On Jan 16, 4:36*pm, "Smarty" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 10:41 am, "Smarty" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role
of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make
them come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants,
and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting
and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is
the
way it always will be, this is the way the world works.

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the way
the
world works. Many organizations including both hugely successful
businesses
as well as foreign governments chose leaders who understand more than
merely
the political aspects of goal setting and decision making. They understand
that better decisions are made when more information and understanding is
applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy much
more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems, and
manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. There is a very good reason
why
we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and it stems
directly
from bad leadership and bad decision making, primarily in Washington.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, for example, do you think the near failure of GM, Ford, Chrysler
are due to bad leadership and bad decision making in Washington? * And
if so, how is that foreign competitors, eg Honda, BMW, that build cars
in the USA are not in anywhere near as bad shape? * *And how is it
that US companies like Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, are very successful
world competitors? * *You think Washington is responsible for Intel's
success and management?

The automobile industry partially illustrates my point. Both German and
Japan have formulated specific strategic plans to produce high fuel
efficiency vehicles, hybrids in Japan, and low emission diesels in Germany.
Both German and Japanese governments subsidized and facilitated these
programs, making the R&D investments and strategic focus very concerted and
very explicit as national priorities. They put the U.S. automakers at a
disadvantage competitively.

And hybrids are exactly what % of the US or worldwide market for autos
and profits to any of the car companies? So small today as to be
insignificant. Diesel autos are a significant market in Europe, but
certainly not in the US. In other words, the sad state that the big 3
find themselves in today has nothing to do with hybrids or diesels.
In fact, had they been building those cars, they would have been
bankrupt 5 years ago, because nobody would have bought themm An
actual factor that puts the big 3 at a disadvantage is their labor
costs, which are $40 an hour more than their competitors like BMW and
Honda pay workers at their plants in the USA.



The semiconductor, aerospace, and computer industry in the U.S. derived
enormous R&D benefits from U.S. government investments in military and
industrial research and development starting many years ago. The Space
Program and Cold War defense spending had tremendous "spin-off"
contributions to making the U.S. a leader in these areas of technology, and
virtually all of the propulsion and jet engine development, avionics, flight
control systems, as well as integrated circuit / LSI technology owes its
origin to government sponsorship.


No doubt that govt spending played a role, early on, especially during
the 60's. But that doesn't account for how some companies, with
superior management and ideas succeeded beyond anyone's expectations
and others failed or went by the wayside. Why are Intel, MSFT,
Boeing where they are today, while Digital Equipment, DataGeneral,
Shockley Semiconductor, etc are gone? It wasn't govt involvement or
action that made the difference. It was the management of the
companies.

And if you want to look at industries that benefitted from the same
technology, you'd have to put the auto manufacturers on that list.
Everything from robotics and computers in the factories, to the
computer technology in the autos themselves has benefitted them.
Yet, the big 3 are on their collective ass. And it has little to do
with govt, and a lot to do with poor management and high labor costs.



So yes....I think a lot of today's mature industry is directly or indirectly
a beneficiary of these investments. It is the future I am concerned about,
since these R&D efforts are no longer substantially done by government
support, And moreover, those who are leading the efforts appear to lack the
foresight or vision or technical competence to place our long term national
growth strategy on a competitive path.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It worries me MORE when you have some govt bureaucrats sitting in
Washington deciding what the R&D priorities of the country should be
and taking our money to support it. I'd much rather have those
decisions made by the likes of Bill Gates, Andy Grove, Steve Jobs,
etc. Weren't you the one bitching about the FCC being Colin Powell's
son? And even if you had some technocrats instead of a political
hack, it's naive to assume some govt committee is going to come up
with great strategies as opposed to the private sector.

Two of the big pure research brain farms we've lost are Bell Labs,
gone completely, and to a lesser extent, IBM, which no longer can
afford the huge pure research they did decades ago. Yet, there is no
sign that high tech is suffering in the USA. In fact, the rate of
tech progress is faster today than it was in the 60s at the peak of
the govt spending and involvement.