3 ms·

Let's call if corporatism. It means the same thing but people will whine less about the semantics.

by yoyar 16y ago

watchandwait 16y ago
Fair enough, fascism also has non-economic context and that's not the point I was making.
jbooth 16y ago
But it's not corporatism or fascism, or socialism, it's a frickin seed program that may be a small waste of money. The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks.
- anamax 16y ago
  > The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Maybe, but this isn't basic research. > Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks. This is saying "we'll fund {you} to make {whatever}" when folks spending their own money don't believe in the combination of {you} and {whatever}. Synfuels anyone? Which reminds me, what fraction of the US govt-seeded/assisted solar biz haven't moved much of their operations to China? The decision will be made on a political basis. That's how govt always works.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Good god, man, you can't be defending this tripe. Fascism has a definition, and it involves getting all of the biggest corporations on the same page with the government to create a totalitarian state. (Communism differs in that the government is the whole deal). We've been funding energy research for decades, and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. This is an experiment with the funding mechanism, people complain about the grant system all the time, silicon valley works, so someone said hey let's give this a shot. It's not fucking fascism. If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it?
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Fascism has a definition, Yes, but I didn't mention fascism. I merely described what the program in question is actually doing. > We've been funding energy research for decades, Yes we have. Is it unreasonable to ask whether said funding has been worth what it cost? Is it unreasonable to ask whether proposed funding will be worth what it costs? Or, are you claiming that the decision to fund synfuels obligates us to fund every alt energy proposal? > and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. Unless you think that said reasons justify any and all things that one can call "kickstart green energy", that statement isn't all that useful. You don't get to assume "we're going to have good results" in the abstract. You need to show that the specific proposal is likely to work. Surely experience is relevant - if something has failed before, why will this time be different? > silicon valley works Actually, silicon valley doesn't work in the sense that is required by your argument. The part of silicon valley that works is folks risking their own money and they don't agree on winners before the race. Govt programs lack both of those features. Also, VC model actually doesn't work that well. The average is fairly low which means that the standout funds mask a lot of horrible performance by the vast majority. What are the odds that govt will be like Kleiner and not the typical fund? > If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it? No, but it's nice of you to try the ad hominem slam. I'm happy to concede that I'm a bad person and you're a good person. However, that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of programs have been a disaster. I suspect that you place a lot of weight on "good intentions". Are those intentions really all that good when they consistently have bad results?
      - jbooth 16y ago
        The program might be a minor league failure. Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous. The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving.
        anamax 16y ago
        > Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. The program in question isn't research. It's startup funding. > Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous. Surely you're not arguing that if it isn't fascism, it's good? While you're vehemently insisting that it isn't fascism, you haven't responded to the fact that it is a close cousin, corporatism.... > The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving. So what? The military does lots of dumb spending. It also has different needs. So, even if green energy makes sense for certain military applications, that doesn't imply that funding it for general applications is a good idea.

Let's call if corporatism. It means the same thing but people will whine less about the semantics.

by yoyar 16y ago

Let's call if corporatism. It means the same thing but people will whine less about the semantics.

watchandwait 16y ago

Fair enough, fascism also has non-economic context and that's not the point I was making.

jbooth 16y ago

But it's not corporatism or fascism, or socialism, it's a frickin seed program that may be a small waste of money. The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks.

anamax 16y ago
> The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Maybe, but this isn't basic research. > Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks. This is saying "we'll fund {you} to make {whatever}" when folks spending their own money don't believe in the combination of {you} and {whatever}. Synfuels anyone? Which reminds me, what fraction of the US govt-seeded/assisted solar biz haven't moved much of their operations to China? The decision will be made on a political basis. That's how govt always works.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Good god, man, you can't be defending this tripe. Fascism has a definition, and it involves getting all of the biggest corporations on the same page with the government to create a totalitarian state. (Communism differs in that the government is the whole deal). We've been funding energy research for decades, and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. This is an experiment with the funding mechanism, people complain about the grant system all the time, silicon valley works, so someone said hey let's give this a shot. It's not fucking fascism. If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it?
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Fascism has a definition, Yes, but I didn't mention fascism. I merely described what the program in question is actually doing. > We've been funding energy research for decades, Yes we have. Is it unreasonable to ask whether said funding has been worth what it cost? Is it unreasonable to ask whether proposed funding will be worth what it costs? Or, are you claiming that the decision to fund synfuels obligates us to fund every alt energy proposal? > and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. Unless you think that said reasons justify any and all things that one can call "kickstart green energy", that statement isn't all that useful. You don't get to assume "we're going to have good results" in the abstract. You need to show that the specific proposal is likely to work. Surely experience is relevant - if something has failed before, why will this time be different? > silicon valley works Actually, silicon valley doesn't work in the sense that is required by your argument. The part of silicon valley that works is folks risking their own money and they don't agree on winners before the race. Govt programs lack both of those features. Also, VC model actually doesn't work that well. The average is fairly low which means that the standout funds mask a lot of horrible performance by the vast majority. What are the odds that govt will be like Kleiner and not the typical fund? > If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it? No, but it's nice of you to try the ad hominem slam. I'm happy to concede that I'm a bad person and you're a good person. However, that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of programs have been a disaster. I suspect that you place a lot of weight on "good intentions". Are those intentions really all that good when they consistently have bad results?
    - jbooth 16y ago
      The program might be a minor league failure. Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous. The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. The program in question isn't research. It's startup funding. > Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous. Surely you're not arguing that if it isn't fascism, it's good? While you're vehemently insisting that it isn't fascism, you haven't responded to the fact that it is a close cousin, corporatism.... > The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving. So what? The military does lots of dumb spending. It also has different needs. So, even if green energy makes sense for certain military applications, that doesn't imply that funding it for general applications is a good idea.