Author
Topic: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...
(Read 13974 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #126 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:26:53 PM »

I've seen it work (and not) if a quasi-independent development group is set up outside the "rules" so to speak.

Skunk Works was real.

longhorn320 · « **Reply #127 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:30:34 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on March 16, 2021, 12:26:53 PM

I've seen it work (and not) if a quasi-independent development group is set up outside the "rules" so to speak.

Skunk Works was real.

yes but even then the innovations came from private sector contracted by the government

FearlessF · « **Reply #128 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:32:12 PM »

Quote from: longhorn320 on March 16, 2021, 12:26:15 PM

its not the purpose of a company to be innovative

their purpose is to make money

now if they need to be ahead of the pack to make money then they become innovative

to produce a needed product not currently being produced or to produce an existing product cheaper

the public sector does not have pressure on it to be innovative and thats why most of our innovative products come from the private sector from the pressure to make a profit

why in the heck hasn't toilet paper been innovated? even during a pandemic? terrible greedy selfish big corporations

longhorn320 · « **Reply #129 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:34:02 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on March 16, 2021, 12:32:12 PM

why in the heck hasn't toilet paper been innovated? even during a pandemic? terrible greedy selfish big corporations

just what innovation is begging to be made with toilet paper

we used to use corn cobs and the Sears catalog

Cincydawg · « **Reply #130 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:35:05 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on March 16, 2021, 12:32:12 PM

why in the heck hasn't toilet paper been innovated? even during a pandemic? terrible greedy selfish big corporations

I was involved in two projects to try and replace toilet paper with something new and better. Toilet paper is one of the few products sold where "some assembly is required". There is quite a bit of tech in making TP, which is why the different brands have differing characteristics.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #131 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:40:51 PM »

Leaves were a handy substitute, so long as you knew how to identify (and of course steer clear of) poison ivy.

Out west you'd have to use rocks, if you had such an emergency.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #132 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:43:12 PM »

My son was quartered with an Azerbaijani company in Iraq at Haditha dam. The AZs provided area security. They apparently used the same portajohns and the AZs would wipe fecal matter on the sides of the johns and not use TP. It was quite the issue apparently.

longhorn320 · « **Reply #133 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:43:36 PM »

this thread has finally reached its proper destination in the dumper

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #134 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:53:39 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on March 15, 2021, 10:11:35 PM

if it was a really good idea, the private sector would have done it or will do it.

I make this argument a lot, which is why I think I might have some credibility as to why it doesn't really apply very well in this case...

Eminent domain.

For something like HSR, you need to secure rights of way, often through areas where there are entrenched property interests and high property values. This is not an easy thing to do, especially when you're talking about a ~400 mile run in California.

Even if it would make money [which it won't; we agree there] there are risk factors in the ability to even be able to build it on time and within schedule that no private entity probably wants to take on. Now, if it was going to be WILDLY profitable, that's different, and maybe they'd be jumping on board.

But the private sector would find it easier to build another airport--even if it required bulldozing a neighborhood that they'd acquired through eminent domain, than trying to deal with a 400 mile run of HSR.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #135 on:** March 16, 2021, 12:58:34 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on March 16, 2021, 11:54:07 AM

It's just my opinion, but I think OAM has an ultra simplistic view of Big Business, Europe, and a few other things.

It's like getting information from some movie, it's just weird. To me.

Well, to be honest there are areas where he's right. Big businesses hire lobbyists. They hire lobbyists to make sure that the government doesn't do things that will hurt them--and sometimes to make sure that the government doesn't do things to help upstart competitors.

Not sure why he then wants to give more power to government, considering big business puts legislators in their own pocket... Seems like bigger government would just give MORE power to big business [as has happened in Europe].

But in general, I agree. OAM has an ultra simplistic view.

That's what happens when you look at the world through a prism of simply wanting certain things, without any thought given to the economics or logistics involved.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #136 on:** March 16, 2021, 01:01:23 PM »

Cincydawg · « **Reply #137 on:** March 16, 2021, 01:05:45 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on March 16, 2021, 12:58:34 PM

Well, to be honest there are areas where he's right. Big businesses hire lobbyists. They hire lobbyists to make sure that the government doesn't do things that will hurt them--and sometimes to make sure that the government doesn't do things to help upstart competitors.

This is true, but in general, the lobbying efforts are not to shut out new competition. Some of it is simply to educate lawmakers. "Educate".

I can't see how say Exxon is somehow keeping some other means of energy suppressed. They likely try, and certainly lobby for tax breaks, if they can get them.
And nobody is suppressing HSR in the US, it just doesn't make any sense outside the NE Corridor.

This is akin to my French cousin asking me how many times I have been involved in a gun fight in the US. He was serious. For him, life here is like he sees in cop movies.
He was scared to visit.

FearlessF · « **Reply #138 on:** March 16, 2021, 01:14:50 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on March 16, 2021, 01:01:23 PM

WTF?

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #139 on:** March 16, 2021, 01:18:29 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on March 16, 2021, 01:05:45 PM

This is true, but in general, the lobbying efforts are not to shut out new competition. Some of it is simply to educate lawmakers. "Educate".

I can't see how say Exxon is somehow keeping some other means of energy suppressed. They likely try, and certainly lobby for tax breaks, if they can get them.
And nobody is suppressing HSR in the US, it just doesn't make any sense outside the NE Corridor.

All true. But "Education" for Exxon might be telling a lawmaker about how much fewer campaign contributions they can expect to receive if they subsidize technology X, just as much as how much more campaign contributions they might receive if they reduce taxes or environmental regulations on Exxon.

It's a competition. Anything that artificially raises or lowers costs of their oil or upstart technologies help to determine whether those technologies are financially viable to compete.

I've argued here in favor of a carbon tax [offset against other tax reductions to be revenue neutral]. That makes oil more expensive, which tilts the market somewhat to lower-carbon energy sources. I'm sure Exxon's lobbyists would be out in FORCE to "educate" lawmakers telling them a carbon tax will destroy the economy and cause them to not be reelected if they pass it...

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

Cincydawg

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

longhorn320

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

FearlessF

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

longhorn320

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

Cincydawg

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

Cincydawg

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

longhorn320

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

847badgerfan

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

Cincydawg

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

FearlessF

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Major changes in our lives over the next decade ...