Working in whose interest?Government is people after all.
Working in whose interest?Government is people after all.
You make the bad assumption that there are 300,000,000 productive citizens in the US.Really? $58000 per person at loan rates that are mostly influenced by actions of the federal reserve - an entity that would fail if the US government would go bankrupt. I would call you a quitter.
Yes, of course. You didn't build that. I know....When I came out to NC for my job, I drove a federal highway, and was happy to do it. Not a mile one was paved by an individual
If you drove on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system, that system was "designed" to be used in moving troops and equipment, to rectify a logistics problem that arose in WWII.Government can make a positive change. Government is people after all.
When I came out to NC for my job, I drove a federal highway, and was happy to do it. Not a mile one was paved by an individual
Also, when a business borrows money (which is quite difficult these days), a plan is usually required that details how and when it is going to be paid off, aside from actually demonstrating that it has the means to do so...Really? $58000 per person at loan rates that are mostly influenced by actions of the federal reserve - an entity that would fail if the US government would go bankrupt. I would call you a quitter.
Without the investment in ARPANET, there is no internet as we know it. And thus there is not the economic activity as a result, as we know it. Conclusion: investment in ARPANET is a major driver of the resulting economic activity.I agree the genesis of the Internet was ARAPANET, but you asked specifically about the economic activity of ARAPANET. There was no economic activity, other than possibly government grants going to the universities, on that network.
Unfortunately, I have no way of proving it. But, I believe there would have been something similar by now regardless of the existence of ARPANET. This is not something I wish to argue, as no facts exist to back my assertion. I admit this freely.Without the investment in ARPANET, there is no internet as we know it. And thus there is not the economic activity as a result, as we know it. Conclusion: investment in ARPANET is a major driver of the resulting economic activity.
I severely doubt it would be as far along on the evolutionary path. There was nothing else like ARPANET when it was developed.Unfortunately, I have no way of proving it. But, I believe there would have been something similar by now regardless of the existence of ARPANET. This is not something I wish to argue, as no facts exist to back my assertion. I admit this freely.
I wonder when the break-even point is, considering there was 30 years of "R&D".Conclusion: investment in ARPANET is the driver of the resulting economic activity.
R&D necessary in any economic activity. What business doesn't invest in R&D and survive these days?I wonder when the break-even point is, considering there was 30 years of "R&D".
As a consumer, I don't have a problem with sucking money out of the Chinese government, rather than paying extra so that another "foreign corporation" can make money. I think it's wonderful of the Chinese government to help subsidize US consumers....I'd love to see everyone be able to afford solar. I haven't paid for electricity for the past 26 years and now solar is finally getting cheap enough to become mainstream. I've been using water power as solar was too expensive...Maybe. But it wasn't just a US decision, the international trade commission also dinged them. As for the installers and importers, they are also treated unfairly if their business requires long-term access to Chinese government subsidized solar panels imported into the US at prices that are not sustainable. That is, what happens to installers that invest in cranes, training personnel and other tools and then the door is slammed shut by the Chinese. The same is true for US-subsidized value chains. The key difference is, the subsidy is public knowledge in the US whereas the Chinese were hiding the fact that subsidies and subsequent dumping was happening.
Thanks for the additional information. Mark Twain was right.As a consumer, I don't have a problem with sucking money out of the Chinese government, rather than paying extra so that another "foreign corporation" can make money. I think it's wonderful of the Chinese government to help subsidize US consumers....I'd love to see everyone be able to afford solar. I haven't paid for electricity for the past 26 years and now solar is finally getting cheap enough to become mainstream. I've been using water power as solar was too expensive...
JoeJester said:There was no "profit" to invest in the ARAPANET R&D. It was all government money.
What business spends 30 years to bring a product to market? That is an enormous amount of cash carry someone on the "promise" of a product.
ARAPANET was never a product, nor a service. Nothing was "sale".
Do you have a point?Ling-Temco-Vaught?
Enron?
Hey I thought we were just shooting the breeze over a pint.Do you have a point?
Don't I wish. I'll be working till midnight trying to generate some obscene profits...Hey I thought we were just shooting the breeze over a pint.
Unfortunately, this more often than not results in the shedding of blood -- quite unlike a business bankruptcy......sometimes the abdly run governmint gets the noble order of the boot.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | Circuit to guarantee minimum voltage from solar panel | Power Electronics | 7 | |
S | Solar Panel Setup with DC adapter | General Electronics Chat | 27 | |
T | Voltage regulator for solar panel | General Electronics Chat | 19 | |
T | need help with solar panel | Power Electronics | 1 | |
4 | charging 9v nimh with max713 and a solar panel | Power Electronics | 0 |
by Jake Hertz
by Duane Benson
by Duane Benson