Bill Gates: "Private Sector [Research and Development] is in General Inept"

[esmith]

I already answered it. America is not weaker now. Your sources don't deserve respect because they are highly biased and corrupt. You may believe the talking heads telling you America is weaker, but they are lying to you. America is much stronger now than 8 years ago.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-US-become-weaker-since-Barack-Obama-became-president

And just what learned source is quora.com????
Now the author of your "facts" is Joe Willmore? Would you please list his credentials that gives any and I mean any association with the military

You are really stopping to the ridiculous in an attempt to disprove the facts I referenced. when you can only find a blogger.

 

[tytlyf]

And just what learned source is quora.com????
Now the author of your "facts" is Joe Willmore? Would you please list his credentials that gives any and I mean any association with the military

You are really stopping to the ridiculous in an attempt to disprove the facts I referenced. when you can only find a blogger.

That's just one of many. Joe is more credible than the Koch Brothers. If you care about the debt, have to cut the defense spending. I thought you hate spending anyways? You must be fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

Since I answered your question, what do the Koch's give as an example of why the military is weaker? Just 1 example.

Heritage Foundation
The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations. The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill yet insists that it does not "lobby."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations

 

[esmith]

That's just one of many. Joe is more credible than the Koch Brothers. If you care about the debt, have to cut the defense spending. I thought you hate spending anyways? You must be fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

Since I answered your question, what do the Koch's give as an example of why the military is weaker? Just 1 example.


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations

This farce has gone on long enough. Nothing I give you will be accepted because you will not accept facts.
I'm finished discussion anything with you since you do not discuss.

 

[tytlyf]

This farce has gone on long enough. Nothing I give you will be accepted because you will not accept facts.
I'm finished discussion anything with you since you do not discuss.

All I asked for was 1 example that the Koch brothers identified as to why the military is weak? Just one.

 

[Walter Russell]

[Source: Excepted from an article on Gates, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy]

I find it interesting that Gates, after "looking into it", has concluded that government sponsored research and development is more fruitful than private sponsored research and development. Gee, could it actually be possible that Bill Gates is smarter than Ronald Reagan, who always maintained that government was more inept than the private sector?

Please discuss.

I watched Bill Gates on Ted Talks in a climate change discussion say that vaccinations will be used to help reduce the population.
He should be in the know considering he and his foundation are trying to vaccinate the world.
After hearing that elitist speak on Ted, I won't give credit to anything that man says.

In reguards to the topic at hand, its laughable.
Theres not a profittable government run program in existence.
Theres no incentive for one because of the tax payer safety net.
Private business doesn't have that luxury and is therefore forced to be more efficient and mindful with its resources and thus more profitable.

 

[tytlyf]

I watched Bill Gates on Ted Talks in a climate change discussion say that vaccinations will be used to help reduce the population.
He should be in the know considering he and his foundation are trying to vaccinate the world.
After hearing that elitist speak on Ted, I won't give credit to anything that man says.

In reguards to the topic at hand, its laughable.
Theres not a profittable government run program in existence.
Theres no incentive for one because of the tax payer safety net.
Private business doesn't have that luxury and is therefore forced to be more efficient and mindful with its resources and thus more profitable.

The government isn't a business, it doesn't run for a profit

 

[Walter Russell]

The government isn't a business, it doesn't run for a profit

Really? Than who's in charge of the sale of all that miltary equipment?
My apologies for misinterpreting the subject matter of the post. I was multi tasking but apparently not very well :/

Still I will be as skeptical of government sponsored research as I would privite research.
Everything gov is involved in has a political agenda assigned to it in the same way everything business relates to is monetary.

I believe we are best served through diversified approach.

 

[metis]

Much government-sponsored research is done through universities, and they largely don't have an agenda that drives a bias. I was involved in a study back in 1967, and we were not directed or encouraged in any way to take our research in any given direction.

OTOH, business-related research often does have a self-serving agenda that may be influenced because of a concern for public image.

 

[Walter Russell]

Much government-sponsored research is done through universities, and they largely don't have an agenda that drives a bias. I was involved in a study back in 1967, and we were not directed or encouraged in any way to take our research in any given direction.

OTOH, business-related research often does have a self-serving agenda that may be influenced because of a concern for public image.

The lack of diversity of thought within University staff itself is all the bias necessary.

It is well established that certain idealigical veiws can make or brake University careers.

The bias is in the very fabric of the University, obvious outside interference isn't necessary.

Lol I'll never forget when my niece went off to Governors school back in 07/08 and with no political view at all came home a rabbid Obama supporter. Lol

 

[metis]

The lack of diversity of thought within University staff itself is all the bias necessary.

It is well established that certain idealigical veiws can make or brake University careers.

The bias is in the very fabric of the University, obvious outside interference isn't necessary.

Lol I'll never forget when my niece went off to Governors school back in 07/08 and with no political view at all came home a rabbid Obama supporter. Lol

Baloney. Most scientists that I dealt with one way or the other were quite professional, putting their own bias, if they had one, on the shelf. As an example, get a copy of Scientific American and look near the front of almost any issue whereas different scientists kick on their opinions on previous articles, often with sarcasm involved. We can be pretty caustic with each other, so conformity is certainly not the rule of thumb with us.

Oh, btw, your niece seems to have become one very smart person.

 

[Walter Russell]

Baloney. Most scientists that I dealt with one way or the other were quite professional, putting their own bias, if they had one, on the shelf. As an example, get a copy of Scientific American and look near the front of almost any issue whereas different scientists kick on their opinions on previous articles, often with sarcasm involved. We can be pretty caustic with each other, so conformity is certainly not the rule of thumb with us.

Oh, btw, your niece seems to have become one very smart person.

I'll address your last point first.
Obama has been nothing more than a continuation of Bush in almost all aspects.
So if your an Obama fan you must have enjoyed Bush as well.
That statement alone was enough to show me your delusion.
The point in the statement was that she was spoon a political view presented by someone with a clear bias.
Whether the bias is 1% or 100% there is certainly motive for it in any given study and worth considering.

My history professor certainly had a clear bias and delusional at best with his rants.

I also remember a study where kids took iq test and had their mercury levels tested from their urine.
The kids who had higher levels of mercury tested higher on the iq test on average.
The conclusion was alittle mercury in your system was good for you and this study was even broadcast on national news.

The problem with the study was that kids who had higher levels of mercury in their system were more efficient at getting rid of the heavy metal and occuring less neurological damage where as the kids who had less mercury in their urine were storing more of the heavy metal in their bodies which caused more neurological damage.

In other words that study could have been presented either way. Bias may have been the reason for the original claim due to all the vaccine fears.
I'm familar with this due to a close relative having a severe case of mercury poisioning years ago that is now used as a case study in toxicology at Duke.
On the other hand i'm glad to see Harvards recent study that shows fluoride lowers iq's.

Again my statement wasn't to throw out University studies. It was to question and test their results due to the possibility of bias and that diversity of research is the best method in my op.

 

[metis]

...
That statement alone was enough to show me your delusion...

Well, since I suffer so much from "delusion", then there's no reason why I should respond to the above other than this short post because us delusional scientists can never be trusted to see reality. To save you any more suffering from having to read my delusional posts I'll put you on my ignore list so you never ever have to worry about responding to any more delusional statements coming from me again. I'd say "goodbye", but then this also could just be a further manifestation of my delusion since it could be viewed as just another scientific delusion to trick non-delusional people like you, so I'll just leave and go live in my delusional little world.

 

[tytlyf]

I never understand why republican media cries about the median household income being stagnant? Republicans are the people responsible for that. Only 1 party supports the middle class and trying to raise wages. The corporate republican party is looking out for their profits.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Companies are constrained by the necessity of income exceeding expenses, unless venture capital covers the loss.
Research ends if they can't make a profit. I've seen promising projects die because of this.

Yes. Exactly. Competition helps drive progress but it can also stifle it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I notice that your chart is for individuals.
Perhaps the discrepancy between your analysis & what I see is due to my looking at total revenue, which would include other (corporate) income taxes.

I think the simplest explanation is that in a country of >300 million people and millions of companies, the experience of one person / company will vary vs. the whole. Again even your charts don't demonstrate a clear correlation / trend that suggests there was effectively a Bush tax hike (tax revenue was flat from 2001 - 2003 for example even though GDP was growing; in 2008 GDP contracted by less than 1% and yet tax revenue fell by ~45%; so were those tax "cuts"? Probably not and the increase was probably not a "hike" per se either, the data probably isn't giving a clear insight here).

Getting back to the OP, I'd just reiterate that the GOP is fine with debt as long as it's used to invest in the wealthy (tax cuts) and American global power (wars / nation building). It's only when debt is used to fund infrastructure, schools, quality of life etc. in our own country for the majority of workers that the GOP discovers debt is "bad".

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the simplest explanation is that in a country of >300 million people and millions of companies, the experience of one person / company will vary vs. the whole. Again even your charts don't demonstrate a clear correlation / trend that suggests there was effectively a Bush tax hike (tax revenue was flat from 2001 - 2003 for example even though GDP was growing; in 2008 GDP contracted by less than 1% and yet tax revenue fell by ~45%; so were those tax "cuts"? Probably not and the increase was probably not a "hike" per se either, the data probably isn't giving a clear insight here).

Getting back to the OP, I'd just reiterate that the GOP is fine with debt as long as it's used to invest in the wealthy (tax cuts) and American global power (wars / nation building). It's only when debt is used to fund infrastructure, schools, quality of life etc. in our own country for the majority of workers that the GOP discovers debt is "bad".

I certainly can't defend the Pubs on that.