"We need to look at what has already been invented, and ask ourselves WHY such advances are NOT available in the marketplace today."
Do we really want to wake up one day a realize that the Japanese and the Chinese have delivered to our shores a car, well-built, attractive and affordable which runs on HHO on demand? (ie tap water)
Given the current state of affairs in USA -- such a day will soon be upon us.
The profit motive will be enough for some other people and/or companies to invent a battery which is even more advanced than the patents Chevron bought.
Today we need to be looking a bio-fuels and hydrogen fuel cells in relationship to how the government will 'manage' them.
Both of these fuel supplies can be controlled by large vested interests (think: Oil Companies and Government)
We need to look at was already invented and ask ourselves WHY it is not available today.
The problem with the bridge loans is that they do not address the immediate need for car sales. This leaves car salesmen, truck drivers, suppliers and all of the restaurants and others in the chain out of work. What good does it do to save the industry for next year, if next year things are worst. I envision a consumers up approach. My plan would involve industry wide tax incentives, rebates, or guaranteed loans to consumers purchasing vehicles.
Very good point. However, just because the bridge loans to car makers do not address the need of other sectors that would not be a cause to let car makers go out of business to boot. As I said, we need a comprehensive plan that goes beyond car manufacturers in addition to car makers "bailouts" (I hate that word). Killing car makers and making 2.5 miilion more unemployed will get us far beyond the 1930 depression.
If you would consider what could be done with the money. $30 billion divided by 15 million cars sold in a good year. That is the total number of vehicles sold in the U.S. What you end up with is $2000 per vehicle. If you give consumers this money for the purchase of a car, then I am sure 15 million cars would be sold. Sell the cars and you put everyone back in business. Salesman can sell, truckers can truck and so on. No increase in unemployment, no picking winners and losers.
Why would I want to buy something just because I can, with or without the addition of a loan guarantee?
The 'sale' of something (anything) is best driven by the buyer's desire to own (which is in a large part demonstrated by his/her ability to save money toward such a purchase) the good produced.
For example:
Right now, I want to own a black S63 Mercedes. So what do I do?
If oil dependence is a matter of national security (and it should be), then innovative patents that could help us should be required to be developed, and developed FAST. Certainly, any company which receives aid or loans from the government should be required to sell or lease those patents they hold to someone who will utilize 'em. LastREplaySC, I found Chimerica to be interesting, TY. Funy how Republicans only talk about Conservative spending when thier 'contractors' in Iraq failed so bad.
Purchasing power? "P" is the result, not the cause. Wealth is not created by spending.
Our goal is to supply markets. In other words, our goal is to find buyers for our products, or, if we find out that the market doesn't want our products, we must start producing what the market really wants -- AND AT THE PRICE the market is willing to pay. Thus we will have what we want ("P").
I am a simple-minded idiot. I am a capitalist. Feel free to attack me! I don't mind. Really! : P
The patent law is intended to protect the inventor and give him a chance. It is not intended to cover inventions that are NOT being used and serve only to restrain the trade and keep a nation dependent on foreigners who are hostile to the U.S.
This is a good point. There are two options: an increase in debt or a deep depression for years to come, with countless personal tragedies. As to the dollar, China is manipulating the value of its currence, I am sure we could find a remedy, too. I will look into the extent of the problem.
if you look into the term "Chimerica" you will understand that the US is being time to move into the right energy politics. It also will give the US a good start and set off for the new transition time all other nations must also go through. We're all globally tied and "money" or "debt" is only a technical issue that could be globally and fairly defaulted without Armagedon or mad max visions
giroguy22- The infrastructure plan is basically the application of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics revolves around the idea of government investment in infrastructure during recessions(in order to increase consumer purchsing power)and contracting of such expenditures during recovery periods. Obama's plan is to move forward infrastructure programs already on the books. He has yet to announce new plans. The real challenge will be controlling spending once the recovery has taken place.
Let me repeat more clearly:
"We need to look at what has already been invented, and ask ourselves WHY such advances are NOT available in the marketplace today."
Do we really want to wake up one day a realize that the Japanese and the Chinese have delivered to our shores a car, well-built, attractive and affordable which runs on HHO on demand? (ie tap water)
Given the current state of affairs in USA -- such a day will soon be upon us.
warrencurrier 2 years ago
continued from below:
The profit motive will be enough for some other people and/or companies to invent a battery which is even more advanced than the patents Chevron bought.
Today we need to be looking a bio-fuels and hydrogen fuel cells in relationship to how the government will 'manage' them.
Both of these fuel supplies can be controlled by large vested interests (think: Oil Companies and Government)
We need to look at was already invented and ask ourselves WHY it is not available today.
warrencurrier 2 years ago
Sir,
Innovation IS the most important thing, but to think Government 'manage' the innovations... that scares me.
To your point about Chevron:
Yes, they purchased certain advanced battery technology that 'should be' in the marketplace for us all to enjoy.
But, Chevron has a huge stake in our NOT having a new way to propel our vehicles.
My point: I for one am not interested in the Government managing innovation.
The Government needs to get out of the way...
allowing for innovation.
warrencurrier 2 years ago
hahah guys cancer your ovaries.
Obama' s job program will be building the NASCO Super Highway
dave777blaster 3 years ago
The problem with the bridge loans is that they do not address the immediate need for car sales. This leaves car salesmen, truck drivers, suppliers and all of the restaurants and others in the chain out of work. What good does it do to save the industry for next year, if next year things are worst. I envision a consumers up approach. My plan would involve industry wide tax incentives, rebates, or guaranteed loans to consumers purchasing vehicles.
thoughtchallenge 3 years ago
Very good point. However, just because the bridge loans to car makers do not address the need of other sectors that would not be a cause to let car makers go out of business to boot. As I said, we need a comprehensive plan that goes beyond car manufacturers in addition to car makers "bailouts" (I hate that word). Killing car makers and making 2.5 miilion more unemployed will get us far beyond the 1930 depression.
bvongrabe 3 years ago
If you would consider what could be done with the money. $30 billion divided by 15 million cars sold in a good year. That is the total number of vehicles sold in the U.S. What you end up with is $2000 per vehicle. If you give consumers this money for the purchase of a car, then I am sure 15 million cars would be sold. Sell the cars and you put everyone back in business. Salesman can sell, truckers can truck and so on. No increase in unemployment, no picking winners and losers.
thoughtchallenge 3 years ago
"thoughtchallenge'"
Regarding your comments on buying US-made cars:
Why would I want to buy something just because I can, with or without the addition of a loan guarantee?
The 'sale' of something (anything) is best driven by the buyer's desire to own (which is in a large part demonstrated by his/her ability to save money toward such a purchase) the good produced.
For example:
Right now, I want to own a black S63 Mercedes. So what do I do?
By 2012, I'll save $100k to buy a 2009 model.
warrencurrier 2 years ago
If oil dependence is a matter of national security (and it should be), then innovative patents that could help us should be required to be developed, and developed FAST. Certainly, any company which receives aid or loans from the government should be required to sell or lease those patents they hold to someone who will utilize 'em. LastREplaySC, I found Chimerica to be interesting, TY. Funy how Republicans only talk about Conservative spending when thier 'contractors' in Iraq failed so bad.
garthggarth 3 years ago
Purchasing power? "P" is the result, not the cause. Wealth is not created by spending.
Our goal is to supply markets. In other words, our goal is to find buyers for our products, or, if we find out that the market doesn't want our products, we must start producing what the market really wants -- AND AT THE PRICE the market is willing to pay. Thus we will have what we want ("P").
I am a simple-minded idiot. I am a capitalist. Feel free to attack me! I don't mind. Really! : P
opchidexio 3 years ago
Mr.+200 points Program, 3 Names and not even hot air...(stocks rose 200 after falling 700)
The "patent law" is crucial for all future "transportation" & "energy" programs and means a earlier Global transition time.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
The patent law is intended to protect the inventor and give him a chance. It is not intended to cover inventions that are NOT being used and serve only to restrain the trade and keep a nation dependent on foreigners who are hostile to the U.S.
bvongrabe 3 years ago
I fully agree, that is one of the most crucial issues about all patents and Ideas.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
wouldnt the infrastructure plan greatly increase an already mammoth national debt and decrease the value of the dollar even further?
giroguy22 3 years ago
This is a good point. There are two options: an increase in debt or a deep depression for years to come, with countless personal tragedies. As to the dollar, China is manipulating the value of its currence, I am sure we could find a remedy, too. I will look into the extent of the problem.
bvongrabe 3 years ago
if you look into the term "Chimerica" you will understand that the US is being time to move into the right energy politics. It also will give the US a good start and set off for the new transition time all other nations must also go through. We're all globally tied and "money" or "debt" is only a technical issue that could be globally and fairly defaulted without Armagedon or mad max visions
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
giroguy22- The infrastructure plan is basically the application of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics revolves around the idea of government investment in infrastructure during recessions(in order to increase consumer purchsing power)and contracting of such expenditures during recovery periods. Obama's plan is to move forward infrastructure programs already on the books. He has yet to announce new plans. The real challenge will be controlling spending once the recovery has taken place.
thoughtchallenge 3 years ago