Ah, but you're changing the subject. Fiskar's grant was suspended for failure to meet benchmarks; I'm not claiming they are creating lots of jobs. My point is that You are being provocative by saying the U.S. money went to create jobs in Finland. Not true, and by making the claim you appear either ignorant, or disingenuous (at best) or deliberately misleading.

While the Fisker Karma is manufactured in Finland, the batteries are made by A123 of Watertown, Mass. and the interiors are made by Magna (a Canadian company) in US plants. So there are US jobs as a result of manufacture as well as in the original design etc.

And as an American-owned company, Fisker's success would mean profit for Americans.

Rudewalrus wrote:Ah, but you're changing the subject. Fiskar's grant was suspended for failure to meet benchmarks; I'm not claiming they are creating lots of jobs. My point is that You are being provocative by saying the U.S. money went to create jobs in Finland. Not true, and by making the claim you appear either ignorant, or disingenuous (at best) or deliberately misleading.

Not so.

You've picked a needle out of a haystack of argumentation and are now trying to make it far bigger than it is.

Answer my question: how many American jobs has Fiskar created?

danivon wrote:While the Fisker Karma is manufactured in Finland, the batteries are made by A123 of Watertown, Mass. and the interiors are made by Magna (a Canadian company) in US plants. So there are US jobs as a result of manufacture as well as in the original design etc.

And as an American-owned company, Fisker's success would mean profit for Americans.

Meanwhile, A123:

DETROIT — The troubled battery maker A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the Obama administration’s program to jump-start a domestic battery industry and spur development of electric vehicles.

The company’s bankruptcy filing was unexpected, since it struck a deal in August to sell a majority stake to a Chinese auto parts manufacturer. That agreement, with the Wanxiang Group, provided an apparent lifeline to the company. But A123, which has received federal grant money, said the Wanxiang deal was never completed, and on Monday, it failed to make a debt payment due on $75 million it had borrowed from Wanxiang.

In announcing its bankruptcy filing, A123 said it had agreed to sell its automotive assets and factories to Johnson Controls, another American battery producer that has benefited from federal assistance, in a deal it valued at $125 million.

A123, based in Waltham, Mass., was once considered one of the most promising grant recipients under the administration’s $2 billion stimulus program for electric car development. The Department of Energy awarded the company a $249 million grant to establish battery manufacturing operations in Michigan, although A123 had received only about $132 million of the grant before its bankruptcy.

So, is the Obama Administration wise to be investing in these companies?

It doesn't seem to be going to well.

Maybe Rudewalrus is either ignorant, or disingenuous (at best) or deliberately misleading. He can't seem to grasp that Fisker is a sliver of a much bigger issue--which is the point I was making before he began his effort at distraction.

Fate: You keep asking about "immediate effect". How many jobs this year??
Early stage investment in R&D (which includes partnerships and investment in private comanies trying to commercialize technologies) doesn't pay off that quickly . Usually.
Hell, early stage entrants trying to commercialize a new technology are often, perhaps usually, failures. Thats the way it goes.
You can't conclusively tell by looking at Fisker, today, whether or not they will survive or thrive. And you certainly can't tell by looking at Fisker whether or not the entire segment of electric cars has a genuine future. If you looked at the early days of any industry there are always dozens of entrants, most who will fail.
Some, will fail, and yet their employees become instrumental in other companies who are successful. In part because of lessons learned from the faillure. The only way you can tell if the investment is going to pay off is to look back 30 years, and see what happened to the original government investment and what became of the industry as a whole.
Perhaps the current success story of Frakking provides insight? Is Fisker like

Dozens of private gas companies partnered with federal agencies in pilot demonstration projects during the Eastern Gas Shales Project, testing new methods for shale gas extraction.

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/shal ... istory_and

The lesson from the shale gas history is that government investment in innovation can, over time, commercialize and deploy technologies that make yesterday's less-efficient, dirtier, and more expensive technologies obsolete. The successes achieved by federal agencies partnering with private industry to design, demonstrate, and commercialize shale fracking should tell us something about the ongoing federal support for solar, wind, nuclear, and other zero-carbon energy technologies. Just as it did with personal computers, cell phones, jet turbines, and nuclear power, federal investment in innovation can lead the way towards American technological leadership, international economic competitiveness, and a cleaner energy future

The difference between Frakking and Electric cars is that oil, once out of the ground, is a commodity . That is, oils oil.
A car, once out oft he factory, competes in a market where vehicles have varying attributes. Scaling up electric car manufacturing requires developing a commercial market. Its a far more complex problem.
Thats why saying "R&D" only is difficult. Although traditionally R&D is only bench research and prototyping.... Development of an industry often requires weaning an industry until the economies of scale and cultural growth allow the industry to sustain growth without any outside infuence.
The semiconductor business in the US required that kind of support, even though semiconductors were invented in the US. Mere invention and prototyping doesn't mean an industry can't be built elsewhere...
The Asian tigers subsidized electronics, computer peripheral and computer manufacturing in their early stages. Not just one, but dozens of entrants. ... Today Samsung is a world leader... If, three or four years after the program of subsidization had started, South Koreans had stopped and demanded to know how many jobs? They wouldn't have ended up as world leaders.

By the way, if I had to guess, I'd probably agree with you that Fisker is a stinker. But who knows but that some of the engineering leads to redevelopment with a company with a better capacitor.... The point being that experience is esssential to developing a successful industry. And experience is mostly failures. The government can take the long view that their investment will eventually pay off in the development of an industry sector. Private investors won't and can't.
But when the early investment does pay off, like computers, semiconductors, cell phones, frakking.... the effects can be phenomenal.

rickyp wrote:Fate: You keep asking about "immediate effect". How many jobs this year??

Yeah, weird idea. You know all that "shovel-ready" stuff.

Besides that obvious (yet overlooked by you) aspect of the Stimulus spending, Fisker was part of the whole "green energy will save the world" meme (a word you so like to overuse that I thought I might torture you with it). Still waiting on the big boom:

In 2008 candidate Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. He laid out a plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years that would advance a clean-energy economy built around biofuels, hybrid cars, low-emission coal plants, and renewable sources such as solar and wind. How many has he actually created? ….

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 set aside $90 billion in renewable energy grants and loans for a grab bag of thousands of projects—wind farms, solar installations, natural gas fueling stations, biofuel research, and a $5 billion weatherization project for low-income homes. Digging into the public records of the $21 billion spent so far through 19 U.S. Department of Energy programs reveals 3,960 projects that employ 28,854 people.

That’s not 5 million.

Early stage investment in R&D (which includes partnerships and investment in private comanies trying to commercialize technologies) doesn't pay off that quickly . Usually.
Hell, early stage entrants trying to commercialize a new technology are often, perhaps usually, failures. Thats the way it goes.
You can't conclusively tell by looking at Fisker, today, whether or not they will survive or thrive. And you certainly can't tell by looking at Fisker whether or not the entire segment of electric cars has a genuine future. If you looked at the early days of any industry there are always dozens of entrants, most who will fail.

Yes, so what a terrific idea--taking flyers on an industry that will turn out a lot of failures!

Some, will fail, and yet their employees become instrumental in other companies who are successful. In part because of lessons learned from the faillure. The only way you can tell if the investment is going to pay off is to look back 30 years, and see what happened to the original government investment and what became of the industry as a whole.
Perhaps the current success story of Frakking provides insight? Is Fisker like

Dozens of private gas companies partnered with federal agencies in pilot demonstration projects during the Eastern Gas Shales Project, testing new methods for shale gas extraction.

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/shal ... istory_and

How does Fisker, a company that sells an unproven product priced out of the reach of most Americans, compare with frakking?

Answer: it really doesn't. But wait, I'll let you give a less coherent answer:

The difference between Frakking and Electric cars is that oil, once out of the ground, is a commodity . That is, oils oil.

A car, once out oft he factory, competes in a market where vehicles have varying attributes. Scaling up electric car manufacturing requires developing a commercial market. Its a far more complex problem.

Again, how does a $100K car compare with a commodity most everyone needs?

It doesn't. It's not "complex." Your comparison is wildly inappropriate.

Fisker is supposed to be producing cars, not merely doing R & D. In fact, they do little of that--they pay GM so that they can use GM's car-lock mechanism rather than designing their own. They buy batteries.

By the way, if I had to guess, I'd probably agree with you that Fisker is a stinker.

Which gets back to the question: why is the government investing in the production of product, rather than laboratory research? This instance is yet another really bad example.

fate

Yes, so what a terrific idea--taking flyers on an industry that will turn out a lot of failures!

Name an industry that doesn't have a lot of failures.....Thats capitalism and the free market.
Bettter yet, find an example of a new industrial sector where a lot of the early competition doesn't fall by the way side or get gobbled up by competitors. Thats the nature of new businesses.

fate

Besides that obvious (yet overlooked by you) aspect of the Stimulus spending, Fisker was part of the whole "green energy will save the world

"
You're right. Obama over promised on immediate job benefits. Although investment in new energy makes most sense for the long and mid term, there were alternatives for short term job creation that would have more immediate job consequences.
On the other hand, paving roads wouldn't have immersed a work force in learning how to create green technologies...
And of course the most efficient way to create jobs would simply to have been to hire more govenrment workers staffing the current beauracracies...... So is "jobs per dollars spent" really the best way to measure the stimulus spend.?
(Besides, I'm talking about government investment at any point in time, not just short term stimulus)

fate

Again, how does a $100K car compare with a commodity most everyone needs?

It doesn't. It's not "complex." Your comparison is wildly inappropriate.

The fact that it doesn;t directly compare, as I wrote, is what makes the development of an manufacturing industry more complex.
Frakking is a mining process that produces a salable commodity. The only question is whether the production cost makes it profitable.
Creating the economy of scale in a manufactured product that will drive the product price down to where it can be mainstream is a complex process. From the development of the first plasma screens to $450 72 inch screens took 25 years. Over that time the guts of the "television" were reengineered every year, and processes and parts improved in performance.
The Korean and Japanese governments invested greatly in the companies that managed to produce better, and more cheaply produced models year after year. Without the early invovlement of those governments that industry wouln't have accelerated. And their investment ensured that they have a stranglehold, along with their Chinese partners, on that industry.
What would happen if the US, alone, didn't compete in the electric car arena. And the industry catches on due to some innovation in design? For a clue, look at Detroits reluctance to compete in the subcompact and compact models for so many years. They ignored Japanese competition and lost huge market share.

fate

Which gets back to the question: why is the government investing in the production of product, rather than laboratory research?

Because there is a huge gap between the scientific knowledge and the commercialization of that scientific knowledge. And often the investment in commercializing that knowledge (Frakking was first proven by scientists in 49) can't pay off till many many obstacles to efficient production and marketing are learned. In too many cases, private investors won't take the plunge on their own.
When its something that would add an important strategic element like reduced carbon emmissions or energy security or improved balance of trade - or ALL THREE - then the long term interest of the nation makes the investment by government worth considering. And often, but not always, actually doing.
Simply put Fate, when long term interests are at stake ..... and specifically in the case of long term industrial strategy for a country - the national government has to get involved. If that includes investment with private companies like in the case of Frakking, it can have tremendous results. By the way, dozens of those early frakking ventures failed to produce results before Mitchell found the right techniques to make the process profitable....
Kind of like electric car companies that don't quite work out.

Ricky:

The only way you can tell if the investment is going to pay off is to look back 30 years, and see what happened to the original government investment and what became of the industry as a whole.

How do you evaluate government "investment" if you have to wait 30 years? How can we make sure our money is being well spent? Or do we have to just trust and wait?

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, so what a terrific idea--taking flyers on an industry that will turn out a lot of failures!

Name an industry that doesn't have a lot of failures.....Thats capitalism and the free market.

Indeed. Most new businesses fail within a few years. It's particularly acute in 'new' industries because you often get a great bloom of similar companies chasing similar markets, and you rarely get a smooth growth curve. If one or some competitors get an edge, they will quickly edge out loads of others.

The dotcom bubble was a prime example of that, with huge numbers of companies going down (even before the bubble broke).

RayJay - Not all investments, but many, do take a long time. Canals and railways didn't pay back for ages (and some never did)

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:Name an industry that doesn't have a lot of failures.....Thats capitalism and the free market.

Indeed. Most new businesses fail within a few years. It's particularly acute in 'new' industries because you often get a great bloom of similar companies chasing similar markets, and you rarely get a smooth growth curve. If one or some competitors get an edge, they will quickly edge out loads of others.

The dotcom bubble was a prime example of that, with huge numbers of companies going down (even before the bubble broke).

But, the government should not be a speculative investor in companies that are manufacturing product. Technology is one thing; cars and solar panels are a different level of risk.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Rudewalrus wrote:Ah, but you're changing the subject. <snip>

Not so.

You've picked a needle out of a haystack of argumentation and are now trying to make it far bigger than it is.

Answer my question: how many American jobs has Fiskar created?

The subject, to remind you, was that you damage your credibility by making a false claim. The claim was that the U.S. government "gave money so that companies could create jobs--in Finland and other countries" (your words). That was the entire extent of my point; I'm not trying to make it bigger than it is. Trying to goad me into giving figures for how many jobs the Fisker grant created in the U.S. is diversionary. I'm not playing that game.

ray

How do you evaluate government "investment" if you have to wait 30 years? How can we make sure our money is being well spent? Or do we have to just trust and wait?

You set goals and signposts that allow the govenrment to analyze the progress.
Not all in jobs created, though that is an element.
If the goal of investment is to create an efficient industrial process to take advantage of a raw resource ....oil sands or frakking, the government would be most interested in demonstrations of the technology and the presentation of the technology to companies who can commercialize it... If companies are interested in commercializing but uncertain, govenrment investment might reduce some of the risk .... and before you know it, the private companies have arrived at a commercial offering with sufficient scale that the resource can compete in the commodity market successfully..With resources, thats where the government invovlement might end, unless taxation policy is used to make the resource more attractive in the market because of an added benefit to the country. With energy that might be reduced carbon emissions or energy security or balance of trade....
Part of the pay back to government is the development of an industrial culture and expertise in an area. Once a sector has disappeared from a geographic area and the trained and educated work force has moved on..... reeestablishing an industry is virtually impossible. No one would think of building monitors or televisions in the US anymore...The start up cost would be enormous because a trained work force no longer exists.
So investing in startups trains a whole set of entrepreneuers, engineers and others in a nascent industry. Collaboration and cross pollination of companies and people and new ventures almost always result . Thats a tough one to measure, other than in business registrations and economic activity. But it happens. (Its why every jurisdicition has economic development officers. to facilitate this kind of activity through various organs and with various techniques. )

fate

But, the government should not be a speculative investor in companies that are manufacturing product. Technology is one thing; cars and solar panels are a different level of risk

This is your philosophy. But, governments have successfully done just what you say should not be done. I offer Taiwan, South Korea and Japan as capitalist countries where governments have estalished industrial sectors in manufacturing .
There are failures too. The Canadian and Nova Scotian governments failed to establish a steel making plant in Cape Breton after years and years of trying...
Has the US successfully done what you say should not be done? Say in aerospace? Computers? Semi-conductors?
If you go back far enough the US Navy was involved in the beginning of the radio broadcasting industry (held shares in RCA...)
And then there was that investment in US domestic car production a few years ago.

Rudewalrus wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Rudewalrus wrote:Ah, but you're changing the subject. <snip>

Not so.

You've picked a needle out of a haystack of argumentation and are now trying to make it far bigger than it is.

Answer my question: how many American jobs has Fiskar created?

The subject, to remind you, was that you damage your credibility by making a false claim. The claim was that the U.S. government "gave money so that companies could create jobs--in Finland and other countries" (your words). That was the entire extent of my point; I'm not trying to make it bigger than it is. Trying to goad me into giving figures for how many jobs the Fisker grant created in the U.S. is diversionary. I'm not playing that game.

That's fine.

Let's make it simple: I'll stipulate that I erred in saying the PURPOSE ("so that") of the Stimulus was to create jobs in other countries. However, that was sometimes the result. Further, it does not appear Fisker has created many American jobs with the government's money.

I chose my words poorly. However, my error cost the American taxpayers nothing.

The President's errors continue to cost us a lot.

Sassenach wrote:The only path for the libertarians is to somehow manage to hijack the Republican Party. If they don't do that there's no realistic way for them to manage to implement any of their ideas. They may yet have a chance though, because theirs is one of the few brands of current Republicanism that's got growing support and genuine momentum behind it. Paul has vastly better name recognition and popular support today than he did 4 years ago, and other libertarian politicians are getting more coverage on the back of his success. It's probably not enough, but you never know. If Congressional Republicans allow the government to go over the 'fiscal cliff' then all bets are off.

I don't believe that at all. The Libertarian philosophy is no more right than it is left. What you're seeing is that Ron Paul brought more right wingers into full libertarianism recently. It's true that the LP started as a revolt against Nixon, but that's because the LP hasn't had much of a case with the left until now, and Ron Paul benefited from Bush. Clinton and Carter were not as offensive to the libertarian philosophy as Obama is. That's why I made a parallel between Bush and Obama. If Obama continues his domestic policy, he's going to have a similar effect. He could go back toward civil libertarianism, but his first term doesn't seem to give me any reason to believe he will.

One thing I'd like to point out is that there were several states where other LP candidates did better. For example, in Arizona, Senate candidate Marc Victor did way better than Johnson. Over 72,000 people voted for Victor, whereas Johnson received less than 30,000 votes. That's less than half. That means the fear mongering of R's and D's of the "other" candidate worked. Remember, too, that more people voted for the presidential race than the senate race by a large margin. That will slow down. As older voters pass away, the LP will continue to be the beneficiary. The groups the LP do well with are under 40s,

What's more interesting to note is that the counties that Victor did the best in were all won by Flake--who is considered a fairly libertarian Senator.