Where do you think a private company gets it money? From backers. What is your point? If it does not matter who designed it, built it or used it, then do not make claims that is not true, the govt. designs nothing, and builds nothing. As proven, space can be exploited by private companies to a far greater benefit than govt.DrunkFace wrote:
It doesn't matter who designed it, who built it, who used it. The money came directly from the Government. Governments are major financial backer for thousands of innovative projects all around the world, and the military is one of the greatest innovate institutions around, fully financed by the government and tax payers.lowing wrote:
Simply put, that is exactly what they say....Granted, they are there approving designs, changing their minds on what they want as they go. but yes, build us a rocket that can go to the moon, build us a bomber that can pressurize, reach a ceiling of 35,000 ft, have a range of 2000 miles etc...Yes Spark, "build us "X" that can do "Y"" is exactly what the govt. does.Spark wrote:
It's hardly "yeah build us a rocket that gets us to the moon" then walk away. I'm pretty sure NASA/NASA officials were very deeply involved in every stage of the process, to say the least (and there is much more one could say)
Wrong. They all came from the private sector. Einstein was not a member of govt.Dilbert_X wrote:
Radar came from govt labs, jet engines were developed in govt labs, nuclear power from govt labs.Turquoise wrote:
Friedman is completely wrong in one respect. He states that "the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus." That's true except for one small problem..... NASA.
NASA is a government bureau that has actually spawned several technological advances and continues to do so.
In addition to this, a large portion of medical research is carried out by universities -- most of them public -- with government funding in addition to private funding.
So while Friedman is correct that advances are driven by greed and ambition via individuals, they certainly are not divorced from public funding or government bureaus.
I could go on.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inve … engine.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_radar
Notice they say scientists and not govt. officals.
Well now ... I didn't make this thread, I asked YOU to provide me some info ... infact I only asked you for a breif resume of his economic prinsiples ... how hard can that be?lowing wrote:
I gave you his name, if you really wanted know anything about him or his POV you would have looked him up.Varegg wrote:
Infact you didn't ... you have both posted a youtube link ... nothing more ... that's not a resume.lowing wrote:
I did...It is in the OP...if you want to watch the whole thing, see the next link Senortoenails provided.
So the next question is: Do you even know what he is talking about, I doubt it seeing as I have asked you now 3 times and you have still to give me an answer ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
No you are being a smart ass and I am not going to entertain it. You now claim, that because YOU can not argue against his POV, that I somehow must not underatand what he is talking about. Ain't gunna work. Google him or watch him, ( when you get sound ) then post a comment.Varegg wrote:
Well now ... I didn't make this thread, I asked YOU to provide me some info ... infact I only asked you for a breif resume of his economic prinsiples ... how hard can that be?lowing wrote:
I gave you his name, if you really wanted know anything about him or his POV you would have looked him up.Varegg wrote:
Infact you didn't ... you have both posted a youtube link ... nothing more ... that's not a resume.
So the next question is: Do you even know what he is talking about, I doubt it seeing as I have asked you now 3 times and you have still to give me an answer ...
OK, when I said the jet engine was developed in govt labs I meant developed, not invented. It was done largely with govt support and after nationalisation entirely with govt support.
Whittle was in the RAF when he invented the jet engine.
RADAR, essentially the major invention was the cavity magnetron - which was invented in govt labs.
The development of nuclear technology - enrichment, use of fuel for power and bombs - occurred in govt labs.
Whittle was in the RAF when he invented the jet engine.
RADAR, essentially the major invention was the cavity magnetron - which was invented in govt labs.
The development of nuclear technology - enrichment, use of fuel for power and bombs - occurred in govt labs.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Wtf is your problem lowing?
Tell me about his POV in a few lines, his economic stand, his political believes ... how hard is that?
You made the thread, now provide me with more than a link to youtube ...
Tell me about his POV in a few lines, his economic stand, his political believes ... how hard is that?
You made the thread, now provide me with more than a link to youtube ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I don't give a shit where the money comes from, the govt. is a customer. They hire the private sector to research and develope the shit govt. uses. Period. NASA was used as an example and it was shown that NASA invented nothing. NASA has a desire and it relies on private comoanies to make those desires a reality.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK, when I said the jet engine was developed in govt labs I meant developed, not invented. It was done largely with govt support and after nationalisation entirely with govt support.
Whittle was in the RAF when he invented the jet engine.
RADAR, essentially the major invention was the cavity magnetron - which was invented in govt labs.
The development of nuclear technology - enrichment, use of fuel for power and bombs - occurred in govt labs.
Just because the customer pays for widget, in this case govt., it does not mean they get credit for that widget. All they did was buy it.
As I said, if you want to know more about the man google him, or better yet watch the video that was linked. What more could you want than the words from the man himself?Varegg wrote:
Wtf is your problem lowing?
Tell me about his POV in a few lines, his economic stand, his political believes ... how hard is that?
You made the thread, now provide me with more than a link to youtube ...
Sorry, he's still wrong. He said there weren't government bureaus involved in technological advances. NASA scientists are employees of a government bureau, and it wasn't just contractors that designed rockets and such. Your argument is like saying that all soldiers are contractors -- which obviously, they aren't.lowing wrote:
Nope you are wrong, the onlt thing NASA does is set a mission and push the launch button. The vehicles that fly, the equipment in the control rooms, the research carried to space are all private companies R and D. It was contractors that designed the rocket that put another contractors LEM on the moon. Contractors bid and present designs to the govt. ( NASA) for the building of whatever design perameters NASA has laid out.Turquoise wrote:
Friedman is completely wrong in one respect. He states that "the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus." That's true except for one small problem..... NASA.
NASA is a government bureau that has actually spawned several technological advances and continues to do so.
In addition to this, a large portion of medical research is carried out by universities -- most of them public -- with government funding in addition to private funding.
So while Friedman is correct that advances are driven by greed and ambition via individuals, they certainly are not divorced from public funding or government bureaus.
Govt. did not build the weapons or airplanes or tanks that won WW2, nor did they build a thing that put us on the moon. Private companies did.
If the govt pays for the development they own it, applies to the jet engine, radar, nuclear technology.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit where the money comes from, the govt. is a customer. They hire the private sector to research and develope the shit govt. uses. Period. NASA was used as an example and it was shown that NASA invented nothing. NASA has a desire and it relies on private comoanies to make those desires a reality.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK, when I said the jet engine was developed in govt labs I meant developed, not invented. It was done largely with govt support and after nationalisation entirely with govt support.
Whittle was in the RAF when he invented the jet engine.
RADAR, essentially the major invention was the cavity magnetron - which was invented in govt labs.
The development of nuclear technology - enrichment, use of fuel for power and bombs - occurred in govt labs.
Just because the customer pays for widget, in this case govt., it does not mean they get credit for that widget. All they did was buy it.
If it had all been done with private finance you might have had a point.
Radar and nuclear technology were done in govt labs with govt money, so hard luck.
Of course if the govt pays for development of a product and then lets the private sector make a profit out of it that would be a form of govt-corporate socialism wouldn't it?
Thats your military-industrial complex right there.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-11 06:29:07)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Companies don't design anything, they just employ people to design it for them.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit where the money comes from, the govt. is a customer. They hire the private sector to research and develope the shit govt. uses. Period. NASA was used as an example and it was shown that NASA invented nothing. NASA has a desire and it relies on private comoanies to make those desires a reality.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK, when I said the jet engine was developed in govt labs I meant developed, not invented. It was done largely with govt support and after nationalisation entirely with govt support.
Whittle was in the RAF when he invented the jet engine.
RADAR, essentially the major invention was the cavity magnetron - which was invented in govt labs.
The development of nuclear technology - enrichment, use of fuel for power and bombs - occurred in govt labs.
Just because the customer pays for widget, in this case govt., it does not mean they get credit for that widget. All they did was buy it.
You obviously agree with him, hence you should be able to write a few lines to accompany the link in the OP.lowing wrote:
As I said, if you want to know more about the man google him, or better yet watch the video that was linked. What more could you want than the words from the man himself?Varegg wrote:
Wtf is your problem lowing?
Tell me about his POV in a few lines, his economic stand, his political believes ... how hard is that?
You made the thread, now provide me with more than a link to youtube ...
The lack of such content can only mean you haven't got a clue what he talks about ... and just for the record, you know Milton Friedman considered himself to be classically liberal and libertarian?
He also died in 2006 and that means he didn't get to see the fruits of freefalling unregulated capitalism ... I would be very interested in hearing what comments he would have made today ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Might wanna look up who builds and R and D's aircraft and systems, who designed and built major components of the rocket systems, who build the LEM etc....All private contractors. Pick any govt. widget and you will find it was R and D'ed in the private sector, regardless if it were funded by the govt. or not. THe govt. designs and builds nothing.Turquoise wrote:
Sorry, he's still wrong. He said there weren't government bureaus involved in technological advances. NASA scientists are employees of a government bureau, and it wasn't just contractors that designed rockets and such. Your argument is like saying that all soldiers are contractors -- which obviously, they aren't.lowing wrote:
Nope you are wrong, the onlt thing NASA does is set a mission and push the launch button. The vehicles that fly, the equipment in the control rooms, the research carried to space are all private companies R and D. It was contractors that designed the rocket that put another contractors LEM on the moon. Contractors bid and present designs to the govt. ( NASA) for the building of whatever design perameters NASA has laid out.Turquoise wrote:
Friedman is completely wrong in one respect. He states that "the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus." That's true except for one small problem..... NASA.
NASA is a government bureau that has actually spawned several technological advances and continues to do so.
In addition to this, a large portion of medical research is carried out by universities -- most of them public -- with government funding in addition to private funding.
So while Friedman is correct that advances are driven by greed and ambition via individuals, they certainly are not divorced from public funding or government bureaus.
Govt. did not build the weapons or airplanes or tanks that won WW2, nor did they build a thing that put us on the moon. Private companies did.
Interesting that the country which is the greatest champion of greed can no longer supply its people with enough food or energy without relying on imports.
So much for the free market curing all ills.
So much for the free market curing all ills.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
But the govt pays for it, so its hardly the free market solving all the worlds problems by itself - the govt does the forward thinking, planning, writes the contracts, pays the cheques, brings it all together at the end of the day.lowing wrote:
Might wanna look up who builds and R and D's aircraft and systems, who designed and built major components of the rocket systems, who build the LEM etc....All private contractors. Pick any govt. widget and you will find it was R and D'ed in the private sector, regardless if it were funded by the govt. or not. THe govt. designs and builds nothing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Note Drunkface's response. He basically just summed up your logic with regard to government but instead applied it to the private sector.lowing wrote:
Might wanna look up who builds and R and D's aircraft and systems, who designed and built major components of the rocket systems, who build the LEM etc....All private contractors. Pick any govt. widget and you will find it was R and D'ed in the private sector, regardless if it were funded by the govt. or not. THe govt. designs and builds nothing.Turquoise wrote:
Sorry, he's still wrong. He said there weren't government bureaus involved in technological advances. NASA scientists are employees of a government bureau, and it wasn't just contractors that designed rockets and such. Your argument is like saying that all soldiers are contractors -- which obviously, they aren't.lowing wrote:
Nope you are wrong, the onlt thing NASA does is set a mission and push the launch button. The vehicles that fly, the equipment in the control rooms, the research carried to space are all private companies R and D. It was contractors that designed the rocket that put another contractors LEM on the moon. Contractors bid and present designs to the govt. ( NASA) for the building of whatever design perameters NASA has laid out.
Govt. did not build the weapons or airplanes or tanks that won WW2, nor did they build a thing that put us on the moon. Private companies did.
To say that government funding and government management don't have any relevance when working with private inventors is like saying that companies shouldn't get credit for the work their employees do.
LOL, so your argument is that you can not disagree with him, that I must not know what I he is saying. How pathetic. If you know he dies in 2006 then you must know what his postion is on economic and social issues regarding govt.Varegg wrote:
You obviously agree with him, hence you should be able to write a few lines to accompany the link in the OP.lowing wrote:
As I said, if you want to know more about the man google him, or better yet watch the video that was linked. What more could you want than the words from the man himself?Varegg wrote:
Wtf is your problem lowing?
Tell me about his POV in a few lines, his economic stand, his political believes ... how hard is that?
You made the thread, now provide me with more than a link to youtube ...
The lack of such content can only mean you haven't got a clue what he talks about ... and just for the record, you know Milton Friedman considered himself to be classically liberal and libertarian?
He also died in 2006 and that means he didn't get to see the fruits of freefalling unregulated capitalism ... I would be very interested in hearing what comments he would have made today ...
What would he say today? Hmmm he would probably cite govt. intervention in the housing market for the failure and govt. intervention for the inability of the free market to recover our economy.
He certainly would be against any govt. bailouts of any companies.
Govt military contracts are the fattest bailout of all.lowing wrote:
He certainly would be against any govt. bailouts of any companies.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Stuff like this?SenorToenails wrote:
I meant more that I wish there were more shows that interview intelligent people and have Q&A sessions like Donahue seemed to have.lowing wrote:
Donahue, is a flaming liberal and is probably creaming himself at the thoughts of Obama in office. However I will give him credit for one thing. he damn sure knew when he was out matched and when to shut up. he knew there was no way he could defend his liberal ideology bullshit to Dr. Friedman. iwas quite impressed with the good Dr.SenorToenails wrote:
I watched the whole thing also, and his arguments are pretty damn solid. I don't have much of a background in economics, but Friedman does explain things in a way that make sense to the layman. I watched a few other episodes of Donahue (with Ayn Rand, actually) and I wish there were shows like that on today--if there are, I don't know about them.
LOL 85 views and the liberals are stay in the shadows....Not much you say to counter this man is there?
Most people are dee dee dee's that don't actually understand the issues or who don't care so the ratings would bomb. I would love it though
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't give a shit about imports, pull govt. intervention out of the free market and allow the chips and the companies fall where they may.Dilbert_X wrote:
Interesting that the country which is the greatest champion of greed can no longer supply its people with enough food or energy without relying on imports.
So much for the free market curing all ills.
I am a Toyota fan and a Honda fan, I wouldn't buy an American car regardless of whatever bullshit incentives they give me to do so. Notice they offer everything they can except a good reliable wuality car? A hard lesson to learn.
You mean that an entertainer was shut down by a professional economist on the topic of economics? Say it ain't so. That's like me trying to argue with you about the intricacies of maintaining an aircraft.lowing wrote:
Get sound and watch this. It is probably the most single comprehensive argument regarding socialism, capitalism, "greed", govt. intervention, economics, free choice etc. that is to be seen. Not even the liberal talk show host Phill Donahue can argue against what this man says. He is completely shut down. To Donahue's credit however, he knows when to stay down.Varegg wrote:
So what are the arguments?lowing wrote:
I watched the whole thing and it is very interesting. Arguments that no liberal can defend. Probably why the liberal trash in this forum is avoiding addressing anything Dr. Friedman said. Actually it is best yuo don't even try. Just know you are wrong in your beliefs as Phill Donahue now does..
I don't have sound on my work computer and will prolly have forgotten this thread when I get home ...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Actually he would be for govt. to pay for what the market would bare. The govt. wants a brand new widget, they are willing to pay for it someone will build it for them....Capitalism at its finest.Dilbert_X wrote:
Govt military contracts are the fattest bailout of all.lowing wrote:
He certainly would be against any govt. bailouts of any companies.
Not talking about trivia like cars, I'm talking about basic food and energy needs, both of which are strategic.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit about imports, pull govt. intervention out of the free market and allow the chips and the companies fall where they may.Dilbert_X wrote:
Interesting that the country which is the greatest champion of greed can no longer supply its people with enough food or energy without relying on imports.
So much for the free market curing all ills.
I am a Toyota fan and a Honda fan, I wouldn't buy an American car regardless of whatever bullshit incentives they give me to do so. Notice they offer everything they can except a good reliable wuality car? A hard lesson to learn.
Greed has allowed the population to balloon to well above a level which can sustain itself in the US.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Point taken, but you would think a talk show host, even a liberal one, would be smart enough to form some facsimile of a debate if you were going to have someone on your show you intended to debate. Face it, he was shut down, on every issue, economically as well as that of socialism vs. captialismJohnG@lt wrote:
You mean that an entertainer was shut down by a professional economist on the topic of economics? Say it ain't so. That's like me trying to argue with you about the intricacies of maintaining an aircraft.lowing wrote:
Get sound and watch this. It is probably the most single comprehensive argument regarding socialism, capitalism, "greed", govt. intervention, economics, free choice etc. that is to be seen. Not even the liberal talk show host Phill Donahue can argue against what this man says. He is completely shut down. To Donahue's credit however, he knows when to stay down.Varegg wrote:
So what are the arguments?
I don't have sound on my work computer and will prolly have forgotten this thread when I get home ...
But govt is calling the shots and taxing and spending to achieve it.lowing wrote:
Actually he would be for govt. to pay for what the market would bare. The govt. wants a brand new widget, they are willing to pay for it someone will build it for them....Capitalism at its finest.
Shouldn't the free market just be inventing and developing this stuff and delivering it to the govt on a plate to buy or not as they see fit?
Thats how it works, unless of course you send Toyota a cheque and wait and see if they come back with a car which works five years later.
The US economy is nowhere close to the the 'free market' you think it is.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!