from Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said. "All expenditures are reviewed by [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] on behalf of the DoE." Press Secretary Jay Carney told ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper Friday that the funds provided to Fisker "are not being used, as I believe the CEO said to ABC, are not being used for its facility in Finland."

Obama Admin. Defends Fisker Cars From Solyndra Comparison - ABC News

So someone on one side or the other is simply telling a whopper, if the company made a public statement like that, and it turns out not to be the case, then that statement right there is going to get them in a heck of a lot of trouble. While I don't like the idea of money being spent overseas for such things, Tipsy, technology is a global effort these days, and would be very hard for any company to simply build all its products here regardless of what they are. I would be very much in favor of something along the lines promotion of the assembly and whenever possible manufacture here and transition here for any of these sorts of things. I do understand your point, and would be very disappointed if the capability was already here and taxpayer dollars just went to help a company prop itself up with no benefits to the American public.

Do we need the technology to build cars that cost $100,000? No. We don't. If we do, we don't need it right now. We could wait until the bummer is out of the white house and we have some money.

Tipsy, I would invtite you to take a look at how much the first cell phone cost, the first computer cost, or any technology that spawned what we take for granted now, and the millions of jobs that go along with that. If we had, had the the attitude it was too expensive to do, or for that matter, let's wait we can't afford it, I would submit to you, that many of the things we take for granted now would not exist. Yes, things cost money, and yes its prudent to pick those that make sense, so in that I agree, but I would never agree to abandon any technology that has so much potential for our future until I was 100% satisfied it was not the direction we needed to go.

 

[Katzndogz]

Agreed, that we have limited funds to be throwing around and again I am all in favor of developing our domestic capability. However, would you not agree that our domestic capability to manufacture such things has decreased quite a bit since the the time when Henry Ford could build an enitre car in one plant?

I'm also led to believe that the company in question here, while building a high end car, was using that money for the development of a low cost electric car here are they not?

"Not a single dollar of the [Department of Energy] DoE loans has been, or will be, spent outside of America," a statement from Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said. "All expenditures are reviewed by [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] on behalf of the DoE." Press Secretary Jay Carney told ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper Friday that the funds provided to Fisker "are not being used, as I believe the CEO said to ABC, are not being used for its facility in Finland."

Obama Admin. Defends Fisker Cars From Solyndra Comparison - ABC News

So someone on one side or the other is simply telling a whopper, if the company made a public statement like that, and it turns out not to be the case, then that statement right there is going to get them in a heck of a lot of trouble. While I don't like the idea of money being spent overseas for such things, Tipsy, technology is a global effort these days, and would be very hard for any company to simply build all its products here regardless of what they are. I would be very much in favor of something along the lines promotion of the assembly and whenever possible manufacture here and transition here for any of these sorts of things. I do understand your point, and would be very disappointed if the capability was already here and taxpayer dollars just went to help a company prop itself up with no benefits to the American public.

Do we need the technology to build cars that cost $100,000? No. We don't. If we do, we don't need it right now. We could wait until the bummer is out of the white house and we have some money.

Tipsy, I would invtite you to take a look at how much the first cell phone cost, the first computer cost, or any technology that spawned what we take for granted now, and the millions of jobs that go along with that. If we had, had the the attitude it was too expensive to do, or for that matter, let's wait we can't afford it, I would submit to you, that many of the things we take for granted now would not exist. Yes, things cost money, and yes its prudent to pick those that make sense, so in that I agree, but I would never agree to abandon any technology that has so much potential for our future until I was 100% satisfied it was not the direction we needed to go.

But all those things came from someone having an idea and someone else bankrolling it! There was no government plan to invent the cell phone! The computer came out of someone's garage! There was no government plan to invent the computer. If someone truly believes in the profitability of an electric car go invest in a company that builds one. Invest in a Finnish company. Any company. Don't take public money and pay someone else to build an electric car because some politician thinks its a good idea.

 

[Navy1960]

Do we need the technology to build cars that cost $100,000? No. We don't. If we do, we don't need it right now. We could wait until the bummer is out of the white house and we have some money.

Tipsy, I would invtite you to take a look at how much the first cell phone cost, the first computer cost, or any technology that spawned what we take for granted now, and the millions of jobs that go along with that. If we had, had the the attitude it was too expensive to do, or for that matter, let's wait we can't afford it, I would submit to you, that many of the things we take for granted now would not exist. Yes, things cost money, and yes its prudent to pick those that make sense, so in that I agree, but I would never agree to abandon any technology that has so much potential for our future until I was 100% satisfied it was not the direction we needed to go.

But all those things came from someone having an idea and someone else bankrolling it! There was no government plan to invent the cell phone! The computer came out of someone's garage! There was no government plan to invent the computer. If someone truly believes in the profitability of an electric car go invest in a company that builds one. Invest in a Finnish company. Any company. Don't take public money and pay someone else to build an electric car because some politician thinks its a good idea.

With research support from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Ivan Sutherland of MIT, made what was arguably the seminal breakthrough in the development of HCI. He created in 1962 a program called Sketchpad which was the first to use a monitor and a mouse-like pointing device. Sutherland became director of the Information Technology project at the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He provided funding to establish the computer science departments at Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Utah and MIT, and he pushed them to develop the work he had begun with Sketchpad.
The Origin of the

Tipsy, I invtite you to look at things like the origins of the Internet and see that it was spwaned from a DARPANET a Govt. program, as well as many many other things we take for granted, as well as just do a search on inventions spawned by the Apollo program. The point is, that Govt. investment leads to things we take for granted and then often times those systems or designs are taken into the private sector and improved upon and lead to the things we have now.

 

[Katzndogz]

Tipsy, I would invtite you to take a look at how much the first cell phone cost, the first computer cost, or any technology that spawned what we take for granted now, and the millions of jobs that go along with that. If we had, had the the attitude it was too expensive to do, or for that matter, let's wait we can't afford it, I would submit to you, that many of the things we take for granted now would not exist. Yes, things cost money, and yes its prudent to pick those that make sense, so in that I agree, but I would never agree to abandon any technology that has so much potential for our future until I was 100% satisfied it was not the direction we needed to go.

But all those things came from someone having an idea and someone else bankrolling it! There was no government plan to invent the cell phone! The computer came out of someone's garage! There was no government plan to invent the computer. If someone truly believes in the profitability of an electric car go invest in a company that builds one. Invest in a Finnish company. Any company. Don't take public money and pay someone else to build an electric car because some politician thinks its a good idea.

With research support from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Ivan Sutherland of MIT, made what was arguably the seminal breakthrough in the development of HCI. He created in 1962 a program called Sketchpad which was the first to use a monitor and a mouse-like pointing device. Sutherland became director of the Information Technology project at the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He provided funding to establish the computer science departments at Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Utah and MIT, and he pushed them to develop the work he had begun with Sketchpad.
The Origin of the

Tipsy, I invtite you to look at things like the origins of the Internet and see that it was spwaned from a DARPANET a Govt. program, as well as many many other things we take for granted, as well as just do a search on inventions spawned by the Apollo program. The point is, that Govt. investment leads to things we take for granted and then often times those systems or designs are taken into the private sector and improved upon and lead to the things we have now.

You miss the whole point. We have a lot of nifty inventions that are by-products of various government programs. Isn't the microwave one of those? And you are right, missing your own point, some of these by-products are taken by the private sector, improved upon and manufactured for other consumer oriented purposes. The Finnish electric car doesn't fit in any of those categories. Our government is not taking our tax money and spending it on our government to produce anything that can be adapted by an American enterprise. If there is any useful by-product of the electric car, that will belong to Finland too. The US government is not investing in the innovation or invention of America but in Finland. It is not investing it's own money but ours.

There was a time when America invested billions in putting a man on the moon. At that time it would have been laughable to spend those billions so another country could put a man on the moon.

 

[Navy1960]

But all those things came from someone having an idea and someone else bankrolling it! There was no government plan to invent the cell phone! The computer came out of someone's garage! There was no government plan to invent the computer. If someone truly believes in the profitability of an electric car go invest in a company that builds one. Invest in a Finnish company. Any company. Don't take public money and pay someone else to build an electric car because some politician thinks its a good idea.

With research support from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Ivan Sutherland of MIT, made what was arguably the seminal breakthrough in the development of HCI. He created in 1962 a program called Sketchpad which was the first to use a monitor and a mouse-like pointing device. Sutherland became director of the Information Technology project at the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He provided funding to establish the computer science departments at Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Utah and MIT, and he pushed them to develop the work he had begun with Sketchpad.
The Origin of the

Tipsy, I invtite you to look at things like the origins of the Internet and see that it was spwaned from a DARPANET a Govt. program, as well as many many other things we take for granted, as well as just do a search on inventions spawned by the Apollo program. The point is, that Govt. investment leads to things we take for granted and then often times those systems or designs are taken into the private sector and improved upon and lead to the things we have now.

You miss the whole point. We have a lot of nifty inventions that are by-products of various government programs. Isn't the microwave one of those? And you are right, missing your own point, some of these by-products are taken by the private sector, improved upon and manufactured for other consumer oriented purposes. The Finnish electric car doesn't fit in any of those categories. Our government is not taking our tax money and spending it on our government to produce anything that can be adapted by an American enterprise. If there is any useful by-product of the electric car, that will belong to Finland too. The US government is not investing in the innovation or invention of America but in Finland. It is not investing it's own money but ours.

There was a time when America invested billions in putting a man on the moon. At that time it would have been laughable to spend those billions so another country could put a man on the moon.

I understand your point, and I think in one of my postings, I agreed that using American tax money to fund projects oversea's if that technology exists here is not a prudent thing to do. However, my point is a very simple one Fisker is not the issue here, at least to me, what is the issue is an entire industry that can be created around it, at this point in time, I'm not 100% sure that our money even went to Finland, because the company themselves have flatly denied that and are still in the process of developing an electric car here, which I for one think is worth promoting, one only need to look at the worldwide investment in battery technology and the ramping up towards these types of technology to understand that we as Americans need to help promote such things. As to the Microwave;

The first commercial microwave oven was developed by Raytheon after World War II from radar technology developed during the war. Named the 'Radarange', it was first sold in 1947. Raytheon later licensed its patents for a home-use microwave oven that was first introduced by Tappan in 1955
Microwave oven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't even care if the technology exists here or not. This is not the time to be paying other countries and foreign companies to produce anything. Not even a better matchstick! If it is that important, if the technology isn't here and we need it, then bring it here.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't even care if the technology exists here or not. This is not the time to be paying other countries and foreign companies to produce anything. Not even a better matchstick! If it is that important, if the technology isn't here and we need it, then bring it here.

Would that it was that simple Tipsy, but it's not, you know that not to long ago even the Presidential Helicopter was going to be built in Italy rather than here, until it was cancelled and to be honest I am not sure if they built a few and kept them or not. The fact is in some industries, our capability to manufacture some things has gotten to the point we cannot make them anymore, a good example if this would be the following,

Nothing in North America currently approaches these enterprises.* The changed position of the USA is remarkable. In the 1940s it manufactured over 2700 Liberty ships, each 10,800 tonne DWT - possibly pioneering modular construction at that scale (average construction time was 42 days in the shipyard). In the 1970s it had a substantial heavy infrastructure, but today China, Japan, South Korea, India, Europe and Russia are all well ahead of it. Steelmaker ArcelorMittal, based in Luxembourg, now owns the US company which built most US reactor pressure vessels in the 1970s-1980s
Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants

I am 100% in agreement that WE need to bring it here, but just saying and doing it are two very different things, and would be all for giving the incentives as well as the non-incentives for making that happen.

 

[Katzndogz]

A non incentive would be to stop paying foreigners.