I AM NOT AGAINST GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I am against it spending on building cars that have the same tech. Do you see a difference in giving money to universities in grants for creating better battery chemistries and giving it to GM to make 100K cars with 20 years old chemistry? When I go to DD it is always like talking to a wall.
I don't know if anybody caught 60 minutes tonite, but it had a story that was basically on this issue. In classically idiotic TV fashion, the first half was on the fictitious US-based co. tax shelter offices in Switzerland, which are basically PO Boxes with no one manning them. The next one (in between promos for Undercover Boss of course!) were whining paeans by CEO's and CEO sympathizers (poorly paid no doubt) who happen to lament the thousands of US jobs being relocated by high tax rates. Sure..If only taxes were 20 percent instead of 35 percent, US-based companies who flee abroad would pay 20 percent instead of 0......lol, right?
The point is that government subsidies have historically served regularly as an incubator for new technologies and creating new markets. The newer electric cars are feasible for a variety of uses, although excessively expensive for the consumer - but that goes down over time. That said, I agree that it's better to fund basic research than subsidize the industry itself.
FWIW, I see the difference you are pointing out and I agree. Development of technologies on the public dime should be done by public institutions while applications by for-profit companies shouldn't be subsidized by the government.
Yes there is a difference but I will point out that your own example of nuclear technology becoming widespread is because governments, both state and federal, heavily subsidized or outrightly paid for the construction of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are incredibly expensive and impossible to insure. Without the heavy government subsidies by government no private company would take them on. If governments had followed your argument to not subsidize private corporations we wouldn't have the availability of nuclear power that you advocate.
Just to add another example how would you apply that to something like the Internet? The infrastructure was primarily built by the government and / or through government investment in research. In principle I can agree with you and CaseyH but there are many things like nuclear technology that cannot be developed privately along with things like the Internet and Interstate highway system that were started either primarily for a government purpose or for dual use purpose that have become vital for our economy.
I agree especially turning this into a criticism of green technologies. Keep in mind GE makes a lot of money on fossil fuel technology and nuclear.
Where did I make that argument dude? i said we should stop subsidizing crap that doesn't work and no one wants. i never put a blanket statement arguing against all subsidy to corporations. I think I spelled out examples in a direct answer to your question. Electric cars are not ready. Wind power is trivial and only makes sense regionally. If the government supplies the fuel and cleanup, nuclear power is incredible for a variety of reasons.
I agree with you. The vast majority of the tech development was done through public investments in DARPA and through the research universities. Then, the tech was released "into the wild" where private companies made the lion's share of the investment to build it out. What I am saying is that we need to pour money into developing technologies, but that development needs to be done by our public research universities rather than private companies. Private companies can keep the tech in-house, where if research universities develop the tech, it is more widely available (as a rule). Look at all the tech that comes out of NASA.
Your reasons for criticizing the examples you bring up conflict with the example you brought up that you support, nuclear power. A lot of people thought nuclear power, and still do, was a bad idea and one that wasn't needed but state and federal governments pressed ahead and did it. So while yes there are problems with electric cars and wind power it is possible that they could become more practical if the infrastructure to support and use them is developed just as the infrastructure for nuclear was developed.
Except its not just that research was done and then private companies built the internet but that the infrastructure for the internet was built by the government and then private companies took advantage of it. Its similar to how the federal government built the Interstate highway system and then private companies started locating businesses along it and developing businesses to use it. That is far different than what you are suggesting which would be that the government researches and develops technology to build highways and leaves it to private companies to build them for their own profit motive. With almost any major infrastructure whether it is nuclear power to the Internet that didn't happen that way. I can agree with that in principle but it is unlikely, and off the top of my head, I am not aware of any private company or groups of private company creating any major infrastructure in the US on their own. Its an unfortunate reality that given the costs and risks of certain type of large scale projects no private industry will take it on and its left to government to do so.
Totally disagree with your comparison. Much higher percentage of the internet is private than highways system. The government help to fund the standards and the private made it what it is today. What about 3G and 4G networks? lol also you guys are totally off topic here, I am fine with private research but building cars and building wind farms and solar farms is not really research. It is building products.
I caught it. One thing i was thinking about was what is the personal tax rates in the countries that these companines move their "headquarters" to?
actually, they're just copying the tax strategies of HP, GE, Tyco, Accenture, etc. to set up off shore operations. profits from off-shore operations are not subject to US taxation
Actually, the interstate system and the Internet went completely different ways. The government built the highways purely out of tax dollars. The internet was started by the government, but private industry expanded it to become what it is today. Many of the initial infrastructure was installed by the government, but the bulk of the bandwidth was built out by private industry.
Yes the internet is more private than the interstate highway system but it was government spending that created the initial infrastructure, IP, system that we have today. Clearly the investments involved are much less to create internet technology than highways but that again goes to my point that there are several technologies and infrastructure that private companies wouldn't undertake unless the government did first. Those are improvements on existing infrastructure and not the creation of whole new infrastructure. Just like building nuclear plants.
I think you have a case there with the wireless infrastructure but as you note the infrastructure was initially built either by the government directly or with government subsidies. So while yes private industry has improved and expanded on it infrastructure I am not aware off the top of my head of private industry undertaking on their own the creation of a new infrastructure.
To bring this back to topic 60 Minutes had a piece last night about US companies moving their headquarters to Switzerland to avoid US taxes. Leslie Stahl visited the headquarters of a few Houston companies that are now headquartered in Zug, Switzerland. In one case she was told to contact the Houston office if she wanted to speak to higher ups and in another all she found was a mailbox and an meeting room that was occasionally rented out for board meetings.
sam just mentioned it a few posts above. the most interesting thing I found is cisco claiming it is leaving $40BB offshore and can't reinvest it here or it will be taxed
Probably a silly question, but no one else in the rest of the world has corporate taxes that American companies have to pay? Or the difference is just so high that this is the implication?
