Global warming?

[Spexxvet]

In both World Wars, the gubmint needed new weapons, like tanks and planes, and contracted private industry to develop them. I'd call that promoting R&D and new technology.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

In both World Wars, the gubmint needed new weapons, like tanks and planes, and contracted private industry to develop them. I'd call that promoting R&D and new technology.

A little in WW I, but mostly just awarding contracts to the companies/people that came up with things they could use. As soon a the war was over, not so much. In WW II, big time. They took over practically all R&D and production for the war effort.

At the end of the war, the ramping up of the cold war sparked some R&D but that was mostly grants to collages to research what ever the hell they wanted. Sometimes it produced good stuff, but just as often it was the sex life of frogs in Guatemala.

It didn't really take off until DARPA geared up in the early 70s, which threw so much money around, it got so nobody wanted to fund research, because they could get it from the Feds for almost any field. Granted, they've gotten some great returns on some of it, but a lot of it just ended up making a few people very rich on our dime.

However to say all, or even a majority, of our progress was government funded is ludicrous. The antithesis of free enterprise, and make us more under control of the government.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Sometimes it produced good stuff, but just as often it was the sex life of frogs in Guatemala.

Hey! The study of the sex life of frogs in Guatemala saved my mom's life on 911.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

However to say all, or even a majority, of our progress was government funded is ludicrous. The antithesis of free enterprise, and make us more under control of the government.

Yes, to make an absolute statement either way is ludicrous. Both the private industry and government R&D have played a very large role in creating the technology we see today. Some technology is cheaper to develop and has an obvious economic gain so it is created solely in the private industry. Some technology is extremely expensive to create or does not have an obvious economic gain so it is developed under state R&D and then eventually private industry will take over and make it big. But when it comes to alternative energy, government R&D has already and will continue to play an extremely large role.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Doesn't answer the question as to why they would throw millions of dollars away into a part of the country that is literally awash with hydro-power.

He shouldn't answer the question because the question has no basis in reality. The current problem with Pacific Northwest is that there was an unusually high amount of water from snow melt this year, not with government officials throwing millions of dollar away. Your source even acknowledges that in the third paragraph. The problem could have been prevented but the solution to that still involves investing in alternative energy.

[Undertoad]

It is in the section of the post that is a refutation of a generalization.

[tw]

R&D comes from the private sector and from government. Take away either and we might as well declare ourselves a second class nation.

The only relevant argument is which R&D is productive. After all, government paid for something that had no value - except maybe to artillerymen. It was called the computer. The resulting artillery charts were too few too late. Therefore government R&D is not productive?

Well, let's see. The computer was started in the early 1940s. Did almost nothing until the 1960s. And only started making serious economic ROI after 1990s. That proves government R&D is useless?

The only valid question is which R&D is money wasted. Unfortunately, many who would answer that question do not even understand the difference between basic research and application research.

Now that so many companies have sold off or closed basic research facilities (ie Bell Labs is owned by a French company; Bendix labs no longer exist because basic R&D cannot be measured on any spread sheet), then government R&D has become that much more important.

The question is not whether government should do R&D. The question is why so many American companies no longer do it. Much if not most R&D in General Electric is in finance games. How to maximize profits rather than make better products.

[Undertoad]

Please don't. In order to prove "Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D", you will have to list them all, and we don't have that kind of time.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Please don't. In order to prove "Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D", you will have to list them all, and we don't have that kind of time.

I take back the "every" and suggest that US government grants, tax benefits, subsidies, etc. provided significant and irreplaceable support to basic R&D that lead to significant private sector applications in the last 150+ years.

Originally Posted by Coign

On that note, I go back to my lying extremist thinking friends trying to fight to return our country back to a law-abiding-republic instead of the social-democracy that F&B and TW are trying so hard to create. I honestly wish you would just move to the EU where you would find like-minded people and leave us rebels on this side of the ocean alone.

Before I go to the EU as a non-law-abiding citizen...

Can I wave my magic socialist wand and return the US environment to its previous state of smog, polluted lakes and rivers, toxic waste dumps that were cleaned up as a result of federal regulations, with little or no adverse economic impact?

Can I take all the companies that developed the anti-pollution technologies as a result of the regulations, much with some form of government support or tax benefits?

Can I take the federally-funded NCSA super computer so that my friends in the EU, rather than US companies, can benefit and develop and patent new and cutting edge technologies?

[TheMercenary]

Is this where we hear about the advantages of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Is this where we hear about the advantages of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

No. That is another article nobody need bother to read. It simply blames Obama, the UN, and other usual suspects for corruption and evil. It's not news. It is what an extremist read so religiously as to almost be identified as a pedophile.

[Undertoad]

But when it comes to alternative energy, government R&D has already and will continue to play an extremely large role.

How do you know that?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How do you know that?

As TW pointed out, the distinction needs to be made between basic research, in which the government has been a signficant contributor, and applied research, where the private sector has and should be the primary contributor.

Government labs (not to just DoE, but DoD, NASA...) and govt grants to other labs (both pubilc and private) have been conducting and funding energy related research for years on a wide range of energy efficiency and renewables research.

It is a good model of public private partnerships.

The problem is we are falling behind China, Japan, EU and other nations who not only contribute significantly to basic R&D but also subsidize the industries resulting from the emerging technologies.

We've pretty much given the next generation car batteries to Japan, China and Korea.

We're still leading the world in govt R&D in nano-technology with real implications for alternative or more efficient energy resouces, but we are pulling back on govt investment as many of the other major players are increasing govt support.

Govt R&D investments in renewable or clean energy as well as increased energy efficiency can result in emerging technologies /industries that will have a global market.

THe question remains as to the commitment of the US to compete with the rest of the world with government supporting the basic r&d that is the foundation of future commercial development.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How do you know that?

I'm a Civil Engineer graduate student so I see all the research that is being done in alternative energy. I have a couple good friends working on projects directly related to wind energy and am at least aware of others. My specific field has a good amount of research dealing with shale gas and shale oil and the research is around 50/50 when it comes to the private and public sector.

The amount of interplay between the public and private research sectors is amazing and both are extremely important when it comes to innovation in scientific fields. When it comes to arguments such as public versus private sector research and the innovation that follows, people tend to just look a the large picture and not all the details, since people are not aware of the details, which completely skews our perception of what is going on.

To simplify, here is an example. Lets say to make a certain alternative energy economically viable, it is not as simple as saying that either the private or public industry created the technology. In reality, it would be more like 50 different concepts are needed. 30 will already be known but the other 20 needs research to figure out whats going on. The private industry may perform its own research on 7 of the 20 concepts, public institutions may perform its own research, from government funding, on another 7 of the 20 concepts, and a combined effort will result in researching the remaining 6 concepts.

[Undertoad]

I was not asking you.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I was not asking you.

I thought it was an open discussion.