Half a BILLION down the drain

[DC Tom]

True. For me the wasteful spending is on those "Angel" projects. Lets invest billions and pray it works. To me, it's ridiculous. Contractors are gaining way to much.

 

If you look at wildly successful companies and industries, they usually have some sort of a research branch where the people that work there are allowed to investigate anything they want (on the principle of "you don't know where the next good idea's going to come from)...and usually those companies are insanely innovative because of it. Google Labs and Microsoft Research spring most immediately to mind...and IBM's Watson Labs (did you know IBM has an astronomer on payroll at Watson Labs?) Usually, the expense of such things has a minor impact on the bottom line...but the results have a business impact far greater than the investment put in to them.

 

So unless you consider innovation a waste... DARPA's real problem isn't DARPA, it's the rest of the Pentagon. Dropping a few tens of millions into EM gun research isn't a bad idea (it pays dividends in a lot of different disciplines - high-energy physics, ballistics, materials science, energy generation and storage)...what's a bad idea is when the Navy says "Cool, you've got a working prototype, now let's put it on the DDX!"

[pBills]

If you look at wildly successful companies and industries, they usually have some sort of a research branch where the people that work there are allowed to investigate anything they want (on the principle of "you don't know where the next good idea's going to come from)...and usually those companies are insanely innovative because of it. Google Labs and Microsoft Research spring most immediately to mind...and IBM's Watson Labs (did you know IBM has an astronomer on payroll at Watson Labs?) Usually, the expense of such things has a minor impact on the bottom line...but the results have a business impact far greater than the investment put in to them.

 

So unless you consider innovation a waste... DARPA's real problem isn't DARPA, it's the rest of the Pentagon. Dropping a few tens of millions into EM gun research isn't a bad idea (it pays dividends in a lot of different disciplines - high-energy physics, ballistics, materials science, energy generation and storage)...what's a bad idea is when the Navy says "Cool, you've got a working prototype, now let's put it on the DDX!"

 

 

Innovation is not a waste, however during this economic downturn... not a good idea to keep this up for the time being. Spend that money elsewhere or not even better.

[Wacka]

We had a DARPA grant to try to develop a bacteria base indicator for bio or chemical agents. It wasn't that big 2 salaries and lab costs for two years. Didn't pan out, but if it did, you could just expose the bacteria to the suspected agent and it would glow if it was the agent you were looking for.

[DC Tom]

We had a DARPA grant to try to develop a bacteria base indicator for bio or chemical agents. It wasn't that big 2 salaries and lab costs for two years. Didn't pan out, but if it did, you could just expose the bacteria to the suspected agent and it would glow if it was the agent you were looking for.

 

The benefits of that, had it panned out, would have been huge. I just heard today about how the FDA wants meat packers to test for six different strains of E. Coli...just imagine the cost and time savings if you could test by spraying a small test sample with a flourescing agent.

 

I wrote up some sort of DARPA grant proposal once, for some "small projects" initiative. First phase was $60k for nine months for what basically amounted to a glorified project plan...the real money was in phase 3, which was up to $2M for a proof-of-concept, which if it panned out would turn into a full-fledged DARPA project. Pretty smart model for weeding out the absolute bull **** early on at little cost and funding only the worthwhile stuff.

[Wacka]

Drove past Solyndra Sunday on the way to and from watching the Bills game. The only people employed there now are the security guards at the gate.

 

The benefits of that, had it panned out, would have been huge. I just heard today about how the FDA wants meat packers to test for six different strains of E. Coli...just imagine the cost and time savings if you could test by spraying a small test sample with a flourescing agent.

 

I wrote up some sort of DARPA grant proposal once, for some "small projects" initiative. First phase was $60k for nine months for what basically amounted to a glorified project plan...the real money was in phase 3, which was up to $2M for a proof-of-concept, which if it panned out would turn into a full-fledged DARPA project. Pretty smart model for weeding out the absolute bull **** early on at little cost and funding only the worthwhile stuff.

 

The place I used to work at worked with the firefly luciferase in various organisms. I collaborated (got a co-authorship on a paper) with a guy at the USDA that was using the glowing bacteria to try to test better ways of removing bacteria from beef carcasses at the slaughterhouse. They had their own test slaughterhouse to test out techniques. We were using pieces of meat coated with solutions of manure containing the glowing bacteria.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Wacka

[DC Tom]

The place I used to work at worked with the firefly luciferase in various organisms. I collaborated (got a co-authorship on a paper) with a guy at the USDA that was using the glowing bacteria to try to test better ways of removing bacteria from beef carcasses at the slaughterhouse. They had their own test slaughterhouse to test out techniques. We were using pieces of meat coated with solutions of manure containing the glowing bacteria.

 

But we need to defund that, and put more money into health care...

 

 

[GG]

The benefits of that, had it panned out, would have been huge. I just heard today about how the FDA wants meat packers to test for six different strains of E. Coli...just imagine the cost and time savings if you could test by spraying a small test sample with a flourescing agent.

 

And here I thought the only expense would be stopping by a random Boston bar that has PBR on tap. Can't be that hard or expensive.

 

My link

 

 

 

If you click on the link you'll get an idea of what American PV panel manufacturers are up against.

 

Big whoop, so they're dominating manufacturing of a non feasible technology. Note that even with predatory pricing, solar technology still can't crack burning carbon. If we're going to waste $500 million of taxpayer funds, it should at least go towards R&D of something that may have a chance of a breakthrough.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nice piece. It's never so simple as "Obama (or Bush) sucks." I like the line "we need to re-learn how to make things in this country." For 30 years the US pursued the "race to the bottom" strategy, moving production to low wage countries. As the financial sector came to dominate industrial interests, the process quickened, as finance is all about short term profits.

 

Given the short-term focus, fewer real assets to finance (we're a service-based economy), and rising inequality, the economy is more prone to bubbles.

 

There is hope in that the lower dollar is creating a competitive advantage for many US firms. However, it's time to put tariffs on Chinese goods, especially if they won't let their currency float.

 

You had me right up until the bold. Also, there's no doubt that the financial sector and their assclownery caused the tech bubble, and also caused it to burst. (But, you conveniently forgot to blame the regulators, the unions, and the politicians for taxing/regulating/demanding insane benefits and wages/legislating manufacturing business away...come on man...if you want less of something, tax/regulate/demonize = legislate against it. To quote Billy Joel: "you oughta know by now")

 

Perhaps we should sink $500 million into reanimating Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, so they can tell you passing tariffs - MORE regulation? , in a time of economic downturn, is a stoopid choice. EDIT: We'll call it "zombie economics".

Edited September 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2011/09/14/bush-admin-voted-against-solyndra-loan

 

This article says the feds knew it was a failed business model from the start. They predicted Solyndra would run out of money by September of 2011. I guess all is not lost, Obama & the Dems did get their political donations.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-pushed-500-million-loan-to-solar-company-now-under-investigation/2011/09/13/gIQAr3WbQK_print.html

 

Naw, no reason for the OMB to feel pressure from the WH.

Edited September 14, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[TPS]

You had me right up until the bold. Also, there's no doubt that the financial sector and their assclownery caused the tech bubble, and also caused it to burst. (But, you conveniently forgot to blame the regulators, the unions, and the politicians for taxing/regulating/demanding insane benefits and wages/legislating manufacturing business away...come on man...if you want less of something, tax/regulate/demonize = legislate against it. To quote Billy Joel: "you oughta know by now")

 

Perhaps we should sink $500 million into reanimating Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley, so they can tell you passing tariffs - MORE regulation? , in a time of economic downturn, is a stoopid choice. EDIT: We'll call it "zombie economics".

Dude,

I made a generalization about the tendency for asset bubbles to emerge more frequently based on several broad factors. While not explicit, the point made is that the focus on short term profitability means taking the easy way out(sourcing). Yes, the cost of doing business (all costs) is higher in the US, and it's easier to "join them" (there) than fight them here. Fighting them here (becoming more competitive) requires a long term focus.

 

Given the outsourcing of production, there are fewer tangible assets to "invest in" domestically. Rising inequality means a greater source of funds for finance, as the top saves more. What to "invest in"? Internet stocks, deregulated energy companies (that falsified their books to increase paper profits and stocks prices), housing, "default bets" on bonds of private companies or sovereign nations, emerging markets, commodities....

 

So you are fine with China creating an unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis the US by keeping the yuan artificially pegged (low) against the $?

[ieatcrayonz]

But we need to defund that, and put more money into health care...

 

 

Well if your idea of research is spreading poop on meat then you'll be spending more on research AND health care. I'm pretty sure people that eat poop get sick more often.

[3rdnlng]

Well if your idea of research is spreading poop on meat then you'll be spending more on research AND health care. I'm pretty sure people that eat poop get sick more often.

 

It could be even more serious. Haven't you ever heard the expression "eat schit and die"?

[OCinBuffalo]

Dude,

I made a generalization about the tendency for asset bubbles to emerge more frequently based on several broad factors. While not explicit, the point made is that the focus on short term profitability means taking the easy way out(sourcing). Yes, the cost of doing business (all costs) is higher in the US, and it's easier to "join them" (there) than fight them here. Fighting them here (becoming more competitive) requires a long term focus.

 

Given the outsourcing of production, there are fewer tangible assets to "invest in" domestically. Rising inequality means a greater source of funds for finance, as the top saves more. What to "invest in"? Internet stocks, deregulated energy companies (that falsified their books to increase paper profits and stocks prices), housing, "default bets" on bonds of private companies or sovereign nations, emerging markets, commodities....

 

So you are fine with China creating an unfair competitive advantage vis-a-vis the US by keeping the yuan artificially pegged (low) against the $?

The reality is: we cannot make it more difficult to manufacture things here, by adding significant, non-value adding costs to the production line...and then turn around and cry because there's no manufacturing. That is by far the biggest problem here. I acknowledge your problem, but it is far smaller, and is also dependent on the problem I have identified. In all cases, the short term focus doesn't happen without US manufacturers already well on their way towards leaving.

 

I can't tell if you have your cause and effect screwed up here: the finance people were reacting to the problems created by the unions/gov't/regulators, and, the solutions chosen(move to China) by the manufacturing companies. Markets react, they are not proactive.

 

You made the weather, now you complain that it's raining? China wouldn't be in the position to do F all if it wasn't for the stupid choices WRT manufacturing that Democrats have been making since 1965.

 

But, now? Now that we have established the root cause of our problems? Sure, I agree that we also need to do something about currency. That something does not include a tariff. Or, that something can include a tariff, provided you can prove that there will be no unintended consequences, and/or will not negatively effect other economies that we rely on.

 

I am fine with talking about the currency manipulation, right after we pass a law that pegs the total non-value added costs imposed by government to 10% of the total cost of any manufactured unit. And, that cost is calculated from the local government up. This way the states and Feds eat last, and the schools and the local government can compete for manufacturing unhindered. We cannot talk about peripheral problems, or downstream problems, but not be willing to talk about the root cause.

Edited September 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Obama will blame Bush for this as well...

 

SSDD

[TPS]

The reality is: we cannot make it more difficult to manufacture things here, by adding significant, non-value adding costs to the production line...and then turn around and cry because there's no manufacturing. That is by far the biggest problem here. I acknowledge your problem, but it is far smaller, and is also dependent on the problem I have identified. In all cases, the short term focus doesn't happen without US manufacturers already well on their way towards leaving.

 

I can't tell if you have your cause and effect screwed up here: the finance people were reacting to the problems created by the unions/gov't/regulators, and, the solutions chosen(move to China) by the manufacturing companies. Markets react, they are not proactive.

 

You made the weather, now you complain that it's raining? China wouldn't be in the position to do F all if it wasn't for the stupid choices WRT manufacturing that Democrats have been making since 1965.

 

But, now? Now that we have established the root cause of our problems? Sure, I agree that we also need to do something about currency. That something does not include a tariff. Or, that something can include a tariff, provided you can prove that there will be no unintended consequences, and/or will not negatively effect other economies that we rely on.

 

I am fine with talking about the currency manipulation, right after we pass a law that pegs the total non-value added costs imposed by government to 10% of the total cost of any manufactured unit. And, that cost is calculated from the local government up. This way the states and Feds eat last, and the schools and the local government can compete for manufacturing unhindered. We cannot talk about peripheral problems, or downstream problems, but not be willing to talk about the root cause.

I think it's even more complicated than simply blaming regulations, government and unions. Deindustrialization doesn't begin until the 1970s, so there's an historical context. But that's a much longer story about US dominance and decline, complacent management, recalcitrant unions, etc.

 

Why do foreign companies move production to the US if regulations, government, etc are so onerous? For US corps outsourcing, there are myriad reasons, but the dominant one is to reduce the largest component of costs--wages. You can blame union wages, but would you expect workers in the US to go from $20+/hr to $20/day to compete?

 

More recently, a lot of the moves by MNCs in general has to do with reducing exchange rate risk. Japan's auto industry got clobbered in the late 1980s as the dollar collapsed after its 1985 peak.

 

As for cause and effect, I did not say finance is the cause, rather it's the accelerator. There are a lot of firms that stuck it out and fought back. Cummins Engine for example. There are a lot of firms that were going to "cash it in" but were converted to ESOPs. In these cases, the firms are not subject to the myopia of short term profits dictated by "the markets"....

[OCinBuffalo]

This comes down to fighting chance vs. no chance. When you add up the EPA, OSHA, lawyers gone wild...like Peace, lawyers to defend against scumbag lawyers...like Peace, Unions, taxes, regulations, tax laws, tax preparation costs, tax lawyers to fight off government lawyers, (basically, 80% of the campaign $ constituency of the Democratic party)manufacturers have no chance. They cannot "manage" their way out of it. Not with paying extortion money to all these people, pay their own people, and try to make a profit.

 

I am not thinking/expecting that they should have anything other than a fighting chance. Currently they have no chance. If we continue to allow the above to leech off of them, they will continue to have no chance. We can talk markets all we want, if you don't curtail the leeches, the blood can't move, the system can't heal.

I think it's even more complicated than simply blaming regulations, government and unions. Deindustrialization doesn't begin until the 1970s, so there's an historical context. But that's a much longer story about US dominance and decline, complacent management, recalcitrant unions, etc.

 

Why do foreign companies move production to the US if regulations, government, etc are so onerous? For US corps outsourcing, there are myriad reasons, but the dominant one is to reduce the largest component of costs--wages. You can blame union wages, but would you expect workers in the US to go from $20+/hr to $20/day to compete?

Where do they move production to? Which states? Right to work or not? High tax or low? Even within NYS, how come the new manufacturing is built in the suburbs/out in the sticks, and not the cities? The cities have the "infrastructure" we keep hearing is the only way business can succeed, yet, most of your new, small/medium manufacturing outfits are being built 45 minutes away? How can this be? You know how, and so do I. The people who will build businesses, I mean real ones, not flower shops, will only do it as far away from concentrations of Democrats as possible, because, they are not stupid.

 

Now, you can tell me all you want about cost of living: and I will simply say, "who the F keeps driving those costs up in the cities? and who keeps driving them down in the sticks?" If I have to pay $5 for a gallon of milk because the store in the city has to pay assclown levels of taxes...whose fault is that? The guy who creates the milk?

More recently, a lot of the moves by MNCs in general has to do with reducing exchange rate risk. Japan's auto industry got clobbered in the late 1980s as the dollar collapsed after its 1985 peak.

 

As for cause and effect, I did not say finance is the cause, rather it's the accelerator. There are a lot of firms that stuck it out and fought back. Cummins Engine for example. There are a lot of firms that were going to "cash it in" but were converted to ESOPs. In these cases, the firms are not subject to the myopia of short term profits dictated by "the markets"....

Again, the markets dictate nothing. Without the threats created by manufacturing being squeezed at both ends = higher taxes cutting into revenues, and, higher costs derived from non-market-based wage/benefit demands, a whole set of options never makes it to the table for managers, and, a whole set of responses never become feasible for traders/mutual fund guys, etc. The worst part is: those threats directly attacked the strengths of our manufacturers, making it difficult to overcome weaknesses, and, even more difficult to capitalize on opportunity. I have news: you can't create these conditions, and expect every manager to be Jack Welch, with 0 tolerance for deviations and 0 contingencies.

 

Yes, this is the single most retarded SWOT I have ever...well....except for this one thing in Ohio...it's the worst possible set of circumstances...and apparently voters in the North East aren't able to connect the dots.

Edited September 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Adam]

This just in...the world isn't flat and keynesian economics doesn't work.

 

But don't dispair, while he may be as dumb as a box of rocks our president is cool!

And the economic theory which will sustain itself indefinitely is??????????

 

Actually, while President Obama is not dumb, the American population is. That's why America has gone completely down the tubes. Dumberica has to stop looking at the Democrats and Republicans- they need to look in the mirror, at their stupid selves. Somebody please cue the "Love it or leave it" propaganda........

 

Bush's fault....Obama's fault....Bush's fault.........Shut up America!

[Alaska Darin]

Innovation is not a waste, however during this economic downturn... not a good idea to keep this up for the time being. Spend that money elsewhere or not even better.

Why not just type "I'm a liberal union apologist. I can't speak specifically to anything but the standard talking point of 'DoD BAD', so I'm going to stick with that theme despite the fact that I'm shown to be ignorant on everything regarding the topic."?

 

At the end of the day, DoD is an industry. It employs a ton of people. If you cut it just for the sake of cutting it, you add to the current economic problem. That solves nothing in the long term and has catastrophic implications in the short term. It's on par with just letting GM and Chrysler go under. The downstream affects would have made 1929 look like a vacation.

 

Can DoD be cut? Absolutely. Can it be cut in half? Probably. Is the best way to kill things like innovation? Absolutely not because that's one of the very few places America still has a lead in this world. Smart people understand that things like this must be done very carefully with planning and measurement.

 

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and RMPL.

[Joe Miner]

I know these numbers are just chump change, but:

 

Beacon Power - $43M

 

 

TR AUTO - $400,000

[DC Tom]

TR AUTO - $400,000

 

Both the state and EPA were apparently unaware that owner Rick Lewis had a history of legal and financial problems and had filed for bankruptcy.

 

That's just !@#$ing careless. Giving money to a company with questionable long-term prospects is one thing; giving money to a company ALREADY IN BANKRUPTCY is a heterochromatic equus.

 

Though apparently the money was used properly: seems like the closed truck stop does, indeed, have electric terminals.