On Sep 27, 8:52 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:
It is a partisan point of view, but the Republican majority has been
less than cooperative over the past few years.
> > ... and they really
> > deserve to be rewarded for their single-minded persistence and
> > willingness to live with the consequent damage to their own
> > prosperity.
>
> > Everybody ought to vote for such a selfless group.
>
> > Sadly, the polls suggest that the Republicans can't fool enough of the
> > people enough of the time.
>
> Wait until November, then you know :-)
>
> >> Won't be that bad but even if it was "only" 50% that could bring the
> >> consumer market almost to a grinding halt. Nobody will spend disposable
> >> savings anymore because there will hardly be any, they'll all clamp
> >> down. This is one of the many reasons why QE needs to stop.
>
> > Sure. Too much of the QE money goes to people who can add it to their
> > disposable savings, when it ought to go to people who can be relied on
> > to spend it and thus stimulate the economy.
>
> Problem is, the money does not go anywhere and smart people knew it
> wouldn't. The stock traders also knew because they usually belong to the
> group of smart people.
The question is then why wasn't some of the money directed at people
who would spend it and do some good for the economy, and the answer is
that they aren't Republican voters or supporters.
> All it can potentially do is cause inflation and a sequel of the
> real-estate bubble.
That's James Arthur's view of the situation, not John Maynard Keynes.
James Arthur is brain-dead on this subject, while Keynes is merely
dead, which doesn't stop him from being right.
>
> >>> I have offered to buy the US for 1$ years ago, they should have sold it to me.
> >>> Now it is not even worth 50 Eurocents with all that debt.
> >> Very wrong. We still have just about the best technology-generating
> >> climate there is. Open your PC, smart phone, whatever, then you know
> >> what I mean. I was in Silicon Valley yesterday, there is one high-tech
> >> company after the other. For tens of miles on end. You don't have that
> >> anywhere else in the world.
>
> > Except perhaps in Silicon Glen in Scotland, and Silicon Fen around
> > Cambridge England and in the high-tech business park north of
> > Eindhoven, to list the one's I've been exposed to. For some years now
> > Singapore has been busy trying to build the same kind of self-feeding
> > high-tech environment, where if you need something odd you can always
> > find somebody who specialises in supplying it.
>
> Here is a dose of reality for you:
>
>
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/sale-ends-the-...
>
> Those dreams are over, done, finito.
That particular dream is over. Cadence is still there, but that
particular business park has despaired of getting any more high-tech
tenants.
It's not the only high-tech activity in the area, and the newspaper
report has rather exaggerated the significance of a single commercial
decision. The current U.K. conservative government has emphasised
"fiscal responsiblity" over economic growth since they came to power
"After three straight quarters of contraction, GDP is no higher than
when the coalition came to power 2 1/2 years ago." and U.K. newspapers
are happy to remind their readers what their government isn't doing
for them.
> Despite massive taxpayer subsidies
> no significant chip manufacturers came out of this effort.
Has National Semiconductor's plant at Greenock been closed down
recently?
And is chip manufacture the only possible high-tech activity? As fabs
get progressively more expensive, we can expect to see fewer of them,
and more countries are going have to settle for importing all their
integrate circuits from Tiawan, Korea, China, Japan and the US.
> Or can you name just a single one? I guess not.
Bad guess.
> Contrast this to California where
> myriad successful chip companies started without one red cent from the
> taxpayer dole. As it should be, and that's the American way.
California is pretty much where the whole thing started. Though TI did
make the first IC, Fairchild, with the planar process was rather
better placed to make something that worked. The first semiconductor
fabs made a lot of money by selling stuff that couldn't be made any
other way.
They might not have been directly subsidised, but the US Defence
Department was deeply interested in their output, and everything they
made was available in Mil. Spec. versions which worked over a
temperature range from 125C to -55C.
> > People learned the lesson of Route 128 a long time ago, and have been
> > trying to grow critical masses ever since, with some success.
>
> Where?
I listed a few of them in my original post. Silicon Valley probably
precedes Route 128 - " Frederick Terman proposed the leasing of
Stanford's lands for use as an office park, named the Stanford
Industrial Park (later Stanford Research Park)" but Route 128 got more
publicity as a high-tech area, where Silicon Valley was seen as
concentrated on semi-conductors, though since it included HP and
Varian this was probably a misperception.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen