I wouldn't say it never is, but I would agree that it doesn't happen often enough. Too many Solyndra type stories out there to claim otherwise...unfortunately.
The value of technical programs
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Government spending at various levels, primarily for military purposes.
Yes. Now can you tell me why that is?
How about YOU tell me why that is, because you obviously have some preconceived notion of what the "correct answer" is here, so out with it. And then I'll tell you whether I agree with any of it (not likely) or not.
Quote:
Government spending at various levels, primarily for military purposes.
Yes. Now can you tell me why that is?
How about YOU tell me why that is, because you obviously have some preconceived notion of what the "correct answer" is here, so out with it. And then I'll tell you whether I agree with any of it (not likely) or not.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
get enough of us mad and maybe we'll do something. Just maybe.
Please tell me what that "something" is. Rioting in the streets? Confiscation of other people's property without due process?
Please educate all of us.
Dude, you are going to get my thread locked. I had to create this thread because you got the OTHER thread locked. So if you cannot contain yourself, please refrain from posting and make your OWN thread that can get locked instead.
Quote:
get enough of us mad and maybe we'll do something. Just maybe.
Please tell me what that "something" is. Rioting in the streets? Confiscation of other people's property without due process?
Please educate all of us.
Dude, you are going to get my thread locked. I had to create this thread because you got the OTHER thread locked. So if you cannot contain yourself, please refrain from posting and make your OWN thread that can get locked instead.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
I know a guy who in the military got to play with a new over-the-horizon radar. They dispatched a plane 1000s of miles away and tested the thing to see if they could see it.
It was "sorta" efficient (not sure if its performance was ever classified) and they held the vendor's feet to the fire, until it was "very" efficient.
Did we get our money's worth? Well, the radar worked, so yes. Are we going to try to justify that one radar's job in the Cold War, vs the other stuff we did, and gizmos we bought, with all the benefit of hindsight?
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
I know a guy who in the military got to play with a new over-the-horizon radar. They dispatched a plane 1000s of miles away and tested the thing to see if they could see it.
It was "sorta" efficient (not sure if its performance was ever classified) and they held the vendor's feet to the fire, until it was "very" efficient.
Did we get our money's worth? Well, the radar worked, so yes. Are we going to try to justify that one radar's job in the Cold War, vs the other stuff we did, and gizmos we bought, with all the benefit of hindsight?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
I know a guy who in the military got to play with a new over-the-horizon radar. They dispatched a plane 1000s of miles away and tested the thing to see if they could see it.
It was "sorta" efficient (not sure if its performance was ever classified) and they held the vendor's feet to the fire, until it was "very" efficient.
Did we get our money's worth? Well, the radar worked, so yes. Are we going to try to justify that one radar's job in the Cold War, vs the other stuff we did, and gizmos we bought, with all the benefit of hindsight?
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
I know a guy who in the military got to play with a new over-the-horizon radar. They dispatched a plane 1000s of miles away and tested the thing to see if they could see it.
It was "sorta" efficient (not sure if its performance was ever classified) and they held the vendor's feet to the fire, until it was "very" efficient.
Did we get our money's worth? Well, the radar worked, so yes. Are we going to try to justify that one radar's job in the Cold War, vs the other stuff we did, and gizmos we bought, with all the benefit of hindsight?
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
http://news.discovery.com/space/big-pic-space-station-aurora-110927.html
If you agree that technology improves the future, then you have to breed people who want to be "technologists"...and that means enthralling them when they are young, by stuff that makes them go "WOW", and then they strive in their formative years to be as good as they can.
To become an astronaut, fighter pilot, etc. etc., you need to capture them early, and have them do the hard work to get there...
I think that's a major legacy of technology, building dreams that kids work to.
It's one of the "non tangible" benefits that throw beancounters into a fit, as you can't quantify it, but it's a major part.
If you agree that technology improves the future, then you have to breed people who want to be "technologists"...and that means enthralling them when they are young, by stuff that makes them go "WOW", and then they strive in their formative years to be as good as they can.
To become an astronaut, fighter pilot, etc. etc., you need to capture them early, and have them do the hard work to get there...
I think that's a major legacy of technology, building dreams that kids work to.
It's one of the "non tangible" benefits that throw beancounters into a fit, as you can't quantify it, but it's a major part.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
I agree, America has LET this slide happen. I don't think I can say much more without placing your thread in further jeopardy. Suffice it to say it seems both citizens and pols from both parties don't seem to have the will to solve the problem. The solution would shake up things and folks like the status quo more than they fear the consequences of the current path.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
I agree, America has LET this slide happen. I don't think I can say much more without placing your thread in further jeopardy. Suffice it to say it seems both citizens and pols from both parties don't seem to have the will to solve the problem. The solution would shake up things and folks like the status quo more than they fear the consequences of the current path.
If you are very smart US student, do you think you would like to become an astronaut, fighter pilot or a top scientist or a world class engineer? Of course not, you want to make your career in Investment Banking *because* that is where you can make millions to billions of dollars. You will be surprised to find lots and lots of the best engineers working for the wall street. "Financial Engineering" is where the brains are these days.
We get what we deserve and NOT what we want :-(
- Vikas
We get what we deserve and NOT what we want :-(
- Vikas
Exactly OVERK1LL.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Common sense may be lacking in many cases where free money gets thrown around, and that should be corrected.
But it never is, and that is why it matters where the initial investment came from.
The OP wants lots of government spending on technical programs. OK. What is the effectiveness criteria for funding these things? Where is the reports on how efficient these things are run and what comes out of it?
Who makes the decisions on these things? I would like to see answer on this.
The government can't even bodge together a budget yet these people are supposed run highly technical projects well?
No sir, YOUR government can't even bodge together a budget. Other civilized countries don't have this problem to the same degree.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
It was the same government that created NASA, that pushed for an allied victory in World War II and got the private sector behind the public sector for the war effort!
It is the same government that invested money in education and programs like GPS (as somebody else mentioned) Wide Area Network Technology and the Micro Processor so that the public sector could then later exploit the fruits of these investments!
If you have an idiot behind the wheel of a car, does that make the car bad? And if you PUT that idiot behind the wheel, are you not responsible?
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
If you are very smart US student, do you think you would like to become an astronaut, fighter pilot or a top scientist or a world class engineer? Of course not, you want to make your career in Investment Banking *because* that is where you can make millions to billions of dollars. You will be surprised to find lots and lots of the best engineers working for the wall street. "Financial Engineering" is where the brains are these days.
We get what we deserve and NOT what we want :-(
- Vikas
I believe this is very true. Financial engineering has not helped the masses in many cases.
If you are very smart US student, do you think you would like to become an astronaut, fighter pilot or a top scientist or a world class engineer? Of course not, you want to make your career in Investment Banking *because* that is where you can make millions to billions of dollars. You will be surprised to find lots and lots of the best engineers working for the wall street. "Financial Engineering" is where the brains are these days.
We get what we deserve and NOT what we want :-(
- Vikas
I believe this is very true. Financial engineering has not helped the masses in many cases.
Originally Posted By: buster
Financial engineering has not helped the masses in many cases.
And mostly the masses don't bother helping the masses(themselves) in a productive way.
Financial engineering has not helped the masses in many cases.
And mostly the masses don't bother helping the masses(themselves) in a productive way.
Quote:
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
So "the government" is a separate entity from the people in it and running it? Is the same then true of corporations and their boards/CEO's?
Quote:
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
Why would they need to? Have you happily contributed money to massive undertakings like this that would be completely useless? The SR-71 was a military project, and that dictated the need.
The Soviet Union poured massive amounts of resources (government spending) into their military build up, why couldn't they invent this? They had to steal metal out of a Brit factory to keep their fan blades together.
But this post gets to my previous question that you didn't want to answer: The military produces (at a higher rate) new, useful things because it is involved in competition. Whether it be the Axis in WWII, the Soviets, terrorists....whatever. They are competing with someone else and trying to be better, and those items MUST work or we loose members of our society or our society itself.
This same motivation is what drives the private sector improvement, to make things better for one's self and profit from one's labor. Most of what government does specifically tries to eliminate competition and profit and is why it must be inefficient.
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
So "the government" is a separate entity from the people in it and running it? Is the same then true of corporations and their boards/CEO's?
Quote:
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
Why would they need to? Have you happily contributed money to massive undertakings like this that would be completely useless? The SR-71 was a military project, and that dictated the need.
The Soviet Union poured massive amounts of resources (government spending) into their military build up, why couldn't they invent this? They had to steal metal out of a Brit factory to keep their fan blades together.
But this post gets to my previous question that you didn't want to answer: The military produces (at a higher rate) new, useful things because it is involved in competition. Whether it be the Axis in WWII, the Soviets, terrorists....whatever. They are competing with someone else and trying to be better, and those items MUST work or we loose members of our society or our society itself.
This same motivation is what drives the private sector improvement, to make things better for one's self and profit from one's labor. Most of what government does specifically tries to eliminate competition and profit and is why it must be inefficient.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Absolutely, and actually, it's the big banks and multi-national corporations that fund elections that have let this happen. It's pretty obvious that voting no longer produces any fundamental change in the United States.
The previous administration (conservative) added a huge prescription drug benefit to medicare and bailed out wall street. Hardly conservative. The current administration (supposedly liberal and who attended Bilderberg) gave us national private health insurance (the stock of health insurance companies instantly went up 10%) and started a new war...........oh, let me rephrase that: "kinetic military action". Hardly liberal. "politics" is window dressing. Any policy decision that needs to be made for the benefit of a large powerful political downer WILL be made by ANY bought and paid for elected official of any stripe.
Until and unless the majority of voters wake up to this, we're screwed.
America has LET this slide happen. And as much as we complain about it, nobody appears to want to act to reverse it.
Absolutely, and actually, it's the big banks and multi-national corporations that fund elections that have let this happen. It's pretty obvious that voting no longer produces any fundamental change in the United States.
The previous administration (conservative) added a huge prescription drug benefit to medicare and bailed out wall street. Hardly conservative. The current administration (supposedly liberal and who attended Bilderberg) gave us national private health insurance (the stock of health insurance companies instantly went up 10%) and started a new war...........oh, let me rephrase that: "kinetic military action". Hardly liberal. "politics" is window dressing. Any policy decision that needs to be made for the benefit of a large powerful political downer WILL be made by ANY bought and paid for elected official of any stripe.
Until and unless the majority of voters wake up to this, we're screwed.
I wonder if OK1 will get on you for getting his thread killed?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I wonder if OK1 will get on you for getting his thread killed?
Only you've managed to pull that one off thus far
Surprisingly, this one is still going.
I wonder if OK1 will get on you for getting his thread killed?
Only you've managed to pull that one off thus far
Surprisingly, this one is still going.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
So "the government" is a separate entity from the people in it and running it? Is the same then true of corporations and their boards/CEO's?
The government is supposed to represent and reflect the interests of the people who voted.
Corporations are represented by shareholders who want the best ROI, not necessarily what is best for the company, the country it resides in, or the people that work for it.
Shareholders MAKE money off corporations (or that is the idea), whilst tax payers PUT money into Government by way of taxes to fund these programs and ventures that are often "too risky" or seem to be a "bad gamble" for the private sector.
So the goals of government: To represent the interest of the people of the nation and to spend their money in the way that best benefits them.
Differs greatly from the goals of a board of directors: To get the best ROI for shareholders, with no real concern for the employees or other "parts of the machine" as profit is the main goal.
Worded differently: Corporations exist to make money. Government exists to spend money. One the people work for, the other works for the people.
Quote:
Quote:
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
Why would they need to? Have you happily contributed money to massive undertakings like this that would be completely useless? The SR-71 was a military project, and that dictated the need.
Sure have. My tax dollars (those of my parents really) went toward the Avro Arrow, which your government, forced OUR government to axe. I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on military developments and technologies, since the trickle down from those technologies are parts of our every day lives. You are typing your reply to me on an example of that. We are able to have this conversation because of that. And you aren't under Nazi control, or a Japanese zombie because of that.
Quote:
The Soviet Union poured massive amounts of resources (government spending) into their military build up, why couldn't they invent this? They had to steal metal out of a Brit factory to keep their fan blades together.
The Soviet's ability to invent (or not invent) the equivalent of the SR-71 is not a topic fit for this thread.
Quote:
But this post gets to my previous question that you didn't want to answer: The military produces (at a higher rate) new, useful things because it is involved in competition. Whether it be the Axis in WWII, the Soviets, terrorists....whatever. They are competing with someone else and trying to be better, and those items MUST work or we loose members of our society or our society itself.
This same motivation is what drives the private sector improvement, to make things better for one's self and profit from one's labor. Most of what government does specifically tries to eliminate competition and profit and is why it must be inefficient.
While the motivation may be the same, because the military doesn't report to shareholders, nor have to generate any kind of profit, the inventions and technologies that have come from military spending are far greater than anything we've seen in the private sector. Who seem to simply take those inventions and refine them (and cheapen them) so that they can turn a profit. And they have been very successful at this I might add. Cisco, Juniper, IBM, HP...etc all exist in their current form because of government spending on "crazy" military technology.
Quote:
That would indicate an issue with the people you've voted into government to represent you, the people... Not the government itself.
So "the government" is a separate entity from the people in it and running it? Is the same then true of corporations and their boards/CEO's?
The government is supposed to represent and reflect the interests of the people who voted.
Corporations are represented by shareholders who want the best ROI, not necessarily what is best for the company, the country it resides in, or the people that work for it.
Shareholders MAKE money off corporations (or that is the idea), whilst tax payers PUT money into Government by way of taxes to fund these programs and ventures that are often "too risky" or seem to be a "bad gamble" for the private sector.
So the goals of government: To represent the interest of the people of the nation and to spend their money in the way that best benefits them.
Differs greatly from the goals of a board of directors: To get the best ROI for shareholders, with no real concern for the employees or other "parts of the machine" as profit is the main goal.
Worded differently: Corporations exist to make money. Government exists to spend money. One the people work for, the other works for the people.
Quote:
Quote:
Precisely. Would Lockheed Martin have produced the SR-71 Blackbird without the government funding for the program?
Why would they need to? Have you happily contributed money to massive undertakings like this that would be completely useless? The SR-71 was a military project, and that dictated the need.
Sure have. My tax dollars (those of my parents really) went toward the Avro Arrow, which your government, forced OUR government to axe. I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on military developments and technologies, since the trickle down from those technologies are parts of our every day lives. You are typing your reply to me on an example of that. We are able to have this conversation because of that. And you aren't under Nazi control, or a Japanese zombie because of that.
Quote:
The Soviet Union poured massive amounts of resources (government spending) into their military build up, why couldn't they invent this? They had to steal metal out of a Brit factory to keep their fan blades together.
The Soviet's ability to invent (or not invent) the equivalent of the SR-71 is not a topic fit for this thread.
Quote:
But this post gets to my previous question that you didn't want to answer: The military produces (at a higher rate) new, useful things because it is involved in competition. Whether it be the Axis in WWII, the Soviets, terrorists....whatever. They are competing with someone else and trying to be better, and those items MUST work or we loose members of our society or our society itself.
This same motivation is what drives the private sector improvement, to make things better for one's self and profit from one's labor. Most of what government does specifically tries to eliminate competition and profit and is why it must be inefficient.
While the motivation may be the same, because the military doesn't report to shareholders, nor have to generate any kind of profit, the inventions and technologies that have come from military spending are far greater than anything we've seen in the private sector. Who seem to simply take those inventions and refine them (and cheapen them) so that they can turn a profit. And they have been very successful at this I might add. Cisco, Juniper, IBM, HP...etc all exist in their current form because of government spending on "crazy" military technology.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
