sounds like your boss is a jerk to me, particularly on the Lexus bit.

rickyp wrote:Tom, your boss might have bought one of the first flat screen HD Plasma televisions too. When they were $10,000.
And most of us couldn't justify that, and would have been interested to know that a lot of them suffered from technical problems like Plasma roll, and burn in images...
But 15 years later and everyone has a flat screen HD, and many at twice the size of the original screens... and bigger.
The product cylcle needs people like your boss. Early adapters who will, for the sake of their personal values and egos, test the newest damn thing.
And as engineers respond to their complications, the product engineering will improve and the cost of production will decline.
We're still fairly early in the reintroduction of electric vehicles. If batteries develop like they did for computers since the first lap tops .... they'll be successful. If they don't ... maybe not.
I wouldn't bet against the technology when its still following the traditional new product development cycle.

You continue to miss the point.

The technology doesn't work; the government keeps wasting our money trying to promote products that will not and cannot succeed; and, the energy grid is as big a problem as anything else. If everyone could magically turn their car into an electric one tomorrow, it would be a disaster.

Meanwhile, the Left is against fracking, drilling, and almost any technology that will actually work. They do, however, have one thing they are in favor of: banning soda.

See, they care for poor people--they don't want them to get fat! On the other hand, if they have to be cold, can't afford to drive anywhere, and have to spend their entire lives on food stamps because energy costs are so high, well, that's why there are rich people!

My boss, maybe not exactly a jerk, more like he's ignorant of others.

The plasma tv, good example!
In your tv example, my boss would have paid 10 grand for that television, it was not supported by the government. The Volt cost him a fraction of it's real cost (but still somewhat expensive). Also note I mentioned the technology simply does not pay for itself except very rare and odd perfect storm sorts of situations (and that is based on the cost paid by the consumer NOT the actual cost of the car before subsidies and such)

I have no big problem with the Volt (or Tesla?) selling for whatever it costs, if the early innovators spend 100K then good for them! I also have no big problem with 'some" money being spent by the government with companies working on different technologies, but subsidizing something that does not work (yet?) and with little promise it ever will work is not my idea of developing future technologies.

tom

, it was not supported by the government

Actually, Tom, the governments of South Korea and Japan and Taiwan heavily subsidized the development of flat screen manufacturing capacity and the development of the technology. So there was "government support". Just not US government support.
You may may say good.
But consider the jobs and the permanent industry that has been created in these three centres,...

fate

The technology doesn't work

Fates grandfather

It'll never fly Orville

.

and Orville did that less the help of the US govt.
"flatscreen technology" like the US would have been able to compete in TV's if we had subsidized the technology? or would Japan/South Korea/China have stolen the ideas? Yes, I do say good for them and yes it would have been a terrible idea for us as well

Yes. Better to have Macjobs than high tech manufacturing jobs.

Better to have cheap flat screen TVs subsidized by foreign governments and foreign taxpayers.

One is reminded of the legend of the ant and the grasshopper.... The Asian Tigers subsidized in order to build an industry in their country, that has previously been American. They made their nations more interesting to companies seeking to out source for short term profits... Robert HAyes says about that....

Decisions to outsource something to a foreign company rather than do it oneself have these same potential weaknesses if they result in decimating both the internal and the communal skills and capabilities that are key to a company's ongoing competitiveness. Collectively, they also can undermine the competitiveness of the network of back-up suppliers (their "insurers," in effect) that were counted on to step in if a major supplier failed to meet its commitments. And the loss of such capabilities is hard to reverse in that they can take a very long time to regenerate and then usually only if other companies participate in the rebuilding process.

A company's competitive advantage is rooted in things it can do (e.g. design, make, distribute, or market) that its competitors cannot do as well, if at all. As the number of these core capabilities decreases, the company's competitive vulnerability to those that are able to master the same capabilities goes up. American manufacturing companies' preoccupation with outsourcing an ever-increasing portion of their operations has had the effect of teaching an armada of hungry potential competitors first how to master, then how to surpass their capabilities. All the while the lower costs they have achieved by outsourcing products and services have deluded them into thinking they are improving their profitability. In actuality, they are simply cashing out their intellectual assets. Again, an ideological belief in the supposed transparency and efficiency of free markets has led them to the brink of disaster.

Robert H. Hayes
Philip Caldwell Professor of Business Administration, emeritus
Harvard Business School

Before flat screen tv's how many televisions were made in America? (how many were made outside of ASIA?)
That answer is none, if the US (and why does the US need to subsidize this stuff, why not Canada?) had done so, we would simply have helped foreign competition only.

To say we could have had those flat screen jobs in North America is foolhardy, you COULD however make the connection to the car industry, we do have car manufacturing and you could use that example of an electronics producing country getting electronics subsidies. OK, let's forget you tried to say we should have subsidized flat screens, that was just a bad example. So if the US subsidized electric cars then we could be the leaders in electric cars when they are made?
That COULD be correct, but here's the problem, the economics are simply not there and do not appear to be there for a long while, the cost of gas has to rise a lot further, the cost of electricity needs to remain flat, other technology needs to remain untouched (better gas mileage, alternate fuels, better hybrids, etc)
Then you need to realize you are now comparing "sexy", "high end" flat screen tv's to "economy" cars. People who can afford higher end products will not balk at having the biggest, sharpest, most awesome television. But will they buy into an economy car so they can save gas they can clearly afford? The high end consumers are simply not going to flock to such a car as compared to a tv. So it takes further, more costly subsidies to "force" sales that make no economic sense.

Your belief the government can manipulate anything and everything for our good is never ending. True, they have their roll and can tweak things but they simply can not (effectively) control everything.

FYI, the outsourcing stuff you posted. I agree 100% but outsourcing has nothing to do with subsidizing, apples and oranges my friend.

Ricky:

One is reminded of the legend of the ant and the grasshopper

The ants planned for the future without maxing out their credit cards and then taking on additional debts at an alarming rate.

Have you seen the Japanese public debt level? It is over 200% of GDP. Singapore's is over 100%. SK does well at only 35%.

(although the 'credit card analogy is still quite tiresome, nearly as bad as ants & grasshoppers).

Tom, a Sony plant in the US was making tvs until 2010. Element Electronics are making tvs in Canton, MI currently (although the idea is 'stolen' from the far east)

And 'outside Asia' Europe was producing TVs before and after flat-screen. 11bn Euros worth in 2007, and that is flat screens alone.

tom

To say we could have had those flat screen jobs in North America is foolhardy, you COULD however make the connection to the car industry, we do have car manufacturing and you could use that example of an electronics producing country getting electronics subsidies. OK, let's forget you tried to say we should have subsidized flat screens, that was just a bad example. So if the US subsidized electric cars then we could be the leaders in electric cars when they are made

Maybe you should look up the history of display screen technology and production Tom. It started in the US. And it is the poster boy for out sourcing. Out sourcing that was attracted by those Asian tiger subsidies....
And yes, if the US subsidized electric cars, and they become a mainstream product, as opposed to what they are now a product aimed at early adapters, then yes. Those subsidies will have contributed to the establishment of a competitive electric car segment in the US....
There are still if ands buts .... but there were when South Korea began to subsidize Sam sung and their suppliers.