https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

Intel is about to be surpassed by Samsung*. The US once produced 37% on world's chips, now down to 12. The CEO is worried, about what profits will do if they spend the money on designing and building new chips. (shades of Boeing decline). Republicans refuse to pass the Build Back which includes $50 billion addressing American electronic production. Folks - we are actively pursuing second rate status. Uneducated people, raising a generation of ever few kids even less prepared for competing in the 21st century. But boy, however well the .1% will do.

*It doesn't bother me that Samsung, hell even the commie Chinese do. What bothers me is how poorly we are doing.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-10/intel-intc-about-to-lose-chipmaking-crown-to-samsung-in-2022?srnd=premium

Intel is about to be surpassed by Samsung*. The US once produced 37% on world's chips, now down to 12. The CEO is worried, about what profits will do if they spend the money on designing and building new chips. (shades of Boeing decline). Republicans refuse to pass the Build Back which includes $50 billion addressing American electronic production. Folks - we are actively pursuing second rate status. Uneducated people, raising a generation of ever few kids even less prepared for competing in the 21st century. But boy, however well the .1% will do.

*It doesn't bother me that Samsung, hell even the commie Chinese do. What bothers me is how poorly we are doing.

If you look at Intel's demise, just like Boeing their failures are their own. They took lot of shortcuts while they were designing their silicon or rather chips and then they had the unraveling. Spectre being one of the causes, but it very well could have been another. For years, they did all sorts of things to take AMD out (remember EU had to penalize Intel over anti-trust quite a few times.) They basically lost their eye on the ball and hence they have since been on the recovery road and it would not be easy.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05 ... ntel-chips

They even recruited a lot of AMD designers, especially those who worked on APU's but we are yet to see any major difference in Intel integrated graphics. They also have a discrete graphics card supposed to land this year but the game has moved. AMD will be launching 5nm by September 2022 for which Intel has no answer AFAIK. If today I were to purchase a system I would go for AMD rather than Intel and its too many problems. Even the way Intel handled the spectre thing was not at all mature. That is not something you expect from a company who has been in the business for what 20-30 years

US is not a planned economy
AMD is now relatively successful compares to Intel, because earliee times they recognized that progression in chip manufacturing process is growing exponentially and is not something they can oay for in house, and as a result they sold the Global Foundaries subsidiary and focus on chip design with different foundaries across the world as well as hiring different chip designers.
Likewise Apple have also recognized the importance of chip design and hired talents to design their own chip, result in chips optinized for use case of their users and making them able to ditch Intel from their computers.
Intel have only come to realization about it in the recent few years, thus it have fallen behind in the competition.
I don't think the United States government have any obligation to rescue a failing company, especially when it's failing against other companies who are also in the US

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Intel is about to be surpassed by Samsung*. The US once produced 37% on world's chips, now down to 12. The CEO is worried, about what profits will do if they spend the money on designing and building new chips. (shades of Boeing decline). Republicans refuse to pass the Build Back which includes $50 billion addressing American electronic production. Folks - we are actively pursuing second rate status. Uneducated people, raising a generation of ever few kids even less prepared for competing in the 21st century. But boy, however well the .1% will do.

For production - AFAIK TSMC is still building that plant in Arizona. Yes, TSMC is not "American" company but that's still US-based production. TSMC also build chips for the like of AMD and QCOM...

Oh, and Samsung is also building another plant in Austin area near their current one...

It's not quite all doom and gloom - US does need more inshore productions like in everything, but it's not something BBB is going to solve overnight, either.

EDIT:

c933103 wrote:

I don't think the United States government have any obligation to rescue a failing company, especially when it's failing against other companies who are also in the US

This...it's not like the other companies are not present in US...

Actually, Intel wants to do a TSMC but will they win? The reason TSMC has that is because they are known to be neutral and they are known to not leak people's IPs from one to the other. And TSMC has a variety of customers including Apple, AMD, Mediatek and several others. With Intel you can't ever say that.

And there is no end to their bluster -

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/int ... CAD590a51e

https://www.getrevue.co/profile/filloux ... 633-826520

What was that about Intel only getting into chip design and letting go of the foundry business ???

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-10/intel-intc-about-to-lose-chipmaking-crown-to-samsung-in-2022?srnd=premium

Intel is about to be surpassed by Samsung*. The US once produced 37% on world's chips, now down to 12. The CEO is worried, about what profits will do if they spend the money on designing and building new chips. (shades of Boeing decline). Republicans refuse to pass the Build Back which includes $50 billion addressing American electronic production. Folks - we are actively pursuing second rate status. Uneducated people, raising a generation of ever few kids even less prepared for competing in the 21st century. But boy, however well the .1% will do.

*It doesn't bother me that Samsung, hell even the commie Chinese do. What bothers me is how poorly we are doing.

There just aren't enough American youth interested in STEM to compete long term, and it doesn't help in a society where anti-intellectualism has buried itself to the hilt the last few years.

The shortfalls of unchecked capitalism...
No large scale strategies, no coordination. Any political planning at the national scale is promptly shot down by the industry's powerful leverage on politicians.
It's all about next year's financial performance, and not much else.

Some larger companies may have longer term goals, maybe panning over the next 5, 10 years at best, but there is no vision beyond that, and no interest to benefit or serve the people or community around them.
The capitalist model is necessary and has proven to be the only stable system for sustainable societies, but it is also myopic and self-serving by its very nature. It's ridiculous to push for deep deregulation unless we believe that it should not also serve the society it is a fundamental part of, especially since they both depend on one another.

There is one kind of inflation that is good. Low paid, but performing essential in our economy, need to be paid a living wage. And every child in poor families need to be provided essential nutrition. Otherwise IQ losses seems to indicate a lifetime of poorer performance. Subsidized day care for all workers is another way to improve the economy. Especially for single women wanting to return to the workforce. The return on those sorts of changes could do so much to prepare us for the challenges facing us.

Francoflier wrote:

The shortfalls of unchecked capitalism...
No large scale strategies, no coordination. Any political planning at the national scale is promptly shot down by the industry's powerful leverage on politicians.
It's all about next year's financial performance, and not much else.

Some larger companies may have longer term goals, maybe panning over the next 5, 10 years at best, but there is no vision beyond that, and no interest to benefit or serve the people or community around them.
The capitalist model is necessary and has proven to be the only stable system for sustainable societies, but it is also myopic and self-serving by its very nature. It's ridiculous to push for deep deregulation unless we believe that it should not also serve the society it is a fundamental part of, especially since they both depend on one another.

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

The shortfalls of unchecked capitalism...
No large scale strategies, no coordination. Any political planning at the national scale is promptly shot down by the industry's powerful leverage on politicians.
It's all about next year's financial performance, and not much else.

Some larger companies may have longer term goals, maybe panning over the next 5, 10 years at best, but there is no vision beyond that, and no interest to benefit or serve the people or community around them.
The capitalist model is necessary and has proven to be the only stable system for sustainable societies, but it is also myopic and self-serving by its very nature. It's ridiculous to push for deep deregulation unless we believe that it should not also serve the society it is a fundamental part of, especially since they both depend on one another.

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

I can think of two large US government programs that helped spur innovation during the US technological "golden era" of the 1950s - mid 80s:

- ARPANET: lead to the modern internet
- NASA/Apollo program: hydrogen fuels, solar panels, digital FBW, etc...

In Western Europe Airbus came about from government planning. I'm probably missing many other examples from other parts of the capitalist world as well.

SEAorPWM wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

The shortfalls of unchecked capitalism...
No large scale strategies, no coordination. Any political planning at the national scale is promptly shot down by the industry's powerful leverage on politicians.
It's all about next year's financial performance, and not much else.

Some larger companies may have longer term goals, maybe panning over the next 5, 10 years at best, but there is no vision beyond that, and no interest to benefit or serve the people or community around them.
The capitalist model is necessary and has proven to be the only stable system for sustainable societies, but it is also myopic and self-serving by its very nature. It's ridiculous to push for deep deregulation unless we believe that it should not also serve the society it is a fundamental part of, especially since they both depend on one another.

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

I can think of two large US government programs that helped spur innovation during the US technological "golden era" of the 1950s - mid 80s:

- ARPANET: lead to the modern internet
- NASA/Apollo program: hydrogen fuels, solar panels, digital FBW, etc...

In Western Europe Airbus came about from government planning. I'm probably missing many other examples from other parts of the capitalist world as well.

Actually, almost all technological improvements came from Govt. money and then pushed into private hands so they can make more money for the capitalists. Three examples from the U.S. itself.

1. John B. Goodenough makes RAM at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
2. John B. Goodenough makes lithium-ion batteries while being the lead researcher at the University of Texas.
3. Tesla is given various grants and loans even before they make the first roadster and even then they are given loads of loans.

Credit though should go to Elon Musk that he repaid all those loans in record time although was penalized for the same. I am sure there are plenty more.

Even the recent vaccines and whatnot came from public money.

And then there is this - https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/stat ... 7566391297

pune wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

I can think of two large US government programs that helped spur innovation during the US technological "golden era" of the 1950s - mid 80s:

- ARPANET: lead to the modern internet
- NASA/Apollo program: hydrogen fuels, solar panels, digital FBW, etc...

In Western Europe Airbus came about from government planning. I'm probably missing many other examples from other parts of the capitalist world as well.

Actually, almost all technological improvements came from Govt. money and then pushed into private hands so they can make more money for the capitalists. Three examples from the U.S. itself.

1. John B. Goodenough makes RAM at MIT Lincoln Laboratory
2. John B. Goodenough makes lithium-ion batteries while being the lead researcher at the University of Texas.
3. Tesla is given various grants and loans even before they make the first roadster and even then they are given loads of loans.

Credit though should go to Elon Musk that he repaid all those loans in record time although was penalized for the same. I am sure there are plenty more.

Even the recent vaccines and whatnot came from public money.

And then there is this - https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/stat ... 7566391297

Now the energy (read: oil) industry is doing the same... just like Abbvie in the video, the tax breaks they are receiving do not go into R&D or even future domestic oil/gas production, it's just going to big shareholders.

LCDFlight wrote:

I think US technology remains quite good. Tesla is a good example.

US continues to lead the world in software, law, finance, medical tech. Space. Universities. We will see if that continues.

To focus on where the chip fabrication building is located... or the fact China makes a lot of batteries... yes, but they do it largely with US / Canadaian/European / Korean / Japanese / Taiwanese technology.

I think the US has problems... very poor government efficiency and effectiveness. A combination of incompetence and corruption across state and federal governments. Corporations sort themselves out, if you regulate the free market skillfully (which we don't). Despite this, we do pretty well in the US.

How any aviation fan could post that is puzzling. MacDonald? Douglas? Boeing? And whoever is left is surviving on military. But then there are Cessna and Piper who just keep chugging along.

Aaron747 wrote:

There just aren't enough American youth interested in STEM to compete long term, and it doesn't help in a society where anti-intellectualism has buried itself to the hilt the last few years.

Yeah, because a political decision to undercut wages with H-1B visa holders totally is the policy to ensure that wages in tech sectors remain high and outsourcing is really recent element to the US economy.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

How any aviation fan could post that is puzzling. MacDonald? Douglas? Boeing? And whoever is left is surviving on military. But then there are Cessna and Piper who just keep chugging along.

Uhhh, you get that the shotgun marriage of McD to Boeing was PRECISELY the kind of "industrial policy" you suggest we are NOT doing?

LCDFlight wrote:

I think US technology remains quite good. Tesla is a good example.

Where Americans are allowed to innovate, they seem to do well.

When the bureaucracy develops to its own logic, it demands government handouts in the name of the "greater good."

Rhymes with "going."

LCDFlight wrote:

I think US technology remains quite good. Tesla is a good example.

US continues to lead the world in software, law, finance, medical tech. Space. Universities. We will see if that continues.

To focus on where the chip fabrication building is located... or the fact China makes a lot of batteries... yes, but they do it largely with US / Canadaian/European / Korean / Japanese / Taiwanese technology.

I think the US has problems... very poor government efficiency and effectiveness. A combination of incompetence and corruption across state and federal governments. Corporations sort themselves out, if you regulate the free market skillfully (which we don't). Despite this, we do pretty well in the US.

Actually, you are a bit wrong at least on the China LFP battery. In fact, you can look up google scholar or whatever patent engine you want. In the last couple of decades, China has made lot of IP in the battery space and that is in the LFP place. Just like it did with 5G and now capitalizing on what they learned in 5G to 6G. Other points are good, space I would say you have a slight advantage over China but after China also managed to put a rover on Mars that space is shrinking, although NASA has a beautiful program but sadly has been mercilessly axed/cut over decades. The same I am guessing is the issue on Universities. From my own country, people who are going to abroad to learn are using either China or Germany (Germany more if they want to some sort of heavy engineering, plus it is not so expensive as U.S. is and is also more welcoming of immigrats. China if they want to do something either in space or in chip development even though they have years to catch up to the U.S. )

LCDFlight wrote:

I don’t think our government should have approved that merger. Military procurement hasn’t been good either. The FAA’s supervision of Boeing wasn’t good. These regulatory weaknesses have caused some bad things to happen.

But I don’t think these problems are engineering / tech weaknesses of the USA. We have really good engineers in the US, and enough money to pay them. I think (as this thread indicates) our industrial policy has not been up to the task of effectively governing our industries.

Or even deciding what "effective governance" means. Is it making sure all of the workers have bus passes and child care? Is it tax policy and subsidies? How about immigration policy? Who is empowered to make this decision?

All of the above? Which is most important? How do we pay for it? Its a little self defeating to think we can simultaneously have the highest tax rates and friendliest business climate, at the same time.

FlapOperator wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I think US technology remains quite good. Tesla is a good example.

Where Americans are allowed to innovate, they seem to do well.

When the bureaucracy develops to its own logic, it demands government handouts in the name of the "greater good."

Rhymes with "going."

If you read the history, GM could have made electric vehicles half a century ago, they had the patent from Goodenough but instead of doing anything with it, they kept it in its portfolio until Sony wanted it for their laptops. They again had an opportunity in 2001 where they made EV1 and could have led the industry. And the cars were so good, they actually put them in scrappers as otherwise, nobody would have bought their petrol and diesel cars. Of course, EV chargers and infrastructure were also an issue but it could have been fixed. This was in 2001. You should look up the 2006 documentary - who killed the electric car, that really tells you the whole story.

If Elon Musk has to be credited, then not just for the car but also thinking about the infrastructure and pushing and prodding others. Of course, we have companies like GM who with all their might only produce 26 cars in the whole of Q4 2021 and it isn't because there is any lack of demand. They just can't produce more

The action for many things has moved to China. The largest car market is now China and they are doing lot of things there. Most legacy auto companies are being left behind, whether it is States or EU.

pune wrote:

The action for many things has moved to China. The largest car market is now China and they are doing lot of things there. Most legacy auto companies are being left behind, whether it is States or EU.

We will see how their economy fares as they manage their real estate bubble and can steal less IP.

FlapOperator wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I don’t think our government should have approved that merger. Military procurement hasn’t been good either. The FAA’s supervision of Boeing wasn’t good. These regulatory weaknesses have caused some bad things to happen.

But I don’t think these problems are engineering / tech weaknesses of the USA. We have really good engineers in the US, and enough money to pay them. I think (as this thread indicates) our industrial policy has not been up to the task of effectively governing our industries.

Or even deciding what "effective governance" means. Is it making sure all of the workers have bus passes and child care? Is it tax policy and subsidies? How about immigration policy? Who is empowered to make this decision?

All of the above? Which is most important? How do we pay for it? Its a little self defeating to think we can simultaneously have the highest tax rates and friendliest business climate, at the same time.

FWIW, China has 4% tax rate the last I heard. The BRI thing that China has with some 20-30 odd countries have all agreed to peg their products on the 4% rate over 10-15 years. From what little I know and understand, the idea is to have something that is of similar grouping as EU has (the single market). Sadly, the U.S. hasn't imagined anything similar in the last few years. They could do and have done a lot with Latin American countries but they didn't and now China is also courting them

Somehow the U.S. has been sleeping at the wheel it seems.

pune wrote:

FWIW, China has 4% tax rate the last I heard. The BRI thing that China has with some 20-30 odd countries have all agreed to peg their products on the 4% rate over 10-15 years. From what little I know and understand, the idea is to have something that is of similar grouping as EU has (the single market). Sadly, the U.S. hasn't imagined anything similar in the last few years. They could do and have done a lot with Latin American countries but they didn't and now China is also courting them

Somehow the U.S. has been sleeping at the wheel it seems.

In many ways, yes. It was a bipartisan affair for decades.

FlapOperator wrote:

pune wrote:

The action for many things has moved to China. The largest car market is now China and they are doing lot of things there. Most legacy auto companies are being left behind, whether it is States or EU.

We will see how their economy fares as they manage their real estate bubble and can steal less IP.

Real estate bubbles are not new and have been happening over centuries. And as far as 'stealing IP' goes the crown to that should go to the U.S.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articl ... 03367.html

There is more than enough history about how America thrived on IP theft. A bit hypocritical after you have done the same thing. People should read a bit more history.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There just aren't enough American youth interested in STEM to compete long term, and it doesn't help in a society where anti-intellectualism has buried itself to the hilt the last few years.

Yeah, because a political decision to undercut wages with H-1B visa holders totally is the policy to ensure that wages in tech sectors remain high and outsourcing is really recent element to the US economy.

I didn’t say H1-B is the solution either. But it is very difficult to coordinate a national educational drive toward STEM across the board, especially given different priorities in different states. The last time this succeeded was before Apollo, but national priorities and challenges were different then.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There just aren't enough American youth interested in STEM to compete long term, and it doesn't help in a society where anti-intellectualism has buried itself to the hilt the last few years.

Yeah, because a political decision to undercut wages with H-1B visa holders totally is the policy to ensure that wages in tech sectors remain high and outsourcing is really recent element to the US economy.

I didn’t say H1-B is the solution either. But it is very difficult to coordinate a national educational drive toward STEM across the board, especially given different priorities in different states. The last time this succeeded was before Apollo, but national priorities and challenges were different then.

Why is it that Europe is able to have a much better STEM drive across the board then, perhaps a cheaper education may be the reason for this? And it has been for quite a while. From what I know of many of my friends who have gone abroad and especially to the EU for studies, it is not only cheaper but also better structured as well and easier career options. In fact, there was a recent study where it came to be known that more than half the Indians get their citizenship to EU. Also, it is more welcoming than States as far as immigrants is concerned. There are and have been quite a few channels on YT (Youtube) where they call for students from India who want to study in STEM. Win-win for both.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/15-rea ... an-america

LCDFlight wrote:

pune wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I think US technology remains quite good. Tesla is a good example.

US continues to lead the world in software, law, finance, medical tech. Space. Universities. We will see if that continues.

To focus on where the chip fabrication building is located... or the fact China makes a lot of batteries... yes, but they do it largely with US / Canadaian/European / Korean / Japanese / Taiwanese technology.

I think the US has problems... very poor government efficiency and effectiveness. A combination of incompetence and corruption across state and federal governments. Corporations sort themselves out, if you regulate the free market skillfully (which we don't). Despite this, we do pretty well in the US.

Actually, you are a bit wrong at least on the China LFP battery. In fact, you can look up google scholar or whatever patent engine you want. In the last couple of decades, China has made lot of IP in the battery space and that is in the LFP place. Just like it did with 5G and now capitalizing on what they learned in 5G to 6G. Other points are good, space I would say you have a slight advantage over China but after China also managed to put a rover on Mars that space is shrinking, although NASA has a beautiful program but sadly has been mercilessly axed/cut over decades. The same I am guessing is the issue on Universities. From my own country, people who are going to abroad to learn are using either China or Germany (Germany more if they want to some sort of heavy engineering, plus it is not so expensive as U.S. is and is also more welcoming of immigrats. China if they want to do something either in space or in chip development even though they have years to catch up to the U.S. )

Agree with what you said. China has some IP.. Doubt the US advantage in space is "slight" either.. you are mentioning things the US did in 1997, now 25 years ago. Yes, China is super impressive, but let's be fair. Yes, they have nuclear submarines now... the US first successful nuclear sub was 67 years ago, and so on.

I am more impressed by India know-how, anyway.

We do get some things right but it is more when Govt. doesn't interfere and sadly the current right-wing Govt. is interfering in every which way. In fact, in the last 7 years of the current Govt. taxes have gone up multiple times. Energy prices have been up and up even before the pandemic. The sad part is current Indian Govt. and its foreign policies are found to be wanting. Neither does it have any economic plan. The only thing that the present Govt. has been doing has been trying to paint a rosy picture. In fact, emigration has gone up both from educated and the wealthy ones who have been going abroad, mostly though to Europe and probably more will go there especially after seeing the insurrection. Nobody wants to be in a place where violence is there.

If you want to find out how the country is doing one way or the other, the only true picture can be had from CMIE who have been looking at labor and production and whatnot for over a decade and they do a daily survey of some 100k people. Nobody else does the kind of survey that CMIE does.

This is from few months back -

https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.c ... e/87126794

Where India has done somewhat well has been in the services sector but even there it is been going back in the last few years as competitors for backoffice and whatnot have mushroomed both in China and Thailand, Phillipines etc.

Sadly, even our Govt. has no plans to educate people, An example shared herein -

https://thewire.in/women/beti-bachao-be ... ment-money

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

Francoflier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

On the money, even in India after independence, if GOI hadn't done and put it on market forces then we would be much poorer than we are. In fact the 5 year programs that was initiated by GOI resulted in making a good foundation on which future Governments added their own thing to it. Private sector profited on it but it never made the investments needed in education either then or now. Even in Germany, both for health, education etc. it is the Govt. that takes it forward. Why is the west able to do so much of research, because in most places you have social security.

I will share one example but there are many like it -

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... virus.aspx

If memory serves right, Katlin Kariko worked on the mNRA delivery system for 30+ years after which she got success, Which private company would have let her work on what could be called as a dead project for 30 years. In fact, after she was successful she rebuffed offers from two companies who wanted to invest in her solution now and had dismissed her when she had gone to them for sponsorship when she was working.

Of course, when you are doing research, it isn't given that you would find the results that you want. The famous quote of Edison that it took him more than 100 tries when he was finally able to light the bulb. And this is when you are recognized and known.
+

Francoflier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

Depends actually on which country you are talking about. India, China, Japan, Germany in all these countries they were all built with Govt. money. In fact, still is, although in my country now they want to make it private and actually break it up so that people either travel by planes or by buses in few years time

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

Depends actually on which country you are talking about. India, China, Japan, Germany in all these countries they were all built with Govt. money. In fact, still is, although in my country now they want to make it private and actually break it up so that people either travel by planes or by buses in few years time

Most railway in China and Japan were privately constructed, only later nationalized, during periods like WWI and WWII

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

Depends actually on which country you are talking about. India, China, Japan, Germany in all these countries they were all built with Govt. money. In fact, still is, although in my country now they want to make it private and actually break it up so that people either travel by planes or by buses in few years time

Most railway in China and Japan were privately constructed, only later nationalized, during periods like WWI and WWII

Because they fell in bankruptcies. Actually in both cases the private guys welcomed nationalization as they were suffering losses. This was also in UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-bad-ugly

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Depends actually on which country you are talking about. India, China, Japan, Germany in all these countries they were all built with Govt. money. In fact, still is, although in my country now they want to make it private and actually break it up so that people either travel by planes or by buses in few years time

Most railway in China and Japan were privately constructed, only later nationalized, during periods like WWI and WWII

Because they fell in bankruptcies. Actually in both cases the private guys welcomed nationalization as they were suffering losses. This was also in UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-bad-ugly

Not really, in Japan most railroad were forced by the imperial military to nationalize for military logistics, while in China it was nationalistic sentiment forcing foreign investors to give up their control on domestic railway.

This actually tells you all -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... t_in_China

Also see -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... nalization

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Why would such government planning be needed for further success when the industralized world weren't developed into today's siccess through government planning?

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

With huge government subsidies, in the form of vast land grants. By the way, most of the RRs have been through multiple bankruptcies. In every century except the current.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

With huge government subsidies, in the form of vast land grants. By the way, most of the RRs have been through multiple bankruptcies. In every century except the current.

Can you share the full form of RR's I am afraid I do not know that acronym thank you

frmrCapCadet wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Large infrastructure projects, those necessary for the development of industry and services within a nation, are almost always orchestrated by governments.

Large innovations drivers also very often find their origins in government programs; space exploration, military programs (especially in times of war...), large scale energy generation projects, advanced transportation, science research, etc...

Many of modern day technology or infrastructure can find its roots in programs initiated by governments. I don't contest that the technologies are then appropriated and furthered by the private sector, but public investment has still been crucial to most of the technologies and infrastructure that make our modern societies what they are.
Infrastructure, especially, is a sine qua non condition to industrialization. The first industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th/19th Century would not have happened without the foresight of governments planning and facilitating the construction of roads, railroads and ports necessary for those industries to function.

More recently, large scale infrastructure planning is what has facilitated the massive industrialization of China, as cheap labor is only a part of what made it possible.

I thought most power lines, telegram cables, and railway in 19th century were privately built.

With huge government subsidies, in the form of vast land grants. By the way, most of the RRs have been through multiple bankruptcies. In every century except the current.

I am nit aware if government companies or land grants. In a few case I'm aware of in Japan and China, investors abd local people often even need to fight the government for permit in investing inti and building rail lines.

RR, railroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %80%931877)
This link gives a short history.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

RR, railroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %80%931877)
This link gives a short history.

Both Railways and Airlines are very difficult to make profits in, the reason being each of them has set of restrictions and you can't be flexible as and when the market changes. Also, you have no control over how the market will shift. Let us say you are an owner of a railroad, and say you got rights to run trains from A to B. Now you have to think about whether you want to have either a goods service or a passenger service and that would decide how you would have to develop it. At the same time, you either would have to buy/lease or make some arrangements with both Station A and B so you can load/unload goods or passengers. Again, you are restricted by both the gauge and the length of the Railway platforms. Now, this is just for A to B. The more services and platforms, the more complex the whole thing will be. Railways are not supposed to be a profit-making venture. Around the world, it is expected that at the most you can raise 3% in passenger fees every year. So as an operator, you have to do some underhand dealing if you want to make it as a commercial organization. You can look up the case study of the UK Railways. After it was privatized, it became the most expensive railway transport in Europe while the others Germans, French provided a much superior service at a much lower cost. Even the expansion in UK and modernization left much to be desired.

The same has been with Airlines. In my own country over the last couple of decades, at least 20+ Airlines bankrupted. And all the ones who are surviving are on Bank Loans that they will never be able to pay back. Of course, after all said and done, it will be given back to the public but with all the losses. Private profits, public losses. That is the name of the game.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Yeah, because a political decision to undercut wages with H-1B visa holders totally is the policy to ensure that wages in tech sectors remain high and outsourcing is really recent element to the US economy.

I didn’t say H1-B is the solution either. But it is very difficult to coordinate a national educational drive toward STEM across the board, especially given different priorities in different states. The last time this succeeded was before Apollo, but national priorities and challenges were different then.

Why is it that Europe is able to have a much better STEM drive across the board then, perhaps a cheaper education may be the reason for this? And it has been for quite a while. From what I know of many of my friends who have gone abroad and especially to the EU for studies, it is not only cheaper but also better structured as well and easier career options. In fact, there was a recent study where it came to be known that more than half the Indians get their citizenship to EU. Also, it is more welcoming than States as far as immigrants is concerned. There are and have been quite a few channels on YT (Youtube) where they call for students from India who want to study in STEM. Win-win for both.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/15-rea ... an-america

I don’t know that STEM drive is the issue. I think a lot of people just want to be desk jockeys. There is also a general perception that arose in the last 40 years that a college degree meant a great laid back desk job with high pay and great benefits. Didn’t want to work hard like blue collar dad did. Lack of backfill for dad lead to jobs being shipped across the ocean to people who were/are willing to do the job. Problem is, a lot of students took the path of least resistance to an easy degree to get there and wound up unemployed with a basket weaving diploma doing a job they are completely unhappy with. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a kid say their dream job was to work on the floor of a GM plant? I’m sure there are a few, but they are few and far between. If anything, the problem is too many people with degrees. Not everyone should or needs to go to college, but that’s what has been pushed hard since the 70’s so people are doing it and continue to do so. Now they want it for free which certainly won’t help the situation.

DL717 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn’t say H1-B is the solution either. But it is very difficult to coordinate a national educational drive toward STEM across the board, especially given different priorities in different states. The last time this succeeded was before Apollo, but national priorities and challenges were different then.

Why is it that Europe is able to have a much better STEM drive across the board then, perhaps a cheaper education may be the reason for this? And it has been for quite a while. From what I know of many of my friends who have gone abroad and especially to the EU for studies, it is not only cheaper but also better structured as well and easier career options. In fact, there was a recent study where it came to be known that more than half the Indians get their citizenship to EU. Also, it is more welcoming than States as far as immigrants is concerned. There are and have been quite a few channels on YT (Youtube) where they call for students from India who want to study in STEM. Win-win for both.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/15-rea ... an-america

I don’t know that STEM drive is the issue. I think a lot of people just want to be desk jockeys. There is also a general perception that arose in the last 40 years that a college degree meant a great laid-back desk job with high pay and great benefits. Didn’t want to work hard as a blue-collar dad did. Lack of backfill for dad lead to jobs being shipped across the ocean to people who were/are willing to do the job. Problem is, a lot of students took the path of least resistance to an easy degree to get there and wound up unemployed with a basket weaving diploma doing a job they are completely unhappy with. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a kid say their dream job was to work on the floor of a GM plant? I’m sure there are a few, but they are few and far between. If anything, the problem is too many people with degrees. Not everyone should or needs to go to college, but that’s what has been pushed hard since the ’70s so people are doing it and continue to do so. Now they want it for free which certainly won’t help the situation.

No, I think it's more than that. See, when you are a kid you need to be exposed to as many things as possible and have some of the best teachers so you feel something about the subject. I can share of mine, most of our teachers were shitty, it was only decades later when I got hold of some interesting science, logic, and history books that I understood what I had missed out on in my school years. All topics and concepts could have been so much more interesting. In my whole academic life, we didn't even go once to a telescope to view the universe or know anything about radio astronomy. It today you were to ask randomly on a college campus about how many people know about JWT (the James Webb Telescope) where it is, what is its functions, how many maneuvers more it has to do before it would be finally settled, and such kinds of questions, I'm sure only very few would be able to answer. It's about both harnessing and using curiosity so kids question more. And therein lies another problem, how many teachers themselves are interested in the subjects they teach. While I wouldn't have worked in an ICE car factory, I would certainly have liked to work in an electric car workshop understanding how things work and where the technology is going. In fact, most educational institutes even today don't push about 3 R's, reduce, reuse and recycle. You have kids at a young age both questioning and changing their environment, for sure when they grow up, they will take more challenging roles. This idea that people were lazy or are lazy is actually in itself a lazy excuse. One can look at Singapore, a city-state, or Dubai, In both places, you don't see people shirking from being hands-on. The same I have heard of Israel. Even in the U.S. I am sure there are some islands in colleges where people do have the drive but maybe enough emphasis has not been given. I have heard that budgets for STEM, humanities, etc. have been shrinking in public education over the decades, which also perhaps maybe playing its part.