-----Original Message----- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:08 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government
Dan Minette >> That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small >> government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong >> differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent >> message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their >> viewpoints. >I have nothing but contempt for the tea party. For all appearances >they are people with shrill voices and no real ideas and their leaders >and candidates are consummate idiots. Well, with all due respect, Doug, I think you are insulated (either by not listening or not being around) from folks who tend to join the tea party. I know a couple who are at the forefront of supporting it here. She works for next to nothing having developed a school that teaches kids the local public school has rejected. Many of them are kids with great potential and learning disabilities. I've argued with the other person a lot, and found we agree on a number of topics, including the need for social justice. He just believes that government is just the good 'ol boy system run amuck, and that government programs are mostly a waste. We differ, sometimes strongly, but I usually don't have contempt for someone just because I differ with them. In fact, if you look at the demographics of tea party members, you will see that they are usually fairly well educated, above average in income, and have been modestly involved in the political process for years. It's a right wing anti-elite movement. Again, I have profound differences with them, but I try to understand and respect folks I differ with, as well as see if there is any common ground. >I wouldn't put money on prices going down much more. You can move a >building to Detroit. Moving the talent and the silicon valley dynamic is >another question. Well, my experience with Silicon Valley companies, and I've had one as a customer, is that, with the exception of Pixar and Steve Job's marketing genius they are aging companies and not cutting edge any more. I'd match the talent and dynamics in the Austin research corridor and the Golden Triangle against Silicon Valley for coming up with something truly new. For example, even though Joule is run by Bostonians, it located its first pilot plant in the Austin area. Synthetic biology is centered in Boston. I'm not sure where nanotech is. Look at just a 6% mortgage on a 2000 sq. ft. house for a young engineer. It costs about 60k/year for the interest alone, and would require a 100k down payment. You'd have to pay an engineer 4x what you'd pay them in Austin or the Research Triangle. That's why both places are booming high tech. areas. Baby boomers who bought their house 20 years ago can manage...they have tax protection. But, how is a young upper middle class family going to plant roots in that area. So, unless you thing the great new ideas will come from only old folks, then SF will lack buyers. You can see it in unemployment, with SF's rate 2% higher than Austin's. With 9%-10% unemployment the new norm, high priced areas will be for investment bankers and family money folks. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
