$5 billion return from program that funded Solyndra

Correct. We just got something from it for about a half-century.

 

Very little if anything.

It was very poorly run by the US government

 

I'm sorry, but that just isn't accurate. The Canal has made a profit since the early 1950s. Toll revenues in the late 1970s were around $200 million per year. They were up to around $500 million a year when Panama took over. So a low-ball estimate is profits over $10 billion, easily.

 

They bought land, the sold bonds and built them themselves, it as not a huge government project it was a huge private project.

Roads were authorized because the government needed them, can you point to me where in the constitution your list is found?

And the US took it on for national defense purposes.

I said the space lab specifically. And more specifically the last 10 years.

And give me a reason we would want to settle on Mars?

Not it did not and private industry developes as sorts of foam all on it's own when there is a market for it, the products I sell have various open and closed cell foams made of a variety of materials.

Again you are going way back but I will give you that one and again that was for defense and national security.

In the private sector and advances of such made in private industry.

ROFL don't know that to exactly true.

Excuse me who is this they you are talking about? Chips and cameras and memory have all been developed in private industry for private use without government involvement.

Who?

And links...............

But again can you give me the top three discoveries made by the Space Lab in the last 10 years.

 

You again are incorrect.

The canal ran at a loss as late as 1984.

Revenue is not profit......Once you subtract out operating costs and payments to other countries..........we made little to nothing.

 

They didn't buy the land. It was literally gifted to them. Are you really denying historical fact? The Pacific Railroad Acts gave them 175 million acres of public land, free of charge, which constituted 10% of the landmass of the United States.

The Constitution has been interpreted in ways that you disagree with. Sorry about that. Doesn't change the fact that it is constitutional for the government to invest taxpayer money supporting, investing and subsidizing private business. Your ideological disagreement with this fact is irrelevant to what the law has been interpreted to mean.

The US took it on for national defense purposes, and then immediately opened it up to civilian purposes. It is credited with creating billions upon billions of dollars of revenue.

Why should I justify the space lab to you? What would that accomplish? If I go about listing their accomplishments, you'll simply dismiss them or make "LOLROFLWTF" smilies all day about it. And if I don't list their accomplishments, you'll take that as proof that my larger point was incorrect. There is literally no point in me doing that.

Again you deny history. Memory foam was invented by NASA bro. Documented, historical fact. It was then released to the public, which used it in a variety of ways, generating billions in economic activity. Just like GPS. And, yes, aural thermometers were invented by NASA, using NASA research and NASA personnel. Sorry bro, also historical fact.

I mean, let's face it. There is literally no evidence that I could present that would change your mind. You are literally talking with me over a technology invented by the government, which has generated trillions in economic activity, but you'll never admit it. Ever.

 

I'd be glad to take a look at your evidence. I have trouble believing that an operation generating $200 million in revenue in the 1970s ran at a loss, given that current operating costs are $600 million, and that is after a massive expansion project. That, by the way, is about $97 million in 1970s dollars. However I'd be glad to look at whatever links you could provide - I could be wrong.

 

I used to work for the DoD and I was on projects where the DoD did all the research and then handed that proof-of-concept over to public domain. Our RW compatriots refuse to accept companies do not freely put money into R&D and those with cash cow incomes have no incentive to do so.

 

I heard the work they are doing with robotics is going to basically enable the automation revolution. Do you have any insights into that, that you are allowed to discuss?

 

http://countrystudies.us/panama/45.htm

Here is where in 1984 we paid Panama nothing because the canal ran at a loss.

Ever since Carter signed the treaty up until 1999 when we turned it over, we paid Panama 30 Cents a ton plus an annuity up to 10 million based on profits.

The canal was never a money maker and in real dollars has been a zero sum game.

Not really something to tout over a 100 year investment

 

Who paid for that DoD research?

Companies do freely put money into R&D .............this is an asinine assertion that they don't.

 

That doesn't really prove your point, other than in 1984. At $0.30 per ton, with 80-100 million tons, you're looking at payments from 34 million to 44 million, per year. Which is, at most, 22% of revenue.

 

Show me your proof of profit?

You are the one that made the claim it was profitable for 50 years.

I showed you it was not.

The fees under the US control were kept intentionally low to not make money to encourage people to use it. It was a zero sum game at best with the costs to build.

It makes money now, because Panama sets the rates.

And this is a terrible example for this topic.........

We build it, reap no rewards, and give it away.........

sounds about par for the course for the federal government though.....

 

The government didn't invent any of the commercial or marketed applications of those things, the private sector did. This is a common leftist fallacy based on ignorance of finance, IP and capital formation today. Claiming that the government invented Tempur Pedic beds or the internet or pretty much anything is like claiming the cavemen invented the Maserati. There are literally MILLIONS of useful inventions out there not in the hands of the public. As Edison noted, it's the 99% perspiration, not the inspiration that counts. Invention is cheap, capital and risktaking expensive. Government does exactly 0 of the latter two well and should never do them at all.

 

I never claimed that they invented the consumer products. I said they did the research and then gave it away, resulting in billions of dollars in economic benefits. Which is absolutely true.

If you would focus on what is said, rather than simply trying to insert an ideological talking point at every opportunity, these conversations would be much more productive.

 

You didn't show me it was not profitable. You showed me that it was not profitable in 1984, while excluding the other half of the sentence, which showed profits in 1986.

It has just about always made money. The high point was from the 1920s to the mid-1940s. Stable growth through the 1950s and 1960s. A slowdown in the 1970s and 1980s, due to the inability to accommodate larger ships. Now it is generating billions in revenue every year, with profits of just under $1 billion annually. Again after the government of Panama invested taxpayer money into it.

I have no idea why that image from another thread is in this post. I apologize.

 

The only partisan talking point here is that the very few innovations of government, in light of the hideously high costs of them, "results in billions of dollars of economic benefits." That any base tech that results from fiat money forced through the wasteful, corrupt sieve of government is of any net benefit economically is certainly not "absolutely true."

 

So, let's just summarize.

1. Government invents a new technology.
2. Government gives away that technology.
3. That technology is used to create billions of dollars in economic activity
4. ???
5. Government is bad.

 

No they don't. To think they do is asinine. It costs too much money for them.

 

LOL, I did software development for command and control systems, not robots. I did work on Future Combat Systems, but the program has been retired due to cost overruns, that program did have a network of automated or pre-programmed maneuvers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems
FCS was envisioned to create new brigades equipped with new manned and unmanned vehicles linked by an unprecedented fast and flexible battlefield network

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm
There are four major components of FCS - Manned Ground Vehicles, Unmanned Systems, FCS Network, and Soldiers. The Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs) consists of 8 platforms. The Unmanned Systems include Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Unattended Systems, and Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV). The FCS Network provides the communication and automation that creates battle command environment. The Soldier is empowered with the use of robotics and technological advantages.

While a novel idea, the requirements for this system were to great to meet scheduling.

 

1. Government spends billions annually of taxpayer money on every kind of graft and pork, defense related, grant related, contractor related, etc. Taxpayer dollars pay for important "research" on why fat girls can't get dates, robotic squirrels and reality TV shows in India.
2. Infrequently, as in every once in awhile, innovations result from 1. that may comprise ~1% or so of capitalist development of new private sector products.
3. Ignoring the astronomical costs and waste of such, and the trivial amount of government contritbution to the finished product, and instead accounting any benefits accrued in total as to government's net credit, is asinine and puerile.
4. Leftist/statist flummery of claiming that waste and graft created by government results in economic benefits that government didn't in fact create is bad.

 

Again

Your say so is not PROOF.

I at least provided data to prove it was not always "profitable"

Show me concrete proof the US government made money on the Panama Canal..........

Because the damn thing didn't even turn its first profit until the 1950s

"By 1939, more than 7,000 ships a year were traveling through the canal, but it did not turn a profit until the 1950s."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/then-and-now/panama/

- - - Updated - - -

I do not "think" they do.......I know it as fact.

Please post some type of proof that no companies fund their own R&D............

This ranks as one of the dumbest things ever said here....................and that's saying a lot

 

You seem to think that was the only railroad built in America, yes they were given federal land because it had to cross over federal land but like other rail lines they bought land and sold bonds and it was built privately.

Under what clause is that authorized?

I assume you mean the interstate highway and other federal highways, you have a habit of not making yourself clear you know, those are all constitutionally authorized aren't they and they remain the property of the federal government not private business so what is your point?

I get it, you can't.

Wow one of the monumental accomplishments of the space program, how much did that cost the taxpayer. As I said private industry invents new types of foam every year and improve on the previous without the help of government. If that is the best you can come up with you ain't got much.

Again what are the three greatest scientific discoveries we have had the last 10 years from the space lab that justifies the cost?

 

Wait a minute are you now claiming that the revolution in robotics and automation is being driven by government and that it is government developing the advanced systems being used in manufacturing and private business?

 

Oh, so in your opinion, we shouldn't look at the potential benefits and costs of specific projects, but instead condemn one of the few functioning aspects of the US political system (R&D)?

Innovations don't happen infrequently. Why do you think there is such a revolving door for military researchers and defense contractors? Why do you think that DARPA is studying advanced robotics, which are going to make big contributions to the largest and most sustained automation booms in history? Why do you think DARPA and MIT are so tied-in with one another? The past fifty years has seen incredible and constant innovations come out of government research, stuff that has resulted in billions (arguably trillions) in private sector profit.

There is lots of government waste, and we should cut it where possible. On that we can agree. I'd like to see the yearly spending of the federal government cut by around 50%, for instance.