Hi Lennart
I just want to respond to one of your comments.
I do not know who make the statement about your job. I assume
it is some kind of generic statement and not directed to your
performance. I know little about what you did for the state.
In many cases the job could just have
I think you are right that it will be some time before we reduce taxes. I
will take a step back and say 'no personal taxes'. Yes, we need some
government and the best form of taxes is VAT in my opinion.
I think we went from talking about how to finance research on this tread. I
cannot agree with
Hi Vincent,
I certainly tried to say that I am not talking about any particular job.
There are always details, which are hard to communicate correct. The person
handling a task/job can obviously know such details and for someone looking
in from a distance it is always easy to rationalize the big
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or
built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of
dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist.
No, it is the logic of an historian. It is a fact that the
The patent law has pro' and con's - it can be looked upon as good or bad.
No the government did not make those laws. They executed a law for what
people wanted and found fair practice. Today those laws are rather useless
as they have grown so they no longer reflect what we want.. They are mostly
Jed, the logic you provide is that because government has initiated or
built large projects they have subsidized Alfred Nobel's invention of
dynamite. That is a logic used by the communist. Communism has some point
in theory. Practically it does not work and the reason is that personal
freedom is
Jed I am a stubborn guy but I think I have met someone more stubborn.
I am not disputing your facts or that government has been customers of
inventions.
I am saying that freedom is personal.I am saying that great results come
from people (not organization).
We differ in that I thing anonymous
Pardon my intervention. Regarding the comment:
In my opinion we should do with a minimum of government and let the
individual make his own choices.
IMHO, we need maintain a delicate balance of free-spirited independence
combined with occasional government intervention. I suspect the
I agree with you Vincent. There needs to be a balance. I think we lost the
balance. IMHO as you say that is because the government is growing without
restrictions.
At a time when more than 50% 0f the people are dependent on the governments
paycheck it will be really hard to reduce government. The
maybe you make a point that government is good as challenging innovation by
being the client.
by making war, weapon, investing in transportation or energy infrastructure.
It also funded direct research
for me the scheme to subsidize production is the only problem, ands maybe
only recently
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
Jed I will not try to debate the issue as we stand so far away from each
other.
In my opinion there are very few times governmental control and management
has been successful.
I am sorry, but this is not a matter of opinion. Read the history of
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
about subisides I find it is absurd t subsidize mass production.
you don't make clipper sail boats progress by subsidizing transatlantic
clippers.
You are completely wrong about that. Clipper ships in the U.S. were a
tremendous advance in sailing
OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is
fruitless to discuss.
The government always take over things , which can increase the government
and then makes it disfuncti8nal. That might not be a viable opinion but it
is mine.
I am a Swede. Alfred Nobel was also av Swede - no
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
I agree that dynamite was used by many.
Many is not the issue. Dynamite and other explosives were used mainly by
governments, or in projects paid for by governments. Nearly every dollar
that Nobel earned came from governments. There were no other
Jed I will not try to debate the issue as we stand so far away from each
other.
In my opinion there are very few times governmental control and management
has been successful.
If DoE made some good investment in technology that is fine but it does not
mean anything in the discussion about how one
I wrote:
Steel hull construction was heavily subsidized by governments mainly for
navy vessels, or ironclads as they were called. The U.S. Navy built the
first modern steam-powered steel warship, the Monitor, during the Civil War.
The British and French built ironclad steamships in 1959
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
OK Jed. If your opion is that you have theRIGHT opinion, then it is
fruitless to discuss.
Look, this is not about opinions. There are thousands of books about the
history of technology and commerce in the U.S. I challenge you to cite a
single one of
Jed,
My wife says tomorrow.
I agree that dynamite was used by many.
However, I tried to say thhose guys took the risk, they made it into a
product they benfitted from.
I will be back.
On Jun 20, 2015 7:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
I agree with that analysis.
The problem of current science funding is not enough crazy.
another is too big, ad to much money wth a winner take all effect.
about subisides I find it is absurd t subsidize mass production.
you don't make clipper sail boats progress by subsidizing transatlantic
Jed I think this is true and that is good.
The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
money was misused.
The government is providing grants as they see fit.
The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
Therefore we will end up with more rules and
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
money was misused.
The government is providing grants as they see fit.
The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
Therefore we will end up with more
Jed, I disagree with your conclusions.
I agree with your examples they are without any doubt correct and we could
show many more - small and big.
I do not think congress demands accountability. Like all people in the
frontline they only have one interest themselves. Therefore the going way
is the
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor
allocating of funds.
You are missing the point. Yes, Solyndra was a poor allocation, but most of
the money invested by the DoE Loan Programs Office was in excellent
Actually they are not completely false- are Pareto Truths see my
FQXI essay. The same is so true for CMNS
Peter
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Food for thought. See:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
24 matches
Mail list logo
