Political Roundtable - Part VI

[W. Unseld]

Hands, what do you do?

Also, are you still researching the Obama administration prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined? Let me know what you conclude, try to stick to a word count.

[Zonkerbl]

Way to miss the point entirely, barely...

Name one game changing technology that was the result of a President's specific policy initiative since the space race (I have to give you that one). One that the President picked out and said "this is going to be the next big thing," like he's trying to do with "green technology." Or Bush did with "cellulosic ethanol."

[dckingsfan]

Funding research HAS to be one of the things high on the government's todo list. It is a key strategic advantage that we have... And the key is to fund MANY things and hope a few stick. Probabilistically, the gov isn't very good at picking but they have enormous resources to invest in many things.

But they should do and not fund companies - they aren't good at picking winners and losers in the private sector - nor should they... then the funding rolls to the campaign funders and that isn't such a good thing.

I am pretty sure that is what you both meant...

[Zonkerbl]

Well, to be precise, the government should not have "industrial policy," like in China (and many, many other developing countries), where they pick out specific sectors and subsidize the crap out of them. Fails about 90% of the time (the other 10%, unfortunately, being the only examples of successful transition from developing to developed economies, like the Asian Tigers).

That's different from funding basic research, thanks for the distinction. Didn't catch it myself.

[barelyawake]

Way to miss the point entirely, barely...

Name one game changing technology that was the result of a President's specific policy initiative since the space race (I have to give you that one). One that the President picked out and said "this is going to be the next big thing," like he's trying to do with "green technology." Or Bush did with "cellulosic ethanol."

The human genome project will produce thousands of advancements. And advancements are being made by government funded projects continually. They always have. I'm not sure how I'm missing the point.

Btw, the telegraph came about because the government offered $30,000 to invent it. Our government, and other governments, do such things all the time.

[barelyawake]

Funding research HAS to be one of the things high on the government's todo list. It is a key strategic advantage that we have... And the key is to fund MANY things and hope a few stick. Probabilistically, the gov isn't very good at picking but they have enormous resources to invest in many things.

But they should do and not fund companies - they aren't good at picking winners and losers in the private sector - nor should they... then the funding rolls to the campaign funders and that isn't such a good thing.

I am pretty sure that is what you both meant...

Well, obviously I agree with the first. And the second, I somewhat agree with (however there are instances where the market is at odds with the public good, and in those instances I understand government picking a winner).

[dckingsfan]

Funding research HAS to be one of the things high on the government's todo list. It is a key strategic advantage that we have... And the key is to fund MANY things and hope a few stick. Probabilistically, the gov isn't very good at picking but they have enormous resources to invest in many things.

But they should do and not fund companies - they aren't good at picking winners and losers in the private sector - nor should they... then the funding rolls to the campaign funders and that isn't such a good thing.

I am pretty sure that is what you both meant...

Well, obviously I agree with the first. And the second, I somewhat agree with (however there are instances where the market is at odds with the public good, and in those instances I understand government picking a winner).

You should have added "...I understand government picking a winner which they rarely do and at great expense..."

[hands11]

The next "internet" is not going to be green energy. It's going to be transgenic animals that can be used to cheaply produce substances that are ridiculously expensive to produce in a laboratory. It will be a truly transformational (and possibly horrifying) technology. Either that or nanotech, but I think leveraging what nature can already do will end up being easier. Also the advances in, gosh, I'm not even techie enough to know what to call it, curing diseases by cataloguing your dna genotype, whatever the heck that's called. Generally all the advances we're making understanding and manipulating DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

This is why politicians shouldn't "pick winners." In an advanced economy like ours all the true entrepreneurs are in the private sector. U.S. politicians are idiots when it comes to stuff like this.

I don't trust the President to pick winners and I shouldn't have to. The role of government is to create an environment where markets can function the way they are supposed to. That's what regulations try (and largely fail) to achieve.

But they do a better job than no regulations.

[hands11]

Hands, what do you do?

Also, are you still researching the Obama administration prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined? Let me know what you conclude, try to stick to a word count.

Sorry, got a little side tracked by the government shut down and the treat of world wide economic kick in the balls by our immuring Confederate Insurrection Party. CIP

The below article sounds like a fair framing of the situation. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues moving forward with future presidents (I suspect it will). I agree this is in part do to the increased number of private contractors and outsourcing on clearance for them combined with and ever increasing ways to share information.

Government security clearance should not be a for profit endeavor. That begs for volume and corner cutting.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/traitors ... tration/#0

Outsourcing Clarance. Navy Yard. Have we gone to far.
http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-i ... rcing.html

You can't just look at the end number ( Obama prosecuting more ) and conclude the problem is all in the hands of the people doing more prosecuting. There are other factors in play here.

11/2007 Bush.
http://www.salon.com/2007/11/01/whistleblowers/

I think some information should be protected. Other stuff should be leaked like facts about the mold at Walter Reed. I think this topic is more complicated then you made it.

[popper]

The next "internet" is not going to be green energy. It's going to be transgenic animals that can be used to cheaply produce substances that are ridiculously expensive to produce in a laboratory. It will be a truly transformational (and possibly horrifying) technology. Either that or nanotech, but I think leveraging what nature can already do will end up being easier. Also the advances in, gosh, I'm not even techie enough to know what to call it, curing diseases by cataloguing your dna genotype, whatever the heck that's called. Generally all the advances we're making understanding and manipulating DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

This is why politicians shouldn't "pick winners." In an advanced economy like ours all the true entrepreneurs are in the private sector. U.S. politicians are idiots when it comes to stuff like this.

I don't trust the President to pick winners and I shouldn't have to. The role of government is to create an environment where markets can function the way they are supposed to. That's what regulations try (and largely fail) to achieve.

Bravo

[dckingsfan]

I really like what Druckenmiller - but I am predisposed to the argument as I am a fiscal conservative (not social conservative) independent.

I like that he thinks the TPs are knuckleheads (his words) - having held the party (and country) hostage on the wrong issue.

I think he is a bit misguided to think Republicans will do the bidding on entitlement reform. My guess is that they will be back at the table to get more for defense spending and give on other spending (why both parties are wrong).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0296396688

[barelyawake]

Funding research HAS to be one of the things high on the government's todo list. It is a key strategic advantage that we have... And the key is to fund MANY things and hope a few stick. Probabilistically, the gov isn't very good at picking but they have enormous resources to invest in many things.

But they should do and not fund companies - they aren't good at picking winners and losers in the private sector - nor should they... then the funding rolls to the campaign funders and that isn't such a good thing.

I am pretty sure that is what you both meant...

Well, obviously I agree with the first. And the second, I somewhat agree with (however there are instances where the market is at odds with the public good, and in those instances I understand government picking a winner).

You should have added "...I understand government picking a winner which they rarely do and at great expense..."

I know this is a Republican meme, but it's actually untrue. Has American oil been a loser? Because we have been "picking" oil as a winner for a good long time now -- and subsidizing it all along. How about corn production? Is that a loser? We subsidize corn and thus everything in the grocery store is either made of or fed corn. How about weapons manufacturers? Are they winners or losers? Actually most of the things we "pick" become winners just because we picked and subsidized them. And the Republican complaint only comes about when we pick things that are competition to those who fund them. Thus all the bemoaning "picking" green energy, but not about subsidizing oil or oil pipelines.

[hands11]

Well, obviously I agree with the first. And the second, I somewhat agree with (however there are instances where the market is at odds with the public good, and in those instances I understand government picking a winner).

You should have added "...I understand government picking a winner which they rarely do and at great expense..."

I know this is a Republican meme, but it's actually untrue. Has American oil been a loser? Because we have been "picking" oil as a winner for a good long time now -- and subsidizing it all along. How about corn production? Is that a loser? We subsidize corn and thus everything in the grocery store is either made of or fed corn. How about weapons manufacturers? Are they winners or losers? Actually most of the things we "pick" become winners just because we picked and subsidized them. And the Republican complaint only comes about when we pick things that are competition to those who fund them. Thus all the bemoaning "picking" green energy, but not about subsidizing oil or oil pipelines.

Keep up the good fight. Undoing 30 years of propaganda messaging from the Rs isn't an easy thing to do.

Had the Rs only allowed us to invest more in green earlier when the Dems started promoting it instead of heavily subsidizing oil (drill baby drill - oh Sarah.. lay down baby), we would be a lot farther along and climate change wouldn't be as critical an issue since we would have been more energy self sufficient sooner. But big oil didn't want that. Reagan claims some BS, let the markets work on their own, but we know they weren't because big oil rigged the game.

Had we moved earlier, we would have lead instead of losing to China over solar

And it would cost a ton less to address the climate issues earlier rather then later.

Rs seems to prefer the dig a hole then fill it model of socialized profits for private companies, but the loses are go on the people credit card. Just like when they left all those dirty drown field plants for us to clean up after they took their profits. Just like they do with the military industrial complex and war.

As for Solar and green energy, we were on the right path dating back to 1979 when the president was promoting solar investment. Then Reagan changed course and removed the panels as soon as he got in office.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... Panels.htm

Dems
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... installed/

[penbeast0]

Maybe not a Republican meme as most politicians defend even the most ridiculous subsidies if they benefit any donors that live in their area, but certainly libertarian conservatives have been complaining about ridiculous subsidies to oil companies, farming concerns (milk and tobacco subsidies were favorite themes as well as corn), and obscene defense spending. Democrats shouldn't get a free ride on this either as they vote for big business just as consistently as Republicans as long as the big businesses are campaign contributors . . . green energy is just the latest of many boondoggles that ignore market forces to funnel government money to politically connected concerns.

[dckingsfan]

Well, obviously I agree with the first. And the second, I somewhat agree with (however there are instances where the market is at odds with the public good, and in those instances I understand government picking a winner).

You should have added "...I understand government picking a winner which they rarely do and at great expense..."

I know this is a Republican meme, but it's actually untrue. Has American oil been a loser? Because we have been "picking" oil as a winner for a good long time now -- and subsidizing it all along. How about corn production? Is that a loser? We subsidize corn and thus everything in the grocery store is either made of or fed corn. How about weapons manufacturers? Are they winners or losers? Actually most of the things we "pick" become winners just because we picked and subsidized them. And the Republican complaint only comes about when we pick things that are competition to those who fund them. Thus all the bemoaning "picking" green energy, but not about subsidizing oil or oil pipelines.

I am not a Republican, and the idea should stand on its own merit vs. anything Republican or conversely Democrat must be bad. I hope that you can see that you blast most ideas as "Evil Republican" to dismiss them. You aren't going to be able to discuss ideas with others if you immediately castigate and frame the idea in the context of a party. Just think about the parties as big corporations that want your money and market their ideas to you.

Long term, never ending subsidies of oil, nuclear and the others were not a good idea then and not a good idea now. But, subsidies for an industry are different from guaranteed loans for a business (picking winners and losers) - which have bit us in the backside many more times than they have been helpful - and many times the loans were an implied "payoff" for political funding - you can go back many administrations on both sides to get examples.

Awarding merit contracts are different yet. In many cases the fed has set-up bidding with a minimum number of bidders and to the feds credit they try not to sole source when possible. One of the worst problems with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were how the contracts were awarded. I think in general our government (outside of the intelligence community) is pretty darn transparent and balanced at awarding contracts, funding research and making the research available to industry.

[dobrojim]

RMI.org

They are constantly working on and publicizing things which we might
describe here as 'green energy'. In a whole bunch of cases they argue,
persuasively and with good referenced evidence, that quite often
govt has given much more in the way of market advantages to
what I will describe as 'old' technologies. Things like giving
the nuclear industry a pass on being able to afford their own
liability insurance. Many many aspects of 'green energy' are
actually economically competitive right now. This is particularly
true of many conservation technologies.

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_17_what_did_the_1973_oil_embargo_teach_us

That’s just the start. By 2050, the U.S. could triple its energy efficiency, switch supplies from one-tenth to three-fourths renewable, and run a 158-percent-bigger economy with no oil, coal, or nuclear energy and one-third less natural gas. This could cost $5 trillion less than business-as-usual, emit 82–86 percent less fossil carbon, need no new inventions nor Acts of Congress, and be led by business for profit. The 2011 book Reinventing Fire by Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) details how.

note the bolded part - led by business FOR PROFIT

Making cars 2–3 times lighter with today’s ultralight but ultrastrong materials can make them safer, sportier, buildable more simply with four-fifths less capital investment, affordable to electrify (because they need 2–3 times fewer costly batteries or fuel cells), and more profitable for automakers and dealers. The first such carbon-fiber electric cars have entered production at VW (a 235-mpg two-seat plug-in hybrid) and BMW (a ~110-mpg battery-electric 4-seater). Other automakers, including Audi and Toyota, have shown equally impressive concept vehicles. And such electrified autos’ batteries add distributed storage to the grid, helping integrate varying solar and windpower that could get electricity off coal.

finally

The rotted residue of primeval swamp goo—a cubic mile of oil costing $3.5 trillion that the world burns each year, plus three cubic miles of coal and gas—is becoming no longer economic. Fracked oil and gas, Canadian tar sands, Saudi oil—none can beat modern efficiency and renewables on direct cost, price stability, or impacts. Now-worthless old energy studies long claimed we’re fated to burn oil forever. We’re not, and we won’t. The end of the conflict-creating, climate-threatening Oil Age is coming clearly into view, and not a moment too soon.

[hands11]

Maybe not a Republican meme as most politicians defend even the most ridiculous subsidies if they benefit any donors that live in their area, but certainly libertarian conservatives have been complaining about ridiculous subsidies to oil companies, farming concerns (milk and tobacco subsidies were favorite themes as well as corn), and obscene defense spending. Democrats shouldn't get a free ride on this either as they vote for big business just as consistently as Republicans as long as the big businesses are campaign contributors . . . green energy is just the latest of many boondoggles that ignore market forces to funnel government money to politically connected concerns.

Invest in the future. That's not a boondoggle. That's smart.

Government can help industries get off the ground. Once that's done, they should be able to sore on their own. But even then sometimes they need some help.

Government can push standards that are in the best interests of the country such as MPG. The car industry on its own wasn't smart enough to do that. They build SUVs instead. Look where that got them while China and Japan where building high MPG card and kicked them in the rss. Not once, but twice.

How did your free markets do with that one.

You have to realize we are in a world economy and other governments like China are helping develop markets. If we don't, we are playing the game with one arm tied behind our backs.

[barelyawake]

You should have added "...I understand government picking a winner which they rarely do and at great expense..."

I know this is a Republican meme, but it's actually untrue. Has American oil been a loser? Because we have been "picking" oil as a winner for a good long time now -- and subsidizing it all along. How about corn production? Is that a loser? We subsidize corn and thus everything in the grocery store is either made of or fed corn. How about weapons manufacturers? Are they winners or losers? Actually most of the things we "pick" become winners just because we picked and subsidized them. And the Republican complaint only comes about when we pick things that are competition to those who fund them. Thus all the bemoaning "picking" green energy, but not about subsidizing oil or oil pipelines.

I am not a Republican, and the idea should stand on its own merit vs. anything Republican or conversely Democrat must be bad. I hope that you can see that you blast most ideas as "Evil Republican" to dismiss them. You aren't going to be able to discuss ideas with others if you immediately castigate and frame the idea in the context of a party. Just think about the parties as big corporations that want your money and market their ideas to you.

Long term, never ending subsidies of oil, nuclear and the others were not a good idea then and not a good idea now. But, subsidies for an industry are different from guaranteed loans for a business (picking winners and losers) - which have bit us in the backside many more times than they have been helpful - and many times the loans were an implied "payoff" for political funding - you can go back many administrations on both sides to get examples.

Awarding merit contracts are different yet. In many cases the fed has set-up bidding with a minimum number of bidders and to the feds credit they try not to sole source when possible. One of the worst problems with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were how the contracts were awarded. I think in general our government (outside of the intelligence community) is pretty darn transparent and balanced at awarding contracts, funding research and making the research available to industry.

First off, apparently no one is a Republican this year. Second, I didn't call you a Republican. I called the meme Republican. And it is. When one watches Fox News, they often say "the government isn't good at picking winners and losers." That's untrue. The government is good at picking winners. And companies are usually winners just because the government picked them. It's an entirely different question whether the government picking winners is good for society as a whole.

I do believe research in new techs is essential to the economy. And the government is helpful in guiding society away from either monopolies or companies that offer products dangerous to society. Obviously, many believe the oil companies represent both. Some major scientists are now saying it's already too late in terms of global warming, and only via massive, active intervention (versus merely passively stopping the use of fossil fuels) can we halt a process that will destroy humanity. I'm not saying I'm there. But, this isn't something we can keep ignoring and waiting for the market to wake-up.

[Zonkerbl]

U.S. oil is a "winner"? In what sense?

In the sense that we have become so hopelessly dependent on oil because of artificially subsidized oil prices over the last hundred years that our transportation infrastructure is wholly incapable of integrating mass transit?

In the sense that the excess profits by the oil companies has allowed them to afford the best lobbyists money can buy, making it essentially impossible to ever claw back the oil subsidies from them?

U.S. military is a winner? You mean, accumulating a trillion dollars in debt over a pointless war in Iraq is a "win"?

U.S. corn is a winner? In the sense that we award them $2 billion per year in ethanol subsidies? And that they are part of a powerful agriculture lobby that, despite being a "winner," gets about $17-20 billion a year in completely unnecessary subsidies (second only to the EU in size of ag subsidies)? That a large part of the profits from agriculture goes towards hiring lobbyists second only to oil lobbyists, making it politically impossible to eliminate our completely unnecessary ag subsidies? Which results in flooding world markets for corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton, making it almost impossible for developing country farmers to make a profit, further exacerbating food insecurity world wide? That win I'm particularly proud of.

Big win, guys. That's what happens when you "pick winners." You create a cadre of extremely wealthy lobbyists, and "win" essentially nothing.

[Zonkerbl]

I know this is a Republican meme, but it's actually untrue. Has American oil been a loser? Because we have been "picking" oil as a winner for a good long time now -- and subsidizing it all along. How about corn production? Is that a loser? We subsidize corn and thus everything in the grocery store is either made of or fed corn. How about weapons manufacturers? Are they winners or losers? Actually most of the things we "pick" become winners just because we picked and subsidized them. And the Republican complaint only comes about when we pick things that are competition to those who fund them. Thus all the bemoaning "picking" green energy, but not about subsidizing oil or oil pipelines.

I am not a Republican, and the idea should stand on its own merit vs. anything Republican or conversely Democrat must be bad. I hope that you can see that you blast most ideas as "Evil Republican" to dismiss them. You aren't going to be able to discuss ideas with others if you immediately castigate and frame the idea in the context of a party. Just think about the parties as big corporations that want your money and market their ideas to you.

Long term, never ending subsidies of oil, nuclear and the others were not a good idea then and not a good idea now. But, subsidies for an industry are different from guaranteed loans for a business (picking winners and losers) - which have bit us in the backside many more times than they have been helpful - and many times the loans were an implied "payoff" for political funding - you can go back many administrations on both sides to get examples.

Awarding merit contracts are different yet. In many cases the fed has set-up bidding with a minimum number of bidders and to the feds credit they try not to sole source when possible. One of the worst problems with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were how the contracts were awarded. I think in general our government (outside of the intelligence community) is pretty darn transparent and balanced at awarding contracts, funding research and making the research available to industry.

First off, apparently no one is a Republican this year. Second, I didn't call you a Republican. I called the meme Republican. And it is. When one watches Fox News, they often say "the government isn't good at picking winners and losers." That's untrue. The government is good at picking winners. And companies are usually winners just because the government picked them. It's an entirely different question whether the government picking winners is good for society as a whole.

I do believe research in new techs is essential to the economy. And the government is helpful in guiding society away from either monopolies or companies that offer products dangerous to society. Obviously, many believe the oil companies represent both. Some major scientists are now saying it's already too late in terms of global warming, and only via massive, active intervention (versus merely passively stopping the use of fossil fuels) can we halt a process that will destroy humanity. I'm not saying I'm there. But, this isn't something we can keep ignoring and waiting for the market to wake-up.

Please stop equating "picking winners" with basic research. "Picking a winner" is when the government supports an industry through subsidies or some other favorable treatment (like having a state owned enterprise handle import or export of, say, wheat, like in Canada). Supporting research and development is a completely different issue. Similar, in the sense that there is a similar tension about the role of government in deciding where research money should be spent. Shouldn't we trust the private sector to know where best to allocate R&D money? But the private sector won't spend the "socially optimal" amount of money on "basic research." Problem is no one really knows what kind of research is "basic" vs. "commercial application of same." The line between those two ideas is extremely blurry. Republicans, by the way, have had a historical tendency to cut government funding for basic research, which is fine in isolation, if they didn't then turn around and spend that money on the military.