# More socialism from Washington



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It looks like the government wants to own part of the car companies. Anyone still believe we are not slipping into socialism?

For those who want the whole story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_ ... to_bailout



> Democrats urge federal stake in big auto companies
> WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation to send $25 billion in emergency loans to the beleaguered auto industry in exchange for a government ownership stake in the Big Three car companies.
> 
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hope for quick passage of the auto bailout during a postelection session that begins Monday.
> ...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It bothers me bigtime this is actaully a bone to the unions for their support in the recent election.

The market should be allowed to work if GM or Ford fail other car companies in "right to work states" will fill the void and the economy will get stronger. GM and Ford must restructure to survive.

The unions asked for the moon and the foolish shortsighted management of the companies gave it to them, it was/is unsustainable.

One only has to look at the state of Michigans economy to realize where the whole country is headed if govt instaed of market forces make these decisions.

The liberals in Michgan have run the states economy into the ground all the while blaming the rest of the country or Bush


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

This statement from Thomas Friedman says it all:

"We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate?"

check out the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

An old cliche comes to mind: "necessity is the mother of invention". They will be innovative if they truly start going down the tubes. Subsidize them and they will continue down the same old path.



> Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
> Ronald Reagan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass thats a intersting article although its kind of amixed message in that article isn't it, it criticises government manipulation like flex fuel ect, then recommends govt appointed managers.

The govt has no business in the car business or any other business, business failures are just the way things get better and failings of bad management are corrected.

Failure will reward those managers in correctly managed car businesses with larger market shares.

I think we could all agree that demand in the US will not decrease if GM goes out of business and that has to mean that other more efficient manufacturers will step in and offer cars people want, something the article correctly admits Gm and Ford do not.

I cannot think of any business that the government has not made worse if they get involved in it, can anyone?

This is also why I'm desperately agaisnt govt healthcare quality will drop cost will go up and it will not be a good thing.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, I agree. I was reading an article that basically echoed your points but I cannot find it now.

However, I would say the goverment can do certain things well. For example, goverment-sponsored research (university or federal) is very important for several reasons. Lots of research is done that the private industry sure wouldn't do because $$ isn't in it. Public education is another. If everything went private, I do not see how certain groups of people could get a decent education. I consider these things as "businesses."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right about doing research that the private sector would not do because there is no profit. I aosl agree that we need public education, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they do a good job of it. It started out good, but the government is doing it's best to screw it up.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bob M hit it right on the head. The corruption and crap the unions have gotten away with in Detroit is finally coming to a head. Look at Toyota, they are non union and their workers make more money, benefits are the same or better, and they have no one taking some BS dues out of every check. Another thing to look at in Detroit, the executives at Toyota make a fraction of what the execs at Ford, GM and Chrysler make. A bailout for Detroit will just be another form of welfare to the super rich, just like the the last bailout.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Govt sponsored research while in theory is worthwhile it is also often wasteful and done for political reasons.... just plain pork. Many of he wasted dollars could be beter spent and would be by the private sector.

Studies with known results are also frequently re-done for nothing but grant money, like I said anything the govt does is inefficient.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm said:


> Govt sponsored research while in theory is worthwhile it is also often wasteful and done for political reasons.... just plain pork. Many of he wasted dollars could be beter spent and would be by the private sector.
> 
> Studies with known results are also frequently re-done for nothing but grant money, like I said anything the govt does is inefficient.


Some of the research is good, some is absolutely worthless, or worse. The worse would be the crap that is used as a political hammer. Don't forget much of the private research is also government grants. In that case federal employees are a better buy. I'll give you an example. One year $50,000 was available for anyone who wanted to experiment with contracting. I jumped right on that. I had ten people working for me in the lab. For $50,000 I got four federal employees for six months, but I only got two contract people for six months for the same money. Not only that the contract people were making $2 less per hour than the federal employees. The money was eaten up by the company the contract employees worked for. They skimmed about 65% right off the top.

I guess I look at big government as how much it intrudes into my life not how many employees it has. Bush instated accountability so that money could not be wasted. The feds hated him for that. Government under bush has been more efficient.

Grant money ---- well, I guess that's why most of the people I worked with were liberal. I was perhaps the only conservative out of 40 people. I once ticked of a supervisor when I said to him: "I thought about ten percent of the research we do is bs, but I have changed my mind". He said: "I'm happy to hear that". I said: "ya, I think it's closer to 50 percent". He wasn't as happy as he first thought he was.  As you might guess none of my promotions came through the browny point system. 

You have to know the authors to know if your reading reality or fairy tales.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Govt sponsored research while in theory is worthwhile it is also often wasteful and done for political reasons.... just plain pork. Many of he wasted dollars could be beter spent and would be by the private sector.
> 
> Studies with known results are also frequently re-done for nothing but grant money, like I said anything the govt does is inefficient.


You are talking about something you clearly know very little about.

Studies with known results cannot be published again. University and federal researchers "publish or perish." Do you have any idea how hard it is to receive grant money these days? Trust me when I say, the ideas proposed in grants must be testable, novel, and have significant merit.

Bob, there may be a few specific examples of what you talk about, but there are certainly the exception to the rule.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

seabass said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > Govt sponsored research while in theory is worthwhile it is also often wasteful and done for political reasons.... just plain pork. Many of he wasted dollars could be beter spent and would be by the private sector.
> ...


http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... igbook2008

17 billion in pork much of it unescessary "research"

I think thats some real money


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

this ones only 17 mllion .... chump change

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?JServSes ... le&id=8690


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well that's the trick get rid of all earmarks. Then research like all government needs accountability. I don't know how you get common sense into the equation. I have noticed that whatever administration is in Washington has a large impact on what is done. You know without a doubt that with liberals in power tens of millions will go into global warming research. For an example of conservative research you would have to go back to Bush sr. Under his term research was more along habitat for wildlife lines and people should remember his no net loss of wetlands policies. 
From my experience I am convinced that research under conservative runs more along the line of wildlife, habitat, and a responsibility to the people who use the outdoor resources. In liberal administrations I see research follow more along ecological lines. Unfortunately the ecological lines they like best are any the sky is falling hypothesis. I think under this administration you will find a lot of money in research that may be counter productive to hunting. 
Watch and see if the Fish and Wildlife under the upcoming administration is more responsive to hunters, bird watchers, or bunny huggers. It will take only the appointment of the head of the Department of Interior and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife to know where we are headed.
Our Universities are turning out more PhD's that are hinging their careers on the environment. Even though hunting equipment provides an 11% excise tax to be given to states for habitat that money will be endangered. More and more it's diverted to things bunny huggers promote. Those coming from the Universities today will also promote hijacking that money. Years ago an 11% excise tax was proposed for camping and bird watching equipment. The environmental types screamed about that. They are not nearly as willing to put their money where their mouth is as hunters are. They would much rather steal our money. Liberal attitude there right?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > Bobm said:
> ...


I guess i do not find that link convincing. It's so biased that it basically says ALL gov-sponsored research is pork ( :roll: ). Show me what projects are not necessary. It isn't so cut and dried to say all of it is redundant. I do not believe that your TV example is simply re-doing the same experiment. I'm not condoning it, just saying it likely isn't that simple.

In Agricultural research, university and fed researchers save farmers millions of dollars every year in figuring out novel ways to, for example, save on pesticide use. Do you think Monsanto will do this research?

Again, I do not care if you are in psychology, neurobiology, agonomy, or human biology, all reserch needs to be published in peer-reviewed journals... and your "peers" in peer-reviewed journals do NOT allow any redudant resaerch to get published. I am a peer-reviewer for several jouranls, and I make darn sure the resaearch is squeaky clean and novel.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Our Universities are turning out more PhD's that are hinging their careers on the environment. Even though hunting equipment provides an 11% excise tax to be given to states for habitat that money will be endangered. More and more it's diverted to things bunny huggers promote. Those coming from the Universities today will also promote hijacking that money. Years ago an 11% excise tax was proposed for camping and bird watching equipment. The environmental types screamed about that. They are not nearly as willing to put their money where their mouth is as hunters are. They would much rather steal our money. Liberal attitude there right?


Is all this really true Plainsman? If you have a Ph.D. in ecology let's say, you conduct research on the affect of Co2 on leopard frogs... does it matter waht the result is? either way you can publish it. I guess I do not buy that line of thinking at all.

I think people get the impression that scientists get money from certain groups that want a certain answer... when in fact most scientists get money from National Institute of Health or National Science Foundation... and these agencies do not have a vested interest in the outcome.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. My point is this: In the past the Fish and Wildlife worked on habitat and species, and were very responsive to hunters.
Today in many universities hunting is looked on in a negative light. I watched this change in the students who worked with and for me from 1971 to 2006. When these students advance their careers and move up they will also advance their agendas. It never fails that a PhD will think his field of expertise is the most important. If $250,000 is all of a sudden on the table for research within a day or two six different proposals will be on the head honcho's desk. All will think their proposal is the most important. All I am saying is that perceived importance of research within science agencies perfectly reflects what is coming out of the universities, it just lags by about ten years. That lag is the time required for a new Phd to establish him or herself and become influential.

I'll give you an example of an attitude of a wildlife degree coming from the University of Wisconsin. A lady working for me told this joke, but thought it reflected correctly. A philosopher, a physicist and a mentally challenged person are killed in a car accident. When they approach St. Peter he asks the philosopher what was your IQ. He says 160. St Peter says great we will have to get together some time and talk theory of relativity. Then he asks the physicist what his IQ is and the guy says 150. St Peter says great we will have to get together some time and talk Quantum Physics. Finally he gets to the mentally challenged guy and asks what's your IQ and the guy says 40. St. Peter says great we will have to get together some time and talk about, about, about, ----hunting.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> It never fails that a PhD will think his field of expertise is the most important. If $250,000 is all of a sudden on the table for research within a day or two six different proposals will be on the head honcho's desk. All will think their proposal is the most important. All I am saying is that perceived importance of research within science agencies perfectly reflects what is coming out of the universities, it just lags by about ten years. That lag is the time required for a new Phd to establish him or herself and become influential.


I do not doubt at all that the writer of each proposal thinks theirs is the most important. That's a good thing. It means they believe in the work they are doing. But that doesn't mean that they will be given the grant. The relative importance is up to the granting agency. The granting agencies I deal with look to see if the research is novel (not repeating something someone else has done), testable, and will give a result either way.

Anyway, I guess my experience is different than your. You said you believed that 50% of your work was bs. I do not. I believe all of my work is 100% worthwhile. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Anyway, I guess my experience is different than your. You said you believed that 50% of your work was bs. I do not. I believe all of my work is 100% worthwhile. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.


Oh, I don't believe 50% was bs I was just getting under my supervisors hide for fun. I do think some is, perhaps about 10% as I first indicated. I like you would not personally do anything I thought was worthless. The funny thing is there are people I know who publish and I have come to believe what they publish. Then there are a few that will publish anything to get a publication.
I see it this way. Most scientists see a question that needs and answer and devise a study to provide that answer. They then publish as the data dictates. Then there are those who think they know what is going on and devise a study to prove it. If they are wrong they publish as the data dictates. Then there is the small group with ego's so big they can't possibly be wrong. If the data suggests they are wrong they will devise a new statistical analysis system that says they are right. We can both relate to all three of these personalities. Fortunately the last personality isn't the common type.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > Anyway, I guess my experience is different than your. You said you believed that 50% of your work was bs. I do not. I believe all of my work is 100% worthwhile. Otherwise I wouldn't do it.
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't believe 50% was bs I was just getting under my supervisors hide for fun. I do think some is, perhaps about 10% as I first indicated. I like you would not personally do anything I thought was worthless. The funny thing is there are people I know who publish and I have come to believe what they publish. Then there are a few that will publish anything to get a publication.
> I see it this way. Most scientists see a question that needs and answer and devise a study to provide that answer. They then publish as the data dictates. Then there are those who think they know what is going on and devise a study to prove it. If they are wrong they publish as the data dictates. Then there is the small group with ego's so big they can't possibly be wrong. If the data suggests they are wrong they will devise a new statistical analysis system that says they are right. We can both relate to all three of these personalities. Fortunately the last personality isn't the common type.


I'm glad to hear that. It seemed strange you would feel that way.

I know what you are saying plainsman, but it all depends on the quality of the research and techniques employed. It then depends on what impact level of journal you are talking about. Good journals will only allow good research with testable hypotheses. Poor ones let this slide. Journals are rated by their impact factors, so that is a convientent way of rating the quality of a journal (and then by extension the quality of the research). A good journal will have good reviewers who will see the statistics for what they really are.

I know what you are saying, but my experiences have been to try to publish in high quality journals. The reviewers in said journals can be harsh, down-right nasty, but in the end it's to make susre the results are solid. I have had to re-do entire experiments that took over a year to finally get accapted in the journal. Like I said, I review for journals so I know both ends of this.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Seabass peer review is a double edged sword one only has to remember the experience of Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr. J. Robin Warren,who identified H. pylori among ulcer patients. The "peer reviewed" current belief was turned upside down. With great resistance by the "peers" who had a financial benefit in the staus quo.

Man Made Global warming is another very very suspect example


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm said:


> Seabass peer review is a double edged sword one only has to remember the experience of Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr. J. Robin Warren,who identified H. pylori among ulcer patients. The "peer reviewed" current belief was turned upside down. With great resistance by the "peers" who had a financial benefit in the staus quo.
> 
> Man Made Global warming is another very very suspect example


Another perfect example Bobm is corn oil margarine. When my father had his first heart attack the doctor insisted he use only Mazola corn oil margarine. Ten years after his death they find that hydrogenated vegetable oils are worse than butter. A lot of publications came out supporting the first belief, but once that was established they had their reputations to uphold (or rather hide), and try publishing anything that questioned the study of those doctors that now reviewed publications.

I remember reading a newspaper article by a professor at NDSU. He said Fargo wouldn't have so much of a flooding problem if all the wetlands were drained because the water would move through in a more timely fashion. You bet, twice as much and all at once. Good bye Fargo. I think he has made that statement in publications also. I think there is a book out called "A River Runs North" or something like that. I need to read that book.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I am sure that not every university research project is like this. But it seems that tax payers and student tuitions fund the Universities. Then when the research project can be marketed publicly it is spun off to a "private entity" that may be owned partially by the University and some private investors, eventually giving a return of big bucks to the University and other investors which may or may not be the researchers. It seems that the tax payers should be getting a return on that investment too. This is an example of what looks confusing to me. 
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stor ... ocus1.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stor ... ily16.html

I understand that private universities that do not qualify or accept federal or state grants for research should get as much for the private market as they can. This is one reason I was not a supporter of stem cell research except by privately funded researchers.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1028/1

The French Fruit Fly Fracas
By Martin Enserink
ScienceNOW Daily News
28 October 2008

PARIS--Coming from Sarah Palin, it sounded like the ultimate folly: U.S. taxpayer money funding a study of fruit flies in Paris, France. But scientists jumped to the defense of the work that the Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate derided as wasteful on 24 October during a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The studies, actually carried out at a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) laboratory near Montpellier, 750 kilometers south of Paris, may help protect California olive trees from a serious pest, scientists say.
In a speech about her running mate John McCain's policies on children with disabilities, Palin condemned so-called earmarks, congressional mandates to spend money on specific projects. "You've heard about some of these pet projects, they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good," Palin said. "Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." In a video of the speech, somebody can be heard snickering in the audience. 
Palin's example came from the Web site of *Citizens Against Government Waste*, a private group claiming to fight government mismanagement that awarded Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) a "French Kiss Off Award" in April for obtaining $211,509 for research on the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae). As some bloggers were quick to point out, recent results from studies on other fruit fly species may help scientists understand autism, a disease Palin mentioned in her speech because her nephew has it. But the Thompson earmark is for the European Biological Control Laboratory (EBCL), administered by USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which studies ways to control invasive species in the United States by using their natural enemies.

California had been blissfully free of major olive pests until the olive fruit fly turned up near Los Angeles in 1998. Today, it's a "huge economic problem" around the state, says entomologist Frank Zalom of the University of California, Davis. Most growers now protect their crops with insecticides. Releasing a natural enemy might provide an alternative; it would also help protect olive trees in gardens and along roadsides that don't usually get sprayed, Zalom says.

So far, EBCL has identified at least six natural enemies of B. oleae, says ARS entomologist Kim Hoelmer, who started the olive fruit fly studies while at the Montpellier lab between 1999 and 2004. In lab tests, one parasitic wasp from southern Africa called Psyttalia lounsburyi appeared able to control populations efficiently and to attack only the olive fruit fly. It has recently been introduced in several areas in California and has brought down fly numbers by as much as 96%, says Kevin Hackett, national program leader for biological control at ARS headquarters in Beltsville, Maryland.

To fight invasive insects, Hoelmer says it's important to be able to study them over the long term in their native habitats--in the olive fruit fly's case, the Mediterranean region and Africa. That would be impractical for U.S.-based researchers. EBCL's predecessor opened in France a century ago to study the European corn borer, which had just crossed the Atlantic Ocean. The lab also serves as a base for expeditions to scout for insects' natural enemies.

Hoelmer says that he believes he could convince anybody, including Palin, that his work is worthwhile. But as a government researcher, he can't comment on political speeches. Zalom can. "This kind of stuff always drives me nuts," he says. "It's a total lack of understanding of the importance of research."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass, I agree you never know what something is about until your involved or talk with someone who is. Some studies look absolutely ridiculous. 
I have an acquaintance that spent 16 years in Rome going around Europe collecting Flea Beetles and studying them in a greenhouse in Rome. He decided to come home when the Red Brigade thought he was CIA and rocketed the greenhouse. Anyway, off subject. Studying Flea Beetles might looks stupid at first, but he was the man who led the effort to find biological control of leafy spurge. It's working all over northern U. S. and Canada. 
Politics and science don't work very well mixed. To often we find politicians on both sides trying to sway science for them to use as a club. One side may deride scientific efforts or bolster them depending on what works at the moment science be damned.


----------

