Reply With Quote
no.
It isn't needed. There are plenty of capital venturists who will finance worthwhile projects.
So would you support government R&D into those types of projects, or grant money for private companies that developed prototypes?
no.
It isn't needed. There are plenty of capital venturists who will finance worthwhile projects.
True, but one of the advantages in the government funding something is that they can ask the private company to look into more specific lines of tech that might benefit them, as well as having an 'inside track' to the tech.
Sorry, I do not trust bureaucrats to make good decisions. It isn't their money, and they have no ing accountability. I trust more, those who have skin in the game.
but you trust blindly the govt to start wars for oil and spend $1.5T/year on the American UCA Empire and spend $Bs on bull research for military crap.
I'm sorry if you are that deluded to think that's my position.
you're not sorry at all, and you adore the can-do-wrong MIC
distilled water, even just any water, is a critical input to the HyperSolar conversion, certainly at the large scale needed for HS conversion to contribute to renewable energy.
Are you under the assumption there isn't enough water to do such a task?
looks like they have addressed the relentlessly worsening problem of global water shortages
"Instead of using pure water, a very expensive starting point, we are optimizing our technology to work with wastewater containing organic molecules of all kinds, such as municipal and industrial wastewater. Our process photo-oxidizes (detoxifies) wastewater to simultaneously produce molecular hydrogen and clean water. Waste steams containing acids, such as hydrogen bromide and hydrogen chloride from industrial facilities, can be processed to produce pure bromine and chlorine, which are valuable and marketable byproducts."
The problem with that is that you then limit yourself to the drawbacks/advantages of our own corporate system.
Ask just about any CEO or executive about how focused most companies are on the short term, and short term returns.
Long term investments, the kind that pay massively over the long run don't get made, and you get a sub-optimal result where people are worse off than they would have been had you made the investment.
Nothing you have said offers anything that overcomes this criticism. Merely repeating "government bad, private sector good" like some kind of mantric security blanket may make you feel good and all, but if you can't do anything beyond repeat cliches, you aren't really presenting us with a viable policy solution.
How do you overcome this shortcoming of our private sector in selecting R & D funding?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-17-2011 at 08:42 AM.
How wrong you can be without knowing.
Corporations often only look quarter to quarter, but venture capitalists aren't trying to please stock holders.
Sorry, but this is a bunch of garbage. Any company who depends on R&D to produce new products who also thinks quarter to quarter isn't going to be in business very long.
He thinks he knows everything but doesn't.
I have worked for one very large corporation and a smaller company that did very good in research, not only caring about quarter to quarter, but knowing the future was key.
Random...
Why do you stereotype everyone and everything?
venture capitalists ARE stock holders
Venture capitalists look at three year time horizons for returns.
That does not answer my question.
How do you propose to solve the mitigate the problem that valuable things might not be researched because our system has such a short time horizon for research to pay for itself?
Find a company that invests in projects with "payback" periods longer than 10 years.
quarter to quarter is not how R & D is directed, granted.
Most of it is pretty short term, and very limited. Companies are, rightfully so, risk-averse, even if the potential benefit is huge.
I would feel better about your analysis, were you involved in the funding decisions.
Were you involved in the funding decisions?
.....and another thread devolves into a "Govt vs Private Sector Financed" argument. We thank you once again WC.
Pretty much the entire biotech industry is involved in projects that have payback periods longer than 10 years. A 10 year time horizon on a capital investment isn't all that long a period of time, be it for R&D, a new facility or anything else a company chooses to invest in. When an oil company decides to invest in a refinery, their time horizon is probably closer to 40 years. In my industry, transportation infrastructure, we'll look at a project out to 50 years.
An industry like tech may not be looking out that far given how rapidly things change in that industry. Even then, I can guarantee you it took Apple a of a lot longer than a couple of quarters to get the iphone to market.
You trusted them in 2003.
No, I agreed with them. Not quite the same thing. It's those of you who trusted them without your own solid opinion back then, who are now bitter about Iraq.You trusted them in 2003.
So you knew we were going to be in Iraq for 8 years or so? Neato.
Ever think about becoming a journalist?
Spin... spin... spin...
When's the last time you checked your integrity?
You agreed with them but did not trust them? I bring up critical thinking constantly for very good reason. The above is a monumentally stupid statement.
Only in your biased mind.
I agreed with the action over there, that does not mean I trust politicians, even when they agree with me. I don't get let down by them because I know better than to expect them to do the right thing all the time. For you to twist that, is your own problem. Not mine.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-19-2011 at 07:16 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
