State of the Union- thoughts?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny, you bring up the internet, but I'm wondering how people get connected? Could it be through phone, cable and broadband lines? How many miles of those did the government lay?

As for UPS and FedEx, the last I checked, they transported their cargo primarily by air. I wasn't aware they primarily used the Interstate system. We had a perfectly functioning state highway system, BTW. As you know, the Interstate system was built as a military transportation program, with a side benefit of making auto travel easier.

The government may not have laid phone lines and cable, but they sure as hell granted monopolies so that companies would lay the lines. If that isn't "picking winners and losers" I don't know what is.

And you might not have heard of Fedex Ground and UPS Ground? Those use mostly those 18-wheel rectangular aircraft to deliver the cargo. While FedEx overall is primarily air, UPS is in fact primarily ground-based.

barfo
 
andalusian, the thing is, just about all the great infrastructure projects are really cheap in the govt. sized scope of things. No "Manhattan Project" sized efforts. And it's pretty clear to me that Obama and progressives see a lot of things (like health care or social security) as infrastructure - they're not, they're social/welfare programs.

I do not look at healthcare/welfare/social programs as infrastructure as well - as was made specific in my initial post on the subject.

Do not confuse my argument with siding with Obama - who I most specifically said I did not listen to.

I do think that utilities, electric grid, investment in clean/renewable energy and it's distribution are good examples of infrastructure spending which makes sense.

My original post on the subject was specifically on the point that making a laundry list of things to invest in is a good plan - because you have to make educated guesses and try to stir the economy into places which will make the most sense. I did not make the leap from this to endorsing the current plan - if only because I have not had the time to actually listen to it...
 
The govt. bought thousands of miles of dedicated circuits by the time the Internet was privatized. There were a number of companies founded just to build the internet, almost exclusively for the government. These companies would be UUNet, BBN Planet, and others. All government (defense dept.) contractors.

In 1985, I worked at 3Com, one of the major networking companies, and we had a Vax running Unix that was connected to Usenet via POTS. Meanwhile, our interns who went to Stanford had accounts on the school network. Via Usenet, an email from Mountain View, CA to Virginia took 2-3 days to reach the destination. Those guys who sent mail from Stanford accounts got their emails delivered within seconds.

The WAN that connected the universities and research facilities was hugely expensive and very fast for its day. A T1 circuit in those early days cost maybe $10,000 for a short distance, and the university backbone was all T3 circuits (45x faster, more expensive). The circuit pricing was based on miles; the longer the circuit, the bigger the cost.

Not only did the govt. purchases of circuits become a cash cow for the telcos, all the equipment needed to connect it up built up a number of high tech companies and drove the development of bigger and faster communication technologies, primarily fiber optics. Companies like Cisco came into existence primarily to make routers for the Internet.

The privatization of the Internet further fueled private sector growth, obviously. But early on, Southern Pacific Railroad started a telecom company, SP Telecom, that laid fiber optic cable nationwide. They built a special railroad car with a spool of fiber on it that trenched next to the railways as the train went down the track, and laid the fiber at the same time.

The private sector was doing its own thing at the same time as DARPA. There were services like CompuServe and AOL, and Microsoft was trying to compete with those with their MSN (Microsoft Network). All of those offerings were closed networks and proprietary technologies. Basically glorified BBS systems.

The world would be a vastly different place if not for Reagan's defense spending (investment in DARPA) and the eventual privatization of it. We probably wouldn't have Cable or DSL speed access (still dial up modems), and the whole experience would be like being connected to just S2 if you were an AOL user or just some other one site if you were an MSN user, etc. They likely would not have even exchanged mail.

TCP/IP is the low level protocol used to transmit data from one end point to another on the network. It was designed to be self healing, especially so if a city like Chicago were nuked by some enemy, the network would route the data around it and your emails would get through.

You act like the government spending huge sums of money (relative to what the biggest corporations make and spend) and contracting private companies is the same thing as the private sector doing all that with no help. It's just not right to disconnect government demand driving the private sector business decisions.

We wouldn't be sitting around today with smart phones and laptops and video game machines and personal computing devices of any kind if it weren't for government demand for the microprocessor. There were real military and scientific uses for microprocessors long before there were video games (one of the earliest commercial mass consumer of them).

The military designs and builds planes. The requirement for those planes includes flying fast and having computers to control weapons systems, navigation, and the like. Computers without microprocessors were huge and heavy, having lots of vacuum tubes and the like. At some point, they couldn't have gotten big and fast enough to control advanced weapons systems. They couldn't make (fighter) planes small and have enough horsepower to lift the goddamned things. In fact, our military superiority over the Soviet Union and their MIG type aircraft was demonstrated periodically when one of their pilots would land at guantanimo seeking asylum and we reverse engineered the planes to find they had those vacuum tube type computers.

Similarly, the Space Program created demand for microprocessors. The cost of every ounce of anything they launch is so expensive it was worth their while to seek lighter and lighter computers. The same for ICBMs and so on.

Heck, look at the early manufacturers and designers of microprocessors and you'll see a who's who of defense contractors. Companies like Texas Instruments (built lots of stuff for WW II), Fairchild, Rockwell, etc.

Carry on.

I don't deny that DARPA started the idea of the internet, as a way to communicate during a time of war, so of course government to government lines had to be built. How many miles were then purpose built by the government for private users? My point is that the government is now trying to pick winners and losers. It would be akin to saying that Apple is a superior operating system, so they get subsidies and Microsoft doesn't. Or google over Yahoo!. Much of the broadband out there was swept up after the Enron bankruptcy. They got too far ahead of the market and overbuilt infrastructure. Their bankruptcy was our gain. Charter cable overbuilt and Comcast is buying their capacity for pennies on the dollar. THAT's the way businesses should be built: There's a market opportunity, the best business wins and if there's a bankruptcy the citizenry isn't asked to pay for it.

I have no doubt that another version of the internet would have been created all on its own if the government hadn't opened their network. Same with smart phones and everything else you mentioned. It's great there are spinoffs from DoD and NASA that we all can use, but that's a secondary if not tertiary interest. The government shouldn't be in the business of--as a primary goal--creating markets.
 
The government may not have laid phone lines and cable, but they sure as hell granted monopolies so that companies would lay the lines. If that isn't "picking winners and losers" I don't know what is.

And I'm against granting monopolies. If they choose not to build the infrastructure, someone else will when the opportunity becomes valuable enough. Besides, there are competitors to cable in the satellite business and via phone lines. What's next?

And you might not have heard of Fedex Ground and UPS Ground? Those use mostly those 18-wheel rectangular aircraft to deliver the cargo. While FedEx overall is primarily air, UPS is in fact primarily ground-based.

barfo

Sweet. So, they never use local or state roads? They don't drive on toll roads? Their business couldn't exist without the Interstate system? That's an interesting proposition.
 
andalusian, the thing is, just about all the great infrastructure projects are really cheap in the govt. sized scope of things. No "Manhattan Project" sized efforts.

I can think of several counterexamples. The Manhattan Project, for one, was a Manhattan Project sized effort. The moon shot was certainly a large effort. Building the interstate system was quite costly and took decades to complete. The railroad land giveaway that you like gave away 129 million acres of land to the railroad barons. How much is that land worth today? Probably hundreds of billions if not trillions. Hardly a 'really cheap' project. Building military bases. Rural electrification. Roads and schools. None of that shit is cheap.

But yes, development of the internet was relatively inexpensive, so if that's the only infrastructure you know about or value, I guess infrastructure projects are cheap.

barfo
 
I do not look at healthcare/welfare/social programs as infrastructure as well - as was made specific in my initial post on the subject.

Do not confuse my argument with siding with Obama - who I most specifically said I did not listen to.

I do think that utilities, electric grid, investment in clean/renewable energy and it's distribution are good examples of infrastructure spending which makes sense.

My original post on the subject was specifically on the point that making a laundry list of things to invest in is a good plan - because you have to make educated guesses and try to stir the economy into places which will make the most sense. I did not make the leap from this to endorsing the current plan - if only because I have not had the time to actually listen to it...

Why should we subsidize ethanol? Food prices are rapidly escalating because of the land being used for corn production. Why solar? Why wind? What makes them superior to other forms of energy? And why is it the government's business in the first place? There's an implicit assumption that some bureaucrat knows better than the market. I hate to keep harping on it, but Hayek demonstrably proved that idea to be false by addressing the "Knowledge Problem". My solution is to stop distorting the market and let private money flow to the best ideas. Some will win big and some will go bankrupt. Creative destruction is a wonderful thing.
 
And I'm against granting monopolies. If they choose not to build the infrastructure, someone else will when the opportunity becomes valuable enough. Besides, there are competitors to cable in the satellite business and via phone lines. What's next?

You are against the reality of American life for the past 150 years. Not sure why you hate America so much.

Sweet. So, they never use local or state roads? They don't drive on toll roads? Their business couldn't exist without the Interstate system? That's an interesting proposition.

It might be interesting to you, but it certainly wasn't what I said.

barfo
 
Why should we subsidize ethanol?...Why solar? Why wind?...And why is it the government's business in the first place?...My solution is to stop distorting the market and let private money flow to the best ideas.

Haven't read the thread, but 2 answers off the top of my head.

Private industry just won't do some of the most expensive research. Management is judged by income statements and you can amortize only what, 15 years out for tax purposes. That's usually the limit for financial statements too, unless FASB has made any changes in 30 years. You tell me, I bet it's still 15 years.

Other governments subsidize research, and if we don't, they will make the discoveries and we'll have to buy their products. The trade balance will get even worse.
 
You are against the reality of American life for the past 150 years. Not sure why you hate America so much.

It might be interesting to you, but it certainly wasn't what I said.

barfo

Thanks for the white flag.
 
Haven't read the thread, but 2 answers off the top of my head.

Private industry just won't do some of the most expensive research. Management is judged by income statements and you can amortize only what, 15 years out for tax purposes. That's usually the limit for financial statements too, unless FASB has made any changes in 30 years. You tell me, I bet it's still 15 years.

Other governments subsidize research, and if we don't, they will make the discoveries and we'll have to buy their products. The trade balance will get even worse.

Research is a far cry from directly subsidizing companies and picking winners and losers.
 
Thanks for the white flag.

Given that you've been factually wrong about damn near everything you've said in this thread, you need a white flag. Long may you wave.

barfo
 
I can think of several counterexamples. The Manhattan Project, for one, was a Manhattan Project sized effort. The moon shot was certainly a large effort. Building the interstate system was quite costly and took decades to complete. The railroad land giveaway that you like gave away 129 million acres of land to the railroad barons. How much is that land worth today? Probably hundreds of billions if not trillions. Hardly a 'really cheap' project. Building military bases. Rural electrification. Roads and schools. None of that shit is cheap.

But yes, development of the internet was relatively inexpensive, so if that's the only infrastructure you know about or value, I guess infrastructure projects are cheap.

barfo

The Manhattan Project wasn't an infrastructure one. However, it cost $21.6B total in 1996 dollars, over 4 years.

The Apollo program cost $20B, total. $170B in today's dollars, over 10 years or so - $17B a year. Roughly the same budget NASA has now, and a tiny fraction of even Obama's deficit for a single year.

The govt. gave away land for the railroads. It cost them nothing to do so. The railroad barons put up seriously huge amounts of capital and risked it all in case the railroads didn't pan out.

Roads? The highway system cost $425B in inflation adjusted dollars over 35 years, or $12B a year

Military bases aren't infrastructure, you're reaching.

Again, compared with Medicare which costs $500B a year, or Social Security which costs about $1T a year.
 
The Manhattan Project wasn't an infrastructure one. However, it cost $21.6B total in 1996 dollars, over 4 years.

I dunno, I'd call weapons systems infrastructure.

The govt. gave away land for the railroads. It cost them nothing to do so.

That's amusing. Hey, Denny, it will cost you nothing if you give me all your assets. C'mon, what are you waiting for?

Military bases aren't infrastructure, you're reaching.

If you say so. Even the dictionary disagrees with you though.

in·fra·struc·ture

–noun
1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
3. the military installations of a country.

Again, compared with Medicare which costs $500B a year, or Social Security which costs about $1T a year.

Yes, people cost a lot. So what? Go ahead and kill as many as you can, for all I care. We'll make more.

barfo
 
I know you'd call weapons systems infrastructure, but you would call anything infrastructure if it meant govt. could tax more and spend more.

Just as the military has its own code of justice, it also has its definition of infrastructure.

Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise,[1] or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function.[2] The term typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, power grids, telecommunications, and so forth. Viewed functionally, infrastructure facilitates the production of goods and services; for example, roads enable the transport of raw materials to a factory, and also for the distribution of finished products to markets. In some contexts, the term may also include basic social services such as schools and hospitals.[3] In military parlance, the term refers to the buildings and permanent installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and operation of military forces.[4]
 
And you must be joking about assets. The govt. shouldn't own any assets at all, or if they do they're for public use (like roads, or even for railroad barons). The govt. isn't a person nor should you twist property rights to construe to it.
 
I know you'd call weapons systems infrastructure, but you would call anything infrastructure if it meant govt. could tax more and spend more.

Yes, I'm a big supporter of military spending, that's true. You got me pegged.

barfo
 
And you must be joking about assets. The govt. shouldn't own any assets at all, or if they do they're for public use (like roads, or even for railroad barons). The govt. isn't a person nor should you twist property rights to construe to it.

Ok, well, if the government shouldn't own assets, it clearly follows that any assets the government has should be transferred to a few railroad barons.
Sure, that makes sense...

barfo
 
Ok, well, if the government shouldn't own assets, it clearly follows that any assets the government has should be transferred to a few railroad barons.
Sure, that makes sense...

barfo

Or 40 acres and a mule, or 1862 Homestead Act, and so on.

Where it has given away those assets (it shouldn't own), the private sector has improved the land with private capital and built whole industries.

The only industries the govt. builds are defense and ... govt. itself.
 
Or 40 acres and a mule, or 1862 Homestead Act, and so on.

Where it has given away those assets (it shouldn't own), the private sector has improved the land with private capital and built whole industries.

The only industries the govt. builds are defense and ... govt. itself.

Good news! The gummint is going to give me Yosemite, so that I can build condos.

barfo
 
Good news! The gummint is going to give me Yosemite, so that I can build condos.

barfo

I think if you can show you have the capital to put at risk, the govt. should seriously consider it.
 
Given that you've been factually wrong about damn near everything you've said in this thread, you need a white flag. Long may you wave.

barfo

Oh, snap! Girlfriend, you got it goin' on!

I find your assertions humorous.
 
Why should we subsidize ethanol?

We should not, if you were to follow what I wrote instead of just going on the automatic propaganda trail - you would see that I am against it. I am glad they gave it a subsidy to evaluate if it makes sense, and when it is pretty clear that it does not - they need to pull the plug. That's the way proper science and technology development happens - a lot of dead-ends before you get to the real solution.

Why solar?

Because maybe it is the right answer and we need to fund the basic research until proven otherwise.

Why wind?

See solar.

What makes them superior to other forms of energy? And why is it the government's business in the first place? There's an implicit assumption that some bureaucrat knows better than the market.

No there isn't. There is a short in your brain that makes it impossible for you to read what I actually say without seeing red because it is government funded. This happened at the electric grid for transportation thread as well where you were going after the not-relevant things I said by trying to point to my irrelevant to the discussion personal situation.

I hate to keep harping on it

Then stop, read what I say, and stop bringing non-relevant to the discussion issues or try to put words in my mouth.

Some will win big and some will go bankrupt.

Duh. That's the nature of innovation. The problem is not the nature of innovation, the problem is that most of the really important innovation foundations require large investments and long periods of gestation with occasional dead ends - and the private sector, given the nature of financing - does not provide the groundwork necessary as history has proven.
 
We should not, if you were to follow what I wrote instead of just going on the automatic propaganda trail - you would see that I am against it. I am glad they gave it a subsidy to evaluate if it makes sense, and when it is pretty clear that it does not - they need to pull the plug. That's the way proper science and technology development happens - a lot of dead-ends before you get to the real solution.



Because maybe it is the right answer and we need to fund the basic research until proven otherwise.



See solar.



No there isn't. There is a short in your brain that makes it impossible for you to read what I actually say without seeing red because it is government funded. This happened at the electric grid for transportation thread as well where you were going after the not-relevant things I said by trying to point to my irrelevant to the discussion personal situation.



Then stop, read what I say, and stop bringing non-relevant to the discussion issues or try to put words in my mouth.



Duh. That's the nature of innovation. The problem is not the nature of innovation, the problem is that most of the really important innovation foundations require large investments and long periods of gestation with occasional dead ends - and the private sector, given the nature of financing - does not provide the groundwork necessary as history has proven.

I see your problem. You believe that you have the wisdom to pick winners and losers. You KNOW ethanol is a loser, yet you think wind or solar may be a winner. You're so wise, like a mini-Buddah covered with hair.

The difference between you and me is I know what I don't know.

And as for innovation, you put your faith in the government, I'll put my faith in private enterprise. Right now, my record is significanly better than yours. Please tell me which technologies required "large investments and long periods of gestation" that private enterprise hasn't shown itself willing to undertake that was critical to our country. It's a pretty short list.
 
I see your problem. You believe that you have the wisdom to pick winners and losers. You KNOW ethanol is a loser, yet you think wind or solar may be a winner. You're so wise, like a mini-Buddah covered with hair.

The difference between you and me is I know what I don't know.

And as for innovation, you put your faith in the government, I'll put my faith in private enterprise. Right now, my record is significanly better than yours. Please tell me which technologies required "large investments and long periods of gestation" that private enterprise hasn't shown itself willing to undertake that was critical to our country. It's a pretty short list.

George Bush tried to pick a winner - hydrogen fuel cells. Of all the replacements for making a car go, this one looks like it has the most promise at this point. It's 3x to 5x more efficient than solar panels, but making the hydrogen for them takes more energy than you get out; you're still burning coal or whatever upstream.

Obama cancelled the fuel cell research program in 2009.
 
The govt. isn't a person nor should you twist property rights to construe to it.

The legal system says that a corporation is a person. The Supreme Court says that corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions, unreported and in secret. Why not make government a person, or maybe a god?
 
The legal system says that a corporation is a person. The Supreme Court says that corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions, unreported and in secret. Why not make government a person, or maybe a god?

It might be your god, or barfo's, the way you worship it.

But seriously, there's a reason a corporation is a "person." It's to defend them against government just as human beings need to be defended as well.

If you've ever read the ruling, it's about whether a state government can discriminate against one corporation vs. another - a corporation is a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment. Now if you want to argue that the state should favor one corporation over another, feel free to make the case.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top