US 'no longer technology king'
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Topspin
Verified User
Duhla, I said I didn't want to look past the first page they are most definately there.
I wouldn't take stock advice from two junior high level investors.
here's my three us giants, lets see if you dumbasses can get 3 foreign companies to beat them
Tech Microsoft, Intel, google
Pharma Pfiser, Johnson & Johnson, Merk
good luck class
I wouldn't take stock advice from two junior high level investors.
here's my three us giants, lets see if you dumbasses can get 3 foreign companies to beat them
Tech Microsoft, Intel, google
Pharma Pfiser, Johnson & Johnson, Merk
good luck class
uscitizen
Villified User
I take no training from Jerks, I learned that lesson long ago. I am doing fine and don't want to drop to your 20% or so gains. I am not a rich prick like some and can't afford to lose as much.
I play the game my way and it works for me. Perhaps that is why it works so well for me ?
Besides you did exactly as I said, you are controlled by your training.
I play the game my way and it works for me. Perhaps that is why it works so well for me ?
Besides you did exactly as I said, you are controlled by your training.
s-freak, I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with the total amount of money spent on R&D. If the analysis were really that simple, we could have had Topspin report to congress, instead of having a highly respected, Bipartisan Commission and their professional staff study this for months.
For one thing, "total" spending may not tell us much. I bet the United States government invests most of its R & D money into weapons systems, Star Wars missles, and the military industrial complex. Not into basic scientific research and eduction that better utilizes human capital and promotes sustainable economic and technological growth.
Second, I already pointed out that lumping together private research, with publically funded basic scientific research, is to lump together apples and oranges. Proprietary applied research is aimed at immediate consumer benefits, and have demonstrable profit motives. And, importantly, its proprietary -- i.e., its not shared knowledge within the broader scientific community.
Secondly, investment into human capital, basic research, and education have to be broken apart an analyzed. Are we keeping up with other countries in how we manage, distribute, and invest our public resources to best promote human capital and keep our scientific edge?
There are a host of issues that have to be analyzed, rather than just looking at who "spends the most, overall".
Now, if you think Topspin came up with the right answer, after he thought about the issue for five second (i.e., "Were the king! There's NOTHING to worry about!"), then fine.
As for me? I'm going with the analysis and conclusions that an entire Bipartisan Commission of prominent Republicans, Democrats, and their professional staff, who took months to analyze and come up with: We're facing a problem, and in danger of losing our edge to competing nations.
For one thing, "total" spending may not tell us much. I bet the United States government invests most of its R & D money into weapons systems, Star Wars missles, and the military industrial complex. Not into basic scientific research and eduction that better utilizes human capital and promotes sustainable economic and technological growth.
Second, I already pointed out that lumping together private research, with publically funded basic scientific research, is to lump together apples and oranges. Proprietary applied research is aimed at immediate consumer benefits, and have demonstrable profit motives. And, importantly, its proprietary -- i.e., its not shared knowledge within the broader scientific community.
Secondly, investment into human capital, basic research, and education have to be broken apart an analyzed. Are we keeping up with other countries in how we manage, distribute, and invest our public resources to best promote human capital and keep our scientific edge?
There are a host of issues that have to be analyzed, rather than just looking at who "spends the most, overall".
Now, if you think Topspin came up with the right answer, after he thought about the issue for five second (i.e., "Were the king! There's NOTHING to worry about!"), then fine.
As for me? I'm going with the analysis and conclusions that an entire Bipartisan Commission of prominent Republicans, Democrats, and their professional staff, who took months to analyze and come up with: We're facing a problem, and in danger of losing our edge to competing nations.
Last edited:
uscitizen
Villified User
Europe tops US in stock market value
By Tony Tassell
Published: April 2 2007 21:48 * Last updated: April 2 2007 21:48
Europe has eclipsed the US in stock market value for the first time since the first world war in another sign of the slipping of the global dominance of American capital markets.
~
European shares have outperformed the US, with their market capitalisation rising 160 per cent since the start of 2003 in dollar terms, said Thomson Financial. That compared with a 70.5 per cent rise for the US stock market. Over that time the euro has risen 26 per cent against the dollar.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bf6a00e4-e14b-11db-bd73-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
By Tony Tassell
Published: April 2 2007 21:48 * Last updated: April 2 2007 21:48
Europe has eclipsed the US in stock market value for the first time since the first world war in another sign of the slipping of the global dominance of American capital markets.
~
European shares have outperformed the US, with their market capitalisation rising 160 per cent since the start of 2003 in dollar terms, said Thomson Financial. That compared with a 70.5 per cent rise for the US stock market. Over that time the euro has risen 26 per cent against the dollar.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bf6a00e4-e14b-11db-bd73-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
uscitizen
Villified User
Europe has eclipsed the US in stock market value for the first time since the first world war in another sign of the slipping of the global dominance of American capital markets.
........
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bf6a00e4-e1...age=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
........
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bf6a00e4-e1...age=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
I googled a lot on this yesterday, and you just summarized everything that I found. Especially the part about an awfully large chunk of the money for R & D in the actual budget for last year, this year, and projected in 08, was for the defense industry.
This report was a compilation of facts and trends, not a comparison of general dollars.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"but super the point is that it is pretty much the USA against the world in innovation and trade.....
all of them are out to get a piece of our pie. and US based corps have been eager to give it to them for short term profits."
Ok... wait a minute....
1) I thought we were talking about GOVERNMENT spending on R&D
2) So now it is not the US vs. other countries but the US vs the rest of the world combined? Sorry, but that is a tall order.
all of them are out to get a piece of our pie. and US based corps have been eager to give it to them for short term profits."
Ok... wait a minute....
1) I thought we were talking about GOVERNMENT spending on R&D
2) So now it is not the US vs. other countries but the US vs the rest of the world combined? Sorry, but that is a tall order.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"I personally cannot find any info whatsoever after the year 2000."
Darla... neither could I. Which is why I posted the most current that I could find.
Darla... neither could I. Which is why I posted the most current that I could find.
I'm totally not accusing you of anything. There doesn't appear to be a current breakdown. You have to piece it together from different sources. But I got out of it what Cypress did.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"some seem to think I am seeing this decline in our R&D as a partisan thing, I think it has been dropping for some time....."
Government spending on TECH R&D has been declining since 1985... but subsequent R&D spending on healthcare has made up for it. In terms of dollars, I would guess we have seen continuous increases. In terms of % of GDP I would guess and say that it has been in decline. Just a guess, but if you do look it up, let me know.
Government spending on TECH R&D has been declining since 1985... but subsequent R&D spending on healthcare has made up for it. In terms of dollars, I would guess we have seen continuous increases. In terms of % of GDP I would guess and say that it has been in decline. Just a guess, but if you do look it up, let me know.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla, understood.
Cypress....
1) so, you will continue to listen to politicians rather than use any type of logic. Understood. Just FYI, even if we spent 60% of our R&D budget on Defense... that would leave us ahead of any other country...and that is assuming that they don't spend any of their R&D money on defense.
2) who is lumping the private and public together? YOU are the only one that keeps bringing it up. My previous post with the numbers was ALL government spending. QUIT trying to twist what I am saying.
3) Again... I do not trust the politicians... either party. So NO, I will not take their word for it. They are the same morons that projected ten year surplusses based off of the revenue flows from the late 90s. BOTH parties neglected to project for any type of market other than that of the current boom. WHY? Because it gave them "justification" to keep on spending. Politicians are always looking for ways to spend more of our money. So they form committees that will come up with the "studies" to justify doing just that. Then they use scare tactics to get the general population to toe the line.
4) I am not going simply by what topspin is saying. You have provided nothing except GOVERNMENT opinions. No numbers. No data to support their claim. NOTHING. But you go on being a good little sheep. I am sure they appreciate not having to brainwash you any further.
Cypress....
1) so, you will continue to listen to politicians rather than use any type of logic. Understood. Just FYI, even if we spent 60% of our R&D budget on Defense... that would leave us ahead of any other country...and that is assuming that they don't spend any of their R&D money on defense.
2) who is lumping the private and public together? YOU are the only one that keeps bringing it up. My previous post with the numbers was ALL government spending. QUIT trying to twist what I am saying.
3) Again... I do not trust the politicians... either party. So NO, I will not take their word for it. They are the same morons that projected ten year surplusses based off of the revenue flows from the late 90s. BOTH parties neglected to project for any type of market other than that of the current boom. WHY? Because it gave them "justification" to keep on spending. Politicians are always looking for ways to spend more of our money. So they form committees that will come up with the "studies" to justify doing just that. Then they use scare tactics to get the general population to toe the line.
4) I am not going simply by what topspin is saying. You have provided nothing except GOVERNMENT opinions. No numbers. No data to support their claim. NOTHING. But you go on being a good little sheep. I am sure they appreciate not having to brainwash you any further.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Darla... side note... sorry about the other day. Don't know why I was so testy. I appologize.
It's nice of you to say that, and very classy. I didn't hold it against you though. I'm testy sometimes too. Forget about it. But thanks.
You have provided nothing except GOVERNMENT opinions.
Wrong. First of all, you've been given at least three links, that broadly draw the same conclusions. The World Economic Forum, the AEA, and a prominent independent bipartisan commission. I suspect that you simply don't want to acknowledge how broadly my position is supported. You've got topspin on your side
Second, the commission you reference wasn't a "government" commission. It was an independent commission. Typically on commissions like this, the commssion members aren't currently employed by the government, and they do the work for free. They are unpaid. It is viewed as a civic service by prominent americans.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Um... .Wrong... the World Economic forum downgraded their ranking of the US based on political/regulatory reasons... not based on innovation... and they did not address the dollars spent.
The AEA was pissed that TECH research had declined. But when you actually look at their site it shows that with the TECH research decline their was a subsequent RISE in healthcare R&D. They are a TECH lobbying group, so of course they are not happy with that.
Show me where it says they are unpaid. Politicians (current or former) have not been known for their charity of time.... and it still doesn't qualify them as economic experts.
I don't think you want to admit that you don't have any numbers from any of your "sources" that actually support your "conclusions". The first two do not support you. The third is crap, unless you or they can provide the data that shows how they came to that conclusion. Surely that exists? They wouldn't come to that "conclusion" without providing anything to back it up? No politician would do that...would they?
The AEA was pissed that TECH research had declined. But when you actually look at their site it shows that with the TECH research decline their was a subsequent RISE in healthcare R&D. They are a TECH lobbying group, so of course they are not happy with that.
Show me where it says they are unpaid. Politicians (current or former) have not been known for their charity of time.... and it still doesn't qualify them as economic experts.
I don't think you want to admit that you don't have any numbers from any of your "sources" that actually support your "conclusions". The first two do not support you. The third is crap, unless you or they can provide the data that shows how they came to that conclusion. Surely that exists? They wouldn't come to that "conclusion" without providing anything to back it up? No politician would do that...would they?