Why don't the entrepreneurs invest in the R&D that they're going to take to market? Why should we socialize the cost of R&D and then privatize the profits that come from it?
Entrepreneurs are mostly interested in something that will pay off in about 5 years. The breakthroughs that are needed to spark entire new industries typically have taken longer than that. (Examples: early computers, jets, space rockets, Internet, DNA, etc.).
If you take a finance class, you'll generally see that the payoff for cutting-edge endeavors is both too far away and uncertain compared to here-and-now investment alternatives. Cutting edge research looks poor on paper, per existing financing theories.
And historically, early adopters often fall on their face because they don't know what the market wants or can do with it.
Take the Olivetti Programma 101, arguably the first desktop computer. While it was a mild financial success, in part due to the stubborn nature of the inventor, the company's marketers and management were confused about what to do with it.
Then there's Xerox's bungling of it's GUI and laser-printer technology. While they did get some royalties, it's questionable whether it paid off overall for them. Again, the company's marketers and management were confused by it and didn't how or where to sell it.
And we have the Apple Newton, and Microsoft's Tablet of 2000. Interesting products, but immature and/or poorly executed.
It often takes awhile for the ideas to roll around the market place before somebody finds the right combo of features and marketing to make them practical. The original idea is just the first step. It's the spark, but the ignition is slow.
Governments can take a longer-haul view.
I'm not sure how to fix this issue from the entrepreneur side of things. It's just the way it is.
Do you find you can build models significantly faster with Lego bricks than you could with Duplo bricks?
If the size of the creation grows beyond my regular reach, then the smaller bricks are more efficient.
Anyhow, I still feel safer in a 4-engine plane. I hope they find a way to make such a configuration as efficient as a 2-engine plane, or at least close enough where safety is the difference maker.
Government spending is easy. Making sure it doesn't result in people lining their pockets with the money without producing tangible results is hard.
Gates has a point (for once). The US economy typically depends on the leading-edge. Once something becomes a commodity, it flows to cheaper-labor countries, where we can't compete.
And if we want to continue to surf the leading edge, we have to create the leading edge. Nobody else is going to do it for us.
That may require government money. The Internet, early computers, jets, the space program, and indirectly the semi-conductor industry were all spurred on by government spending, changing the world.
The private market has decided to focus on near-term R&D and products for the most part. The days of Xerox's GUI-like research are mostly gone (with the notable exception of near-Earth-orbit spaceflight.)
I'm not sure why industry changed. It could be a bad batch of MBA's trained via education fads to chase short-term, or maybe the pressure of global competition putting companies in semi-panic survival mode. But it has changed.
Thus, government has to step in the fill the void. I don't see the private sector growing more interested in medium- and long-term R&D again. It's not whether the government sucks, it's whether the alternative is worse.
Perhaps some form of collaboration between government, universities, and private industry needs to be explored more. Sometimes you just have to experiment with collaboration systems.
Either way, if we don't find a way to stoke the leading edge, our comparative advantage of pushing the envelope will disappear and we'll become a second-rate economy. Stagnation is not our friend.
But what inherent "law" makes an engine that's twice as powerful cost less than twice as much? Handling and manufacturing seems would be easier with smaller parts to offset savings from scale. A smaller engine is just about human size, making it easier for a single person or fewer persons to inspect, clean, fix, transport, etc. The single engine per side is larger than human-size.
Gaza's space agency, Hamas Glory to the Stars, needs funding to help its rockets reach orbit. So far they have been falling short, usually landing in Israel.
They keep experimenting with new fuels and rocket designs, but so far they still can't reach orbit, landing in Israeli neighborhoods. They are now asking for outside donations to help them purchase better rocket parts.
To the world this ship will always be Boaty McBoatface...It might not be christened Boaty McBoatface but that's what its friends and family will call it.
Indeed, why mess with a legend? The story is all over. Do you want to be The Guy who gave a legend The Shaft? Grumpy McGrumpface will be your nickname long after you die.
Microsoft's AI keeps embarrassing them. It's like they thought their corporate image problem from being a ham-handed OS monopoly wasn't big enough: they needed to automate gaffes.
BUT, political analysts in general don't see it that way because non-Democrats haven't been paying much attention to the Democrat race. Based on past patterns, they estimate Sanders would not do so well with conservatives and moderates during the mainstream election when general attention would be turned to Sanders.
But Trump is such an oddball, that perhaps such past patterns are less applicable.
libtards forced the banks to give loans to people who had ZERO business owning a house
That's a huge exaggeration. The CRA laws merely meant that loanee's neighborhood can't be used as a factor to reject loans. CRA said ZERO about skipping income verification. Most of the problem loans were NOT in so-called minority neighborhoods. I lived in S. Calif. during the crash, and saw where the foreclosures were with my own eyes. The "minority" houses were usually closer to the center of town, and thus kept a lot of their resell value even during the slump. The outskirts took the biggest hit.
the federal government (through Fannie Mae) agreed to buy up ANY mortgage after 6 months, meaning the lenders only had to find people who could make 6 payments...
Do you have a link on this?
And if true, why did so many banks croak during the crash? If FM was to back most their loans, they'd still be alive. (Most later bailouts were not thru FM.)
4) Ridiculously low interest rates
You blame "big gov't", but high interest rates would be more gov't interference. It seems a contradiction. If gov't didn't regulate interest rates at all, the rates would be as low or as high as banks wanted. And the fed rate doesn't prevent banks from charging higher rates from the fed rate, it only sets the floor. Therefore, "low" was not forced upon the banks.
The banks voluntarily got themselves in hot water. They voluntarily skipped background checks, largely because they wanted to quickly re-sell them to a bigger sucker bank before it all crashed down. Ponzi-ish. They knew their slime.
Big federal government. Limited government would have never allowed this because the banks lending to people who had no business owning a home would simply go out of business.
Many did go out of biz. The only reason there were some bailouts is because the banks were too big to fail: they'd take the entire econ with them if most failed. If anti-trust were enforced, they perhaps would not be too big to take econ down with them.
Banks are key infrastructure for good or bad. Key infrastructure usually has to be regulated to some degree, otherwise companies would hold civilization hostage for cash, kind of like OPEC.
Slashdot Mirror
Entrepreneurs are mostly interested in something that will pay off in about 5 years. The breakthroughs that are needed to spark entire new industries typically have taken longer than that. (Examples: early computers, jets, space rockets, Internet, DNA, etc.).
If you take a finance class, you'll generally see that the payoff for cutting-edge endeavors is both too far away and uncertain compared to here-and-now investment alternatives. Cutting edge research looks poor on paper, per existing financing theories.
And historically, early adopters often fall on their face because they don't know what the market wants or can do with it.
Take the Olivetti Programma 101, arguably the first desktop computer. While it was a mild financial success, in part due to the stubborn nature of the inventor, the company's marketers and management were confused about what to do with it.
Then there's Xerox's bungling of it's GUI and laser-printer technology. While they did get some royalties, it's questionable whether it paid off overall for them. Again, the company's marketers and management were confused by it and didn't how or where to sell it.
And we have the Apple Newton, and Microsoft's Tablet of 2000. Interesting products, but immature and/or poorly executed.
It often takes awhile for the ideas to roll around the market place before somebody finds the right combo of features and marketing to make them practical. The original idea is just the first step. It's the spark, but the ignition is slow.
Governments can take a longer-haul view.
I'm not sure how to fix this issue from the entrepreneur side of things. It's just the way it is.
Addendum,
The 3-engine McDonnell Douglas MD-11 seems like a decent compromise. I'm surprised it's not more popular. Other factors may be playing a part.
If the size of the creation grows beyond my regular reach, then the smaller bricks are more efficient.
Anyhow, I still feel safer in a 4-engine plane. I hope they find a way to make such a configuration as efficient as a 2-engine plane, or at least close enough where safety is the difference maker.
Gates has a point (for once). The US economy typically depends on the leading-edge. Once something becomes a commodity, it flows to cheaper-labor countries, where we can't compete.
And if we want to continue to surf the leading edge, we have to create the leading edge. Nobody else is going to do it for us.
That may require government money. The Internet, early computers, jets, the space program, and indirectly the semi-conductor industry were all spurred on by government spending, changing the world.
The private market has decided to focus on near-term R&D and products for the most part. The days of Xerox's GUI-like research are mostly gone (with the notable exception of near-Earth-orbit spaceflight.)
I'm not sure why industry changed. It could be a bad batch of MBA's trained via education fads to chase short-term, or maybe the pressure of global competition putting companies in semi-panic survival mode. But it has changed.
Thus, government has to step in the fill the void. I don't see the private sector growing more interested in medium- and long-term R&D again. It's not whether the government sucks, it's whether the alternative is worse.
Perhaps some form of collaboration between government, universities, and private industry needs to be explored more. Sometimes you just have to experiment with collaboration systems.
Either way, if we don't find a way to stoke the leading edge, our comparative advantage of pushing the envelope will disappear and we'll become a second-rate economy. Stagnation is not our friend.
But what inherent "law" makes an engine that's twice as powerful cost less than twice as much? Handling and manufacturing seems would be easier with smaller parts to offset savings from scale. A smaller engine is just about human size, making it easier for a single person or fewer persons to inspect, clean, fix, transport, etc. The single engine per side is larger than human-size.
Captain Morgan fully supports it also
Well, okay, maybe.
Another question: why not have 4 engines instead of 2? Are 2 really more economical than 4 for smallish passenger jets?
Make the grill out of something stronger, something that bends but not snaps.
Every other device has grills, why not jet engines? Birds have been causing problems also. Can't ban birds.
Doesn't mean it doesn't embarrass them. I'm viewing this from a P/R perspective, not a Vulcan's.
Hamas Space Program Needs Your Help!
Gaza's space agency, Hamas Glory to the Stars, needs funding to help its rockets reach orbit. So far they have been falling short, usually landing in Israel.
They keep experimenting with new fuels and rocket designs, but so far they still can't reach orbit, landing in Israeli neighborhoods. They are now asking for outside donations to help them purchase better rocket parts.
- weaklytimes.blogspot.com
Indeed, why mess with a legend? The story is all over. Do you want to be The Guy who gave a legend The Shaft? Grumpy McGrumpface will be your nickname long after you die.
Let's vote to rename slashdot.
Microsoft's AI keeps embarrassing them. It's like they thought their corporate image problem from being a ham-handed OS monopoly wasn't big enough: they needed to automate gaffes.
It's kind of like deciding between Mussolini and Hitler.
You want to see them fight each other to death, with no survivor.
Many are probably burnt-out Amazon workers already
I congratulate you on not being mugged for 34 years.
Jobs was right, you WERE holding it wrong
Hold on, I'm not done with the headline yet
Well, okay, you have a point.
BUT, political analysts in general don't see it that way because non-Democrats haven't been paying much attention to the Democrat race. Based on past patterns, they estimate Sanders would not do so well with conservatives and moderates during the mainstream election when general attention would be turned to Sanders.
But Trump is such an oddball, that perhaps such past patterns are less applicable.
That's a huge exaggeration. The CRA laws merely meant that loanee's neighborhood can't be used as a factor to reject loans. CRA said ZERO about skipping income verification. Most of the problem loans were NOT in so-called minority neighborhoods. I lived in S. Calif. during the crash, and saw where the foreclosures were with my own eyes. The "minority" houses were usually closer to the center of town, and thus kept a lot of their resell value even during the slump. The outskirts took the biggest hit.
Do you have a link on this?
And if true, why did so many banks croak during the crash? If FM was to back most their loans, they'd still be alive. (Most later bailouts were not thru FM.)
You blame "big gov't", but high interest rates would be more gov't interference. It seems a contradiction. If gov't didn't regulate interest rates at all, the rates would be as low or as high as banks wanted. And the fed rate doesn't prevent banks from charging higher rates from the fed rate, it only sets the floor. Therefore, "low" was not forced upon the banks.
The banks voluntarily got themselves in hot water. They voluntarily skipped background checks, largely because they wanted to quickly re-sell them to a bigger sucker bank before it all crashed down. Ponzi-ish. They knew their slime.
Many did go out of biz. The only reason there were some bailouts is because the banks were too big to fail: they'd take the entire econ with them if most failed. If anti-trust were enforced, they perhaps would not be too big to take econ down with them.
Banks are key infrastructure for good or bad. Key infrastructure usually has to be regulated to some degree, otherwise companies would hold civilization hostage for cash, kind of like OPEC.
Bill Nye reads science books, Sarah reads pop-up books.
But they will be upgrading soon to Timbukthree
Do you have a link? I'm skeptical.
India's movin' on up...