Welcome to Thunderdome

Malcolm wrote: Back in the day, we made candles out of sperm whale oil because it was "the best" we had at the time.

And do we still make candles out of sperm whale oil? No. Why? Because it's not the best anymore. You know how the government pumped money into the industry to change that? They didn't. The free market did. All on its own. It became cheaper and more efficient to make light bulbs. Did "Big sperm whale oil" crush poor little Thomas Edison and his light bulb idea? Sure, the same way "Big horse and buggy" killed the automobile and "Big MySpace" killed Facebook.

The free market did. All on its own.

The free market had to wait for the European immigrants to come from overseas with their magical "transform petroleum to kerosene" processes. Of course, the government had no effect on immigration policies back then. Shit, and let's talk about Edison, a dude the US Patent office had to fuck sideways in order to get the motion picture industry off the ground.

Malcolm wrote:

Government involvement is the biggest killer of innovation that's ever existed.

Bah. I'd say WWII drove innovation.

Kinda agree with Vince here. For the government to direct research, the people involved have to be accountable to the government. But in a democratic country, the government is already accountable to the people (and corporations). It's easier to vote the government to pay for failure instead of actually solving the problem -- look at how the ethanol industry lobbies federal money for itself despite having a crap product that's barely worth more than the corn.

When the government succeeds with a huge technology incentive, it's because the people temporarily suspend their greed from fear and let themselves be led -- wars, the Great Depression, so on.

But in a democratic country, the government is already accountable to the people (and corporations).

That's hilarious. What country would you be speaking of? Shangri-La?

...look at how the ethanol industry lobbies federal money for itself despite having a crap product that's barely worth more than the corn

That's on the people electing the douchebags who rubberstamp those shit subsidies. It's amazing how the midwest is mainly pachyderm red ... until you talk about taking away all those free corn kickbacks. Then they turn into commie red.

Malcolm wrote:

The free market did. All on its own.

The free market had to wait for the European immigrants to come from overseas with their magical "transform petroleum to kerosene" processes. Of course, the government had no effect on immigration policies back then. Shit, and let's talk about Edison, a dude the US Patent office had to fuck sideways in order to get the motion picture industry off the ground.

The parts of this that even relevant are reaching way up the ass.

Malcolm wrote:It's amazing how the midwest is mainly pachyderm red ... until you talk about taking away all those free corn kickbacks. Then they turn into commie red.

And yet in Ohio (home of the corn belt) the primary voters voted for the one guy that was telling them he was going to end the subsidies. Go figure.

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

The free market did. All on its own.

The free market had to wait for the European immigrants to come from overseas with their magical "transform petroleum to kerosene" processes. Of course, the government had no effect on immigration policies back then. Shit, and let's talk about Edison, a dude the US Patent office had to fuck sideways in order to get the motion picture industry off the ground.

The parts of this that even relevant are reaching way up the ass.

Alright. I guess NASA hasn't resulted in any new, useful inventions.

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote:It's amazing how the midwest is mainly pachyderm red ... until you talk about taking away all those free corn kickbacks. Then they turn into commie red.

And yet in Ohio (home of the corn belt) the primary voters voted for the one guy that was telling them he was going to end the subsidies. Go figure.

If that dude could kill existing laws, his words might've meant something.

Malcolm wrote:State Department report.

Hacker pleads guilty.

In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton's controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim.

It's got to be hard to find evidence when your eyes are closed.

Malcolm wrote:

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote: The free market had to wait for the European immigrants to come from overseas with their magical "transform petroleum to kerosene" processes. Of course, the government had no effect on immigration policies back then. Shit, and let's talk about Edison, a dude the US Patent office had to fuck sideways in order to get the motion picture industry off the ground.

The parts of this that even relevant are reaching way up the ass.

Alright. I guess NASA hasn't resulted in any new, useful inventions.

For about 10 to 15 years they made some good stuff, I will grant you that. But you want to bet the private sector has produced more for much less money (efficiency of the dollar)? That was my whole point. The private sector does it way better and much more efficiently.

Besides, the NASA tech was a by product of their mission. When you're talking about developing technology directly through funding, the government's track record is crap.

Malcolm wrote:

Vince wrote:

Malcolm wrote:It's amazing how the midwest is mainly pachyderm red ... until you talk about taking away all those free corn kickbacks. Then they turn into commie red.

And yet in Ohio (home of the corn belt) the primary voters voted for the one guy that was telling them he was going to end the subsidies. Go figure.

If that dude could kill existing laws, his words might've meant something.

Yeah, because Presidents have NEVER guided the legislature (Helloooo Obama care).

I swear I think you argue most of the time just to watch yourself type. It's like a pathology with you.

The private sector is more often more efficient, but the public sector can invest in things that the private sector would not otherwise invest in.

Yeah, because Presidents have NEVER guided the legislature (Helloooo Obama care).

Drafted by someone besides him. Additionally, it's starting to look like whoever gets the White House isn't getting both houses of Congress.

Hillary doesn't have campaign stops, she has fucking productions.

Hillary Clinton demanded control of most aspects of her school appearances, including introductory speeches, questions, and details as small as what type of glassware would be available, campaign emails show.

Malcolm wrote:

Yeah, because Presidents have NEVER guided the legislature (Helloooo Obama care).

Drafted by someone besides him. Additionally, it's starting to look like whoever gets the White House isn't getting both houses of Congress.

I'm starting to change my mind on whether gridlock is good. It stops the legislative and executive from pushing their party's popular agenda, but it doesn't prevent them from reaching across the aisle for things they've both been bought and paid for.

Alhazad wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Yeah, because Presidents have NEVER guided the legislature (Helloooo Obama care).

Drafted by someone besides him. Additionally, it's starting to look like whoever gets the White House isn't getting both houses of Congress.

I'm starting to change my mind on whether gridlock is good. It stops the legislative and executive from pushing their party's popular agenda, but it doesn't prevent them from reaching across the aisle for things they've both been bought and paid for.

Sadly, this is a very good point.

but it doesn't prevent them from reaching across the aisle for things they've both been bought and paid for.

But that shit is happening regardless.

TheCatt wrote:

but it doesn't prevent them from reaching across the aisle for things they've both been bought and paid for.

But that shit is happening regardless.

That's the point. We get to vote between: a) a government pushing rich lobbyist agendas plus 50% of the voting public's, or b) a government pushing rich lobbyist agendas plus 0% of the voting public's.

The problem is, I don't apparently agree with either % of the voting public. Since it's always door A or door B, and I'm door C. So yeah, I'll take it as-is. Besides, maybe I'm rich enough to count in the rich people group?

a) a government pushing rich lobbyist agendas plus 50% of the voting public's, or b) a government pushing rich lobbyist agendas plus 0% of the voting public's.

Have you seen the voting public lately? There's a 1% chance that maybe the lobbyist got rich because he's competent. The voters of this country have stuck with two major parties for quite some time because most of them can't count any higher or handle more than that many viewpoints on any given issue.