Discussions

[1] 2 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Can Technology Save the Economy? .

• 
  devassocx
  

  Posts:
  53

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 01:22 AM

  just how much is money?

  You might think 100 Billion $ is a lot of money and
  it was until recently. But relative to the Trillions
  being thrown around by our government lately, 100 B$ is seemingly just pocket change.
  
  Re: Dept of Energy.
  I'm sure some have seen this email being circulated
  around. No doubt there are some exaggerations but
  it might also make you think a bit...
  
  Read this slowly.
  
  Let it sink in.
  
  Quietly we go.
  
  Like Sheep to slaughter.
  
  Absolutely The Funniest Joke Ever! ...
  
  . . . . ON US
  
  Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the
  establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ..... during the Carter
  Administration?
  
  Anybody?
  
  Anything?
  
  No?
  
  ... Didn't think so.
  
  Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support
  of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this
  can remember.
  
  Ready?
  
  It was very simple
  ... and at the time everybody thought it very  appropriate.
  
  The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977
  TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
  
  ... HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?
  
  AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER ... AND THE BUDGET FOR
  THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR.
  
  THEY HAVE 16,000  FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES!
  
  JUST LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!
  
  THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'
  
  Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy.
  
  And now we are going to turn the Banking System & the Auto Industry over to them?
  
  
  
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    lasertekk
    

    Posts:
    77

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    04/21/2009 10:49 AM

    Re: just how much is money?

    One word (or two):  Crony capitalism.  The DOE has been interfered with by energy industry lobbyists since day one.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  RD
  

  Posts:
  114

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 02:00 AM

  Reality Check

  The US borrows this money from China so we can create jobs.  And soon that won't be an option, then we'll just have to print it.  The jobs numbers are wrong.  The Spanish study shows 2.2 traditional jobs LOST for every 1 green job created.  As for the veracity of the study, I don't trust any study coming out of Berkeley because of its political influence.  So far several of the technologies being pushed by DOE have failed.  Science shows ethanol as possibly the WORST fuel ever because of its water absorption, fuel system destruction, and pollutant creation. Oh, and it consumes too much food, water, and land.  Folks, WE ARE BROKE!  Yet we sit on over $40 TRILLION in extractable petroleum and shale oil.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  lasertekk
  

  Posts:
  77

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 10:51 AM

  Jobs

  If it creates good jobs, puts American engineers to work, reduces or stops HB1 visas and outsourcing/out-manufacturing, then yes, bring it on.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  kstauff
  

  Posts:
  89

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 11:18 AM

  Legislate some truth

  I'd like to see a law or amendment requiring the disclosure of how this money is acquired and further requiring the full cost of the money be disclosed.  That is, if $100 billion is being loaned to us by China, show the actual cost of the loan in addition to the principal.  If the money is being printed, it should be disclosed as a percentage increase in the dollar supply.  This might open some eyes when money is just being printed and thrown around.
  

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Pjazzz
  

  Posts:
  14

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 12:25 PM

  another reality check

  I am all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and helping to clean up the mess, but......
  Does anyone else see the danger in putting all our proverbial eggs in a global warming basket, when 1/2 of the climatologists think we're heading into a mini-ice-age?
  scary stuff, and TR is partly to blame covering only one side of this most important and debatable issue.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  markm@kyield.com
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/21/2009 05:24 PM

  Incremental innovation (controlled by entrenched)

  I thought it was a sober, balanced article- particularly for the Tech Review, which can be a bit biased on the advocacy side at times.
  
  The issue for innovation and economic stimulus is not with how much money is invested, or in what industries, but how and with whom.
  
  The problem is that our tech transfer system is fundamentally flawed due to the influence by the entrenched over our political system and federal government, resulting in what we've seen in industry after industry-incremental innovation, when in fact the signs are clear that we need revolutionary innovation. This is particularly true in energy, but who is being rewarded for extremely poor management? GM, AIG, and Wall Street. As this piece suggests, those of us on the front lines of real innovation- who are not too big to fail- and are authentically attempting to overcome our many serious hurdles as a society- have nothing but barriers confronting us.
  
  I am considered an expert by many- management consultant, then incubator founder, founder of several start-ups, inventor, venture capitalist. I have recent experience with federal labs and universities- a board member of a government CIO group, and I engage with peers who include names you all know. We are in real trouble folks- the U.S. is protecting entrenched interests that have a strangle hold on the entire process, while much of the world lacks such conflicts- and are suddenly in many ways better for future leaders- that's why the experts I know are very skeptical that throwing billions without first reforming the system will stimulate anything beyond the status quo.
  
  The solution of course includes programs that get the money in the hands of smaller independent entities that lack the conflicts of agency turf battles, industry lobbyists, and university license schemes, but then I've been aware of that for over two decades. The federal government, universities, and corporations (including those who were start-ups very recently) however treat small business as a charity, rather than what it actually is- the jobs engine, without which our federal government couldn't exist in current form-nor could most global corporations.
  
  My corporate exec peers know all too well that the best way to snuff out revolutionary innovation is to treat it as a subsidized charity by federal policy. I have never seen a better way to destroy an effective economic engine than to turn it over to the existing federal agencies to manage. The culture of the government prefers to deal with the culture of major corporations and large universities. That has nothing to do with what works, however.
  
  On a related technical note- readers might be interested in a recent white paper of mine- Unleash the innovation Within- overcoming some of the barriers to innovation in the digital work environment. www.kyield.com/publications.html
  
  
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    javs
    

    Posts:
    89

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    05/01/2009 08:19 PM

    Re: Incremental innovation (controlled by entrenched)

    I think this comment is more valuable than all of the quotes in the article itself. The key message that markm@kyield.com is offering is:
    
    "We are in real trouble folks- the U.S. is protecting entrenched interests that have a strangle hold on the entire process, while much of the world lacks such conflicts- and are suddenly in many ways better for future leaders- that's why the experts I know are very skeptical that throwing billions without first reforming the system will stimulate anything beyond the status quo."
    
    Please count me on as one of the people you now know that has been working on the emergent power industry framework to replace the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Framework. Incumbent IOUs have extended well beyond its useful life the obsolete business model of winning rate cases to state regulators. To get an introduction to the emergent framework, readers can start with the post Why President Obama Needs to Keep Working on Energy
    

    Rate this comment:
• 
  famulla
  

  Posts:
  11

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/22/2009 08:32 AM

  CASH IS NOT YET READY

  This is UK but the USA and UK are powerful countries and go hand in hand. So I talk of UK for now.
  Budget 2009: As jobless numbers surge, help will be targeted at young
  A small correction if you please. May be my English is weak and I read this as, “The young will receive more help or we will use more young for employments”. Either way, this is a help to the young. Then we have those who scream the humans’ rights law and tell us not to employ the young. At least these are the shouts when India or China and other poor countries employ young”. May be I need corrected. On to this, we have the following. .
  Volvo to cut more than 1,500 jobs . With these many small garages and petrol pumps will throw more unemployment.
  Punitive rate rises for RBS cardholders . Punitive is small.
  Budget 2009: Third of business leaders can see green shoots . More at the mother earth and tree planting or battery, cars in innovation but not yet ready for pay.
  Citigroup faces down furious investors. No dividends, no pay to the house cleaners and drivers.
  Now when I add these with many retailers, the figure seems to add to a huge number. Is this right?
  The number of people looking for work jumped by 177,000 in the three months to February to reach 2.1 million - the biggest quarterly rise since 1991. The total is the worst since February 1997, a few months before Labour won the general election.
  The number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance increased for the 13th month in a row in March, up by 73,700 to 1.46 million, the highest total since September 1997.
  Prosopagnosia
  NOTES:
  Prosopagnosia is also known as face blindness, usually a result of brain injury. People suffering from it cannot recognize familiar faces, even their own. A book on this and related topics is neurologist Oliver Sacks's "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.
  Prosopagnosiacs' motto: We do not take people at face value.
  USAGE:
  "Rob Cross, 25, acquired prosopagnosia four years ago when a virus attacked his brain. For years, he has hidden his condition by avoiding calling his co-workers at a Burnaby manufacturing company by name or acting slightly aloof. 'Every morning people say, "Hi Rob," and the majority of the time I don't know who it is,' said Mr. Cross."
  Hayley Mick; We Know Each Other, But Who Are You? Globe and Mail (Toronto, Canada); Jan 10, 2008.
  A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
  I thank you
  Firozali A. Mulla  
  

  Rate this comment:
• 
  tdinkel@sunreports.com
  

  Posts:
  2

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  04/22/2009 09:24 AM

  How stimulus money is being spent?!?!

  I can't wait for the next installment, I'm eager to see how this money is being spent since I cannot find any way to get any of it!!  My team has been scouring the DOE sites, State Gov sites, and local muni sites for ANY sign that there is money reaching those who need it.  To date, we have found that there 'plans' to fund, but no funding to date that we can find.
  
  If someone has more knowledge than I about how to get stimulus money, my green cleantech renewable energy startup is sure looking for some!
  
  TDinkel
  CEO

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    SeeClearly
    

    Posts:
    6

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    04/23/2009 02:35 PM

    Re: How stimulus money is being spent?!?!

    Wake up smell the C02. That's carbon dioxide for those of you who've graduated from public (gov't run) school.
    
    Your little private company isn't going to get any of the $timulu$. This is not about moving money out of the gov't into the private sector.
    
    This is about making the gov't larger. They don't really care about the environment, but it's the biggest project they could think of that creates the perfect excuse for large $$ amounts.
    
    Senator Whoever:"Yes, that's right ladies and gentlemen. We're making a new air-conditioner that is the size of the moon. We'll be replacing the moon with the air-conditioner and it will look the same so you may not notice. Now I just need $40 Quadrillion dollars." :-)
    
    The only thing private about this whole deal is how they privately shove the $100,000,000,0000 into political pockets. Unless you got a friend in the gov't bidness you won't see any. Better start your campaign now. :-)

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 Next »