Mark, Thanks, Forgot to mention earlier these additional companies going/gone belly up
Beacon power Abound solar Solopower Nobody died that i know of but lots of money was robbed from government coffers and you can't blame it all on the Chinese. On Friday, June 1, 2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > One can justify Govt’s responsibility to use PUBLIC, TAXPAYER funds for * > pure* R&D, and I’d go as far as some *applied* R&D, but that’s about it. > And the results of all that research should be FREELY available to any > taxpayer (unless it’s so sensitive that it’s been declared a national > security issue). If an entrepreneur is able to raise money and take the > govt’s research and make a product or service, I’d even be in favor of the > govt getting a small % royalty for a few years to at least help offset the > cost to the taxpayer.**** > > ** ** > > Govt, because of the corruption which is inevitable with humans, and which > is rampant in this country and the world, will never do the right thing > when it comes to the sort of large subsidies and loan programs that we’ve > seen of late… Below is a link to the report by the House Oversight Cmte on > the DOE’s Loan Guarantee program, and how corruption has resulted in > nothing but failures… why? Because despite numerous red-flags about the > hi-risk of the companies, the govt loaned the money anyway because of > political favors… **** > > ** ** > > > http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees-Report.pdf > **** > > ** ** > > And this is not a partisan issue… politicians on both sides of the aisle > are corrupt and only interested in reelection and riding the govt > gravy-train as long as the citizen taxpayers are stupid enough to reelect > them.**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'eric.wal...@gmail.com');>] > *Sent:* Friday, June 01, 2012 12:17 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR**** > > ** ** > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Chemical Engineer > <cheme...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');>> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > This example, at its most simple message shows how corporations sometimes > see new technologies in the opposite light even though the world might > benefit.**** > > ** ** > > Agreed. Corporations sometimes see things in terms starkly different from > what is understood to be in the common good. The tobacco companies in the > US saw fit to advertise to adolescents a generation ago until the > consequences of doing so (heavy penalties, lawsuits, etc.) outweighed the > financial benefits. The logic of such advertising was impeccable -- if you > get people hooked on cigarettes at a young enough age they will become > lifelong consumers. But that logic was purely mercenary, blind to some > basic things that the majority of people feel to be important and valuable; > in this case, protecting the young from the predatory behavior of > corporations.**** > > ** ** > > There are other examples of how the perceived interests of corporations > differ significantly from the interests of society as a whole. These > examples are helpful in understanding what underlies their behavior, in > providing a cautionary tale of what one might be up against if remedial > action of some kind is needed, and in offering insight into possible ways > to encourage corporations to better align their behavior with the interests > of the larger society. I don't think such examples are to be construed as > reasons to avoid regulation or market interventions. The main challenge > with interventions is that they often lead to unintended consequences. But > being wary of unintended consequences is different from being concerned > that companies will perceive things differently from ordinary people.**** > > ** ** > > My point here is that we should not be worried that corporations won't > like the restrictions and inducements we decide to put in place, but we > should be concerned about unintended economic consequences.**** > > ** ** > > Many of the big oil companies dabble in renewable energy because they do > not feel threatened by it. kW/Mw scale LENR if/when it is proven may get > ignored by big energy much like Kodak did with digital cameras.**** > > ** ** > > I suspect the energy companies will feel very threatened at some point. > The lawyers will step out of the woodworks, and then if you want to > develop or sell LENR devices you'll need to make a huge financial > investment to satisfy certification requirements; even then, there will be > onerous restrictions on selling to the mass market. It might take a > generation or two to disentangle the technology from the webwork put up by > vested interests. This will not have been a necessary outcome; it will > have been the result of our particular willingness to coddle financial > interests at this time in history.**** > > ** ** > > Eric**** > > ** ** >
