As a fiscal conservative I am not usually supportive of programs that are proposed by President Obama, but this one sounds like a good idea. We're talking about a collaboration of public and private organizations and companies that create R&D centers to address specific areas of technology. There is already one being created in Raleigh, North Carolina that is focused on high-powered computer chips used in electronics. The Dept of Energy put up 70 million, which will be matched by private corps like John Deere and Delphi. Obama announced this past week that 2 more institutes will be created in Chicago and Detroit; the one in Chicago will focus on digital manufacturing and design, projects such as producing a faster and cheaper next-generation aircraft engine, drastically reducing the amount of scrap material associated with small manufacturing runs and speeding the design process among far-flung suppliers. The one in Detroit will work on lightweight and modern metals. Since private corps are involved are puting up decent money to help fund these institutes, I am somewhat more encouraged than if it was just another gov't program to give grants to a few universities here and there. As I understand it, Obama's budget is asking for one billion bucks to do 15 of these institutes. As gov't spending goes, this sounds like a good idea. The details are a bit sketchy, always a concern with the gov't, and I don't know how it'll function. But I do think we need to do a better job of R&D from a manufacturing angle in this country and this could be an excellent concept to pursue. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/23/us-usa-obama-manufacturing-idUSBREA1M04020140223
It's one thing government is good at, putting up serious capital for R&D that otherwise wouldn't happen via the private sector alone, good things can come from this. My only concern... well one of many, is who is going to benefit from said R&D? Does the government get to remain a stakeholder in any technological discoveries or will this be a give away to the corporate partners?
Don't know, haven't seen anything concerning the details like this. At first blush it seems to me that if your company has invested serious cash in this endeavor that you should be among the first to reap any rewards. Which kinda incentivizes every other company to get on board a nearby institute somewhere. OR create their own together with the local college/university. AND, besides the DOE, the Dept of Defense is also funding the institute in Detroit and maybe the one in Chicago, so if something comes out of either place that the DoD can use then maybe they get first dibs, perhaps in partnerships with the same companies who are investing their money and supporting the project.
Might've been some politics in the decision for where those institutes ended up, but you know what - if it works I don't care. And Detroit could use the help, but this has to work out and they better be making good decisions based on reality than politics. Cuz if this becomes a money pit to help 2 cities that are in financial trouble then a potentially really good idea could get squandered.
where does the President call home, and where are there huge tracts of vacant land in an urban setting with the skills for this already near by? Chicago and Detroit.
Urban decay, I don't know anyone in their right mind who'd want to move and live there unless they were from there originally. Were talking pretty specialized fields, the people who can do this type of research have opportunities to work and live in nicer places. But I hate big cities so I'm sure I'm biased, lol.
But consider, Detroit has been a leading area in light metal construction for years. So there is already a great deal of smarts. The urban decay is another reason to do it. Detroit needs to reinvent itself, this is a great start
i'm waiting for the attached strings to start popping up. - - - Updated - - - cheap urban land. the Sliverdome sold for the price of a new home in Atlanta.
An EggHead of an Idea. America has lots and lots of R & D. America stalls at, "application". Ref.: the ole VCR invented in America and discarded as a marketable item. The Japanese knew better. Some application is stalled because it would interfere with an established industry, like dependence on liquid hydrocarbon fuels. I have to wonder which of Obama or Michelle's friends is going to rake in the profits on this EggHead idea. More R & D ain't necessarily improved R & D like "more medical care" is not necessarily improved . . . Ref.: PSA and Mammograms and needless mutilations. Moi No
Just as I was starting to think that a bit of positive economic stimulus could only do the unliked one some good. Alas, we know what to expect...
What evidence do you have for your claim? Patent applications have skyrocketed over the last ten years, so we're certainly innovating. As to application, there's a feverish application of new technologies. Innovation is recognized by business as a key means of competition like never before. That's why R&D spending is growing rapidly. (See http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13313/nsf13313.pdf) Any business with a valuable patent is eager to rush its new product line to market. Infringement suites have become frequent as companies vie for possession of practical money-making patents. So what's Moi talking about? He has once again brought a moldy old idea up from the bottom of the left's laundry hamper. This time, it's the notion, popular among Neanderthal-browed Occupy Wall Street types, that we'd be living in the Garden of Eden were it not for business's aversion to making money through innovation. (Yes, that's right, aversion to making money!) Because, you see, if someone came up with a cheap clean safe plentiful alternative to oil, they'd make billions or even trillions by driving the oil industry out of business and bringing power to the world like Prometheus brought fire. So - and here's where the lefties think they're being deep - the oil companies somehow suppress the innovation to protect their outdated businesses. This "idea" fails on two counts. First, there's much more money to be made by significant innovation than by maintaining status quo, so if the miracle replacement for oil existed, someone would pursue it for the money, power, and glory it would bring; there'd be no way to suppress something that big. Second, history is replete with examples of once-great industries undone by innovation. Entrepreneurs found newer and better ways to do things, making themselves rich and the world a better place. To list a few off the top of my head, the once mighty telegraph industry was done in by telephones just as cell phones are now doing in land lines; cars and planes eviscerated railroads; computers ousted typewriters and adding machines; oil burners replaced coal furnaces, and now oil is being replaced by gas; supermarkets replaced grocery stores, butcher shops, fish shops, et al.; the internet replaced libraries; CDs replaced LPs, and now CDs are being replaced by downloads. The list is endless of once-great public institutions shrunk to relative insignificance by innovation. In every case, the old ways had fierce defenders, but the market spoke. The American story is a story of endless progressive change. The people who call themselves "progressives" are paradoxically often the enemies of progress. So why do these people keep insisting on the existence of vast conspiracies opposing progress? It's because they seek power through force. In order to justify themselves, they need to make their aggression look defensive. By pretending that big businesses are conspiring against them, they excuse their own conspiracies and their own aggression. Few established industries today are not under assault by upstart competitors with new ideas. But the left likes to pretend that they're fostering competition. Of course, there's nothing they hate more than competition, because they're all about power, and the rapid change and instability characteristic of competition makes things hard to control.
Bobov DEAR Please read Numero Uno. This Thread is about an Obama Master Plan for R & D centers, as if doesn't have enough. After reading Numero Uno, please read Moi's previous upload and respond, Who's dyslexic now? has lots of R & D and does not need Obama's, intensive <doom> Federal <Darth Vadar breath sounds> involvement. If you weren't such a Liberal, you would realize that. Moi No
I read Numero Uno, dragged kicking and screaming by my friend Moi. If you don't look under the hood, it sounds like a good idea. Private money means there's potential value to the research. Governments in many countries have successfully assisted business with R&D. We might do the same here. But then I have concerns - How would the research topics be chosen? We don't want business spending precious R&D capital only because government is matching them. That could mean the blind leading the blind. I don't trust government to know where R&D money is best spent. Good research subjects would be of great commercial value (solve important problems, really wanted) and achievable in the near to intermediate term. These tests of practicality must be met. Who owns the results? Will the government control how the results are used and who gets any profits? Business should deploy useful results as quickly and completely as possible. Government might interfere by taking too much of the proceeds, or by endless licensing and legal reviews. What about businesses not contributing to the research? I assume only fairly large and well capitalized businesses will be participating with the government. Does that leave start-ups, entrepreneurs, and small companies out in the cold? If participating companies get a clear competitive advantage from innovation, do we want the government picking winners? Would those decisions be affected by politics? Does this risk formation of a real government-industrial complex? Wouldn't bribery and corruption follow, just like China? Long-term, the effect might be to consolidate industries around a handful of big players chosen by the government as partners - a sort of "privatized" socialism. If an innovation is achievable and worth a lot of money, business will pursue it anyway. Would government involvement help or distort the process?
