Where do you stand on alternative energy

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80
There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

Of course there is no conspiracy. The research ended because business is not worried about long term profits. Again they are looking to make next quarters expectations. Research is a loss in the short term, and short term gain is what it's all about.

That is precisely why Bell dumped it's programs. Now precisely how does that philosphy benefit new energy R&D?

Know what the biggest ticket item for pharma used to be? Research.
Know what it is now? Advertising.

Why? Because advertising sells, not research.

Wait, what? Pharma research has been skyrocketing over the past 15 years.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/h...es/Iglehart_Slides.pdf

This has happened despite the lowered return of drug research dollars and the fact that fewer drugs are being approved.

Now post the slide showing advertising spending over the same period.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JS80
There is no conspiracy. What part of Silicon and Tellurium are scarce resources don't you get? Do you know how many solar developers there are out there?

Business is done by ENTREPRENEURS. You may have a point back in the 60s that Exxon had enough power and resources to suppress new technology that could threaten the oil infrastructure, but it's the 21st century. Shit like that is nearly impossible. Too much FREE flow of capital and information.

Now if the top scientists mysteriously are dying from accidents, then you'd have some ground, but it's ridiculous to say Bell Labs shut down one of their many R&D departments...for what, a conspiracy to stop new technology?

Of course there is no conspiracy. The research ended because business is not worried about long term profits. Again they are looking to make next quarters expectations. Research is a loss in the short term, and short term gain is what it's all about.

That is precisely why Bell dumped it's programs. Now precisely how does that philosphy benefit new energy R&D?

Know what the biggest ticket item for pharma used to be? Research.
Know what it is now? Advertising.

Why? Because advertising sells, not research.

Wait, what? Pharma research has been skyrocketing over the past 15 years.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/h...es/Iglehart_Slides.pdf

This has happened despite the lowered return of drug research dollars and the fact that fewer drugs are being approved.

Now post the slide showing advertising spending over the same period.

It's probably higher, but what's your point? The returns on pharmaceutical research have declined.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76x...7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf

See page 21. There's the same number of new molecules discovered despite all that new money.

You don't throw dollars on a sinking ship, especially when the Democrats are about to come to power and slam the profitability out of the industry. Advertising makes money today. Research might make money tomorrow, but companies will be stuck with Obama's tax rates.

It's not necessarily about short term gain, but it will be if government impedes long term results.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
There already exist new ways to tap into powerful forms of energy. These are currently kept secret because:

- They are relatively easy to build, and very powerful, thus it would greatly empower people, including dangerous people
- The current economy of the world is based on fossil fuels, and those who sit at the top of the current economy would be dislocated from their position if the current fossil fuel economy passed away

I know. I seen a book you could buy on the QT that tells you some of them and I myself have written three.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Winnar,


I think the main issue with your line of thinking is that you think that if we sit on our ass and do nothing things will magically resolve themselves.

If in 1950 I told you that in about a decade roughly 15 years after world war II America would fly a jet that still to this day has an undisclosed top speed (The SR 71) most people would have LAUGHED.

If in 1960 I told you that there would be a man on the moon before 1970, you would have laughed as well.

People like you block progress. Ideas need to be encouraged and innovation is the most valuable asset America has.

Take the bailout money, all 700 billion of it, invest it in a new energy source or more efficient energy source. I seriously doubt the program would be a TOTAL failure like you suggest. If we were to come up with something revolutionary or even something that is 20% more efficient, which in energy terms is HUGE, we would be sitting on a gold mine.

Even if its a new Turbine, that lets say costs 10k or 5k or whatever other magic number you come up with, maybe we are the only ones that can produce it due to manufacturing constraints. Like I said before I dont see China producing intel microchips that is a copy of ours. I don't see China copying Boeing or Airbus jets.

1. We don't have a known sucessor to the SR-71 due to lack of necessity, slashed military budgets since 1990, cost, and the fact that its difficult to keep the pilot alive at those conditions. We have faster unmanned aircraft and satellites which serve its reconnaissance purpose. Of course, the Air Force is full of secret projects.
2. The bailout money is already spent. Spilt milk sort of thing.
3. Alternative energy has already been a total failure.
4. The fact that they haven't built their own passenger planes doesn't mean they can't if they had to for their national security. They're just unveiled a new fighter jet.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/fighter.php

and most importantly, in the 50s and 60s we weren't dumping government money into health care.

Oh, and before I forget, we've already tried it, with Nixon's project independence. Didn't work.

Fantastic - you have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only are you ignorant, but that you are also unwilling to accept anything beyond your preconceived notions. You demonstrate that you are able to conduct research, yet ignore all information that conflicts with your point of view. Your posts demonstrate these facts consistently. What you do is not argument, nor is it debate. It is self-delusion.

I feel bad for you. Honest, I do.

Best of luck to you in the future.