Advertisement

Zibb

Rick Nelson, editor in chief of Test & Measurement World and EDN, comments on test, globalization, measurement, machine vision, economics, nanotechnology, the engineering profession, and topics of general interest.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Test & Measurement Articles

Blog

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama alludes to innovation

Jan 20 2009 11:03AM | Permalink |Comments (19) |


The Inaugural Address is hardly the place to for a new President to lay out a detailed business, economic, and technology plan, but it’s gratifying to see that Obama alluded to the need for innovation and affirmed our ability to do what’s necessary.

My favorite passages, from that perspective:

• “Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

• “…it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor—who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

• “Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.

• “The state of the economy calls for action—bold and swift—and we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

• “We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.

• “We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

• “And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

• “Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control—and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity—on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart, not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

• “With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet."

You can find details on “The President's American Recovery And Reinvestment Planhere. Read his agenda on energy and the environment here. And read his technology agenda here.


Update: See related items in other publications:

• "Obama’s Big Speech: Yes We Can Include Energy" (Wall Street Journal)
• "Obama's Speech Links Economy, Broad Change" (BusinessWeek)
• "Obama's expensive leap of faith" (Fortune)
• "Barack Obama's sober speech" (The Economist)

Reader Comments



at 1/20/2009 2:32:23 PM, Bob Colwell said:
Good blog, Rick. The only thing that worried me during the speech was the crowd reaction when he alluded to science and technology -- there wasn't much. I suspect Obama "gets it" with respect to engineering, but I really doubt the average American has any clue.



at 1/20/2009 2:35:29 PM, Andy T said:
The harnessing of our soil to fuel our cars worked out really well, didn't it? Dirtier burn, CO2 in mega and unaccounted proportions in the fermentation process to get the ethanol and world starvation as food crop acreage was converted to fuel production. Beautiful, innovative, plan. I see the lobbyists from the Bush-era still have their greedy fingers in the pie and will continue to cough their way to the bank if there isn't a revolution, by those of us with pitchforks, against them.



at 1/20/2009 3:04:51 PM, Policebox said:
Andy, mandating methanol before the issues were worked out may have been ill advised, but a crowd of pitchfork carrying Luddites blocking progress is even more so. Let's be blunt, the technology of 100 years ago cannot feed the world today. The technology of the last fifty years won't last another fifty, the raw materials don't exist. We need to find the new technologies now, so that we have the time to work out the kinks before the alternatives dry up. That means we have to try things to find out where those kinks are.



at 1/20/2009 4:28:56 PM, John Galt said:
Again, Obama blames the "free market" for our economic crisis when government created institutions and policies pushed junk loans to lower income borrowers with the implicit promise of a bailout awaiting the foolish risk=taking lenders. Now a long line of the least profitable and most incompetent businesses are lining up for their own place at the government trough. Obama and other statists think that a Technology Czar will save the day. This will work about as well as other government-run programs for the same reasons. Seizing wealth from "the prosperous" to fund bureaucracies, low-skill make-work job programs, "snake-oil" promises of a green utopia, and trickle-down welfare payments to the unprosperous wastes money that could have gone toward creating the best forward-looking, high-tech jobs in industries that have been rewarded by voluntary consumer demand. As seen throughout history, government command and control policies substitute the limited centralized knowledge and harmful market interference of dictatorial bureaucrats for the most advanced, decentralized knowledge of those specialists who must produce the best products and ideas that the populace actually wants as arranged through the voluntary associations and interactions of a free market, based on supply and demand. Government brute force and top-down imposition of "society's priorities" are enemies of innovation and prosperity. There are good reasons why government reallocation of resources into developing technologies that the public is not willing to voluntarily invest in so often fail to produce the desired results. Coercive bureaucracies are protected from the law of supply and demand and therefore disconnected from objective reality and feasibility, lack the best innovative minds in the private workforce, are highly susceptible to cronyism and petty politics, and are inherently monopolistic, uncompetitive, and wasteful. Allowing all participants in society to promote technological advancement through voluntary dealings in the marketplace is morally and economically superior than having a Technology Czar pick winners and losers, based on the inherent incomplete knowledge, political ideology, and biases such an individual will have. Prosperity and innovation cannot be achieved at the point of a government gun, just as endless government programs, regulations, takeovers, and bailouts will not "fix" our economy. America's greatness is founded on the premise that government's proper role is to protect our rights, not trample them. Government creates no wealth, but it certainly destroys it. That's why the nations with the highest degree of economic freedom have the highest GDP and most innovation!



at 1/20/2009 4:28:57 PM, John Galt said:
Again, Obama blames the "free market" for our economic crisis when government created institutions and policies pushed junk loans to lower income borrowers with the implicit promise of a bailout awaiting the foolish risk=taking lenders. Now a long line of the least profitable and most incompetent businesses are lining up for their own place at the government trough. Obama and other statists think that a Technology Czar will save the day. This will work about as well as other government-run programs for the same reasons. Seizing wealth from "the prosperous" to fund bureaucracies, low-skill make-work job programs, "snake-oil" promises of a green utopia, and trickle-down welfare payments to the unprosperous wastes money that could have gone toward creating the best forward-looking, high-tech jobs in industries that have been rewarded by voluntary consumer demand. As seen throughout history, government command and control policies substitute the limited centralized knowledge and harmful market interference of dictatorial bureaucrats for the most advanced, decentralized knowledge of those specialists who must produce the best products and ideas that the populace actually wants as arranged through the voluntary associations and interactions of a free market, based on supply and demand. Government brute force and top-down imposition of "society's priorities" are enemies of innovation and prosperity. There are good reasons why government reallocation of resources into developing technologies that the public is not willing to voluntarily invest in so often fail to produce the desired results. Coercive bureaucracies are protected from the law of supply and demand and therefore disconnected from objective reality and feasibility, lack the best innovative minds in the private workforce, are highly susceptible to cronyism and petty politics, and are inherently monopolistic, uncompetitive, and wasteful. Allowing all participants in society to promote technological advancement through voluntary dealings in the marketplace is morally and economically superior than having a Technology Czar pick winners and losers, based on the inherent incomplete knowledge, political ideology, and biases such an individual will have. Prosperity and innovation cannot be achieved at the point of a government gun, just as endless government programs, regulations, takeovers, and bailouts will not "fix" our economy. America's greatness is founded on the premise that government's proper role is to protect our rights, not trample them. Government creates no wealth, but it certainly destroys it. That's why the nations with the highest degree of economic freedom have the highest GDP and most innovation!



at 1/20/2009 4:54:36 PM, Mr. Write said:
Hello John, I must respond to your rhetoric with a bit of common sense. You see, it is people with attitudes such as yours that have gotten us into this pickle to begin with. We must change direction or we will all perish. Do you understand and all means? If only a few have the money the others cannot buy ANYTHING no matter how wonderful it may be. Supply &




at 1/20/2009 4:55:58 PM, Mr. Write said:
Hello John, I must respond to your rhetoric with a bit of common sense. You see, it is people with attitudes such as yours that have gotten us into this pickle to begin with. We must change direction or we will all perish. Do you understand and all means? If only a few have the money the others cannot buy ANYTHING no matter how wonderful it may be. Supply and demand economics only works for the wealthy. Trickle down economics has only increased the number of poor while the wealthy few have seen their ill-gotten gains (off the backs of the down trodden) increase 100 fold. It is up to us to make this work and not the over-paid corporate elite who have caused so many of these problems with their short-sighted greed. We need people to stand up, take charge, fire the ones who only look to rip people off. I look forward to doign my part to making this country a better place, to help right the wrongs of the last decade, help others improve their lot in life. I will do all of this WITHOUT a hand out from the government. I will do this because it is the right thing to do. I will do this because I believe in President Obama and what he stands for - the good in all of us, something that has been sorely missing from the wealthy elite that have been pushing their agenda down our throats.




at 1/20/2009 7:14:56 PM, Mr Right said:
Let's just recognize Obama as the Marxist really he is. There is no question that socialism and communism has NEVER succeeded - nor has it ever improved the life of its subjects.

If you disbelieve that Obama's polical philosophy hard to the radical left (read as Marxist), just look at those that are Obama's closest associates - they are ALL radical leftists - period. Many of these people are hugely dangerous.

Take to heart Obama's comment (in his inauguration speech) that Americans need to lower their expectations. How would lowering our sight dispositon us to succeed. What if Bill Gates (like Windoze or not) had accepted such a defeatist attitude. Do you how how many jobs Microsoft provides? That's how the money getes spread around (to counter Mr. Write's idiotic comment).

Government jobs DO NOT add to the economy - period!

About the change that Obama promised, it isn't eliminating corrution in Washington - it is a change and move quickly to the left. And in support of that there NO change in the dubious people he's appointed to his cabinet (12 Clintonistas for example - including Gonzalas who pardoned Mark Rich - a criminal financier. Gonzalas also pardon terrorists that actually killed people - this is an outrage!




at 1/20/2009 8:18:25 PM, jimmymac said:
He did not inspire, motivate, or capture the imagination of the average American. Let alone the technology community.

This was his chance! He will probably be an average President at best. Not what we need right now.



at 1/21/2009 5:06:11 AM, arclight said:
All: This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. Just look at the comments submitted to date. Kind of sad to see the same battles being fought over and over again. First of three comments:

1. It's a hard fact that government jobs of every kind do add economic activity, but THEY DO NOT EXPAND THE ECONOMY, because IT REQUIRES WELL MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR IN TAXES TO SUPPLY ONE DOLLAR OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. It ALWAYS does, even if the expenditure is on national defense or transportation or the space program or PBS or the National Endowment for the Arts or whatever. An expansive government is expensive even if it is doing things that people believe must be done, and does them well. Folks will point to the space program spinoffs as evidence that this is not true. Not exactly...the spinoffs only expanded the economy AFTER they stopped depending on government funding and created sufficient new wealth to offset the developmental cost to start with. Just math, folks, which we are supposed to be experts at. The same thing, by the way, can well be said about the paper-kiting schemes that the financial community has been engaged in for the past 25 or so years (started in the mid 80s with AIG, and continued with both parties in charge of both Congress and the White House). These schemes don't create REAL NEW WEALTH either, because there's nothing at the heart of what they have done. It's all just paper.



at 1/21/2009 5:06:11 AM, arclight said:
All: This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. Just look at the comments submitted to date. Kind of sad to see the same battles being fought over and over again. First of three comments:

1. It's a hard fact that government jobs of every kind do add economic activity, but THEY DO NOT EXPAND THE ECONOMY, because IT REQUIRES WELL MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR IN TAXES TO SUPPLY ONE DOLLAR OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. It ALWAYS does, even if the expenditure is on national defense or transportation or the space program or PBS or the National Endowment for the Arts or whatever. An expansive government is expensive even if it is doing things that people believe must be done, and does them well. Folks will point to the space program spinoffs as evidence that this is not true. Not exactly...the spinoffs only expanded the economy AFTER they stopped depending on government funding and created sufficient new wealth to offset the developmental cost to start with. Just math, folks, which we are supposed to be experts at. The same thing, by the way, can well be said about the paper-kiting schemes that the financial community has been engaged in for the past 25 or so years (started in the mid 80s with AIG, and continued with both parties in charge of both Congress and the White House). These schemes don't create REAL NEW WEALTH either, because there's nothing at the heart of what they have done. It's all just paper.



at 1/21/2009 5:06:47 AM, arclight said:
Second of three comments:

It was inevitable that competing ideologies would be injected into this, since this country has since the late 1960s been locked in an undeclared Cold Civil War between competing ideologies. It's truly sad to see so many folks continue to fight those battles, and to view every new problem, every policy issue, even daily life from those viewpoints. What's worse is that the backers of the different ideologies have continued from that time to today to try to hijack the government to assist them in enshrining their ideology as supreme and forcing other citizens to bend to it. Some of the ideologies are religious in nature, some of them are not. It doesn't matter: ALL such efforts fail first to acknowledge the right defined in our country's founding documents of every person to freely believe and proclaim that belief (or not) as they wish. They fail second by not recognizing that "the consent of the governed" is supposed to be at the heart of what our government does. Finally, all such efforts drastically raise the cost of government with very little benefit, because both money and time that would otherwise be spent benefitting the country as a whole must be diverted so the partisans can battle each other over and over again. Think very hard before you declare your hands clean here. More to the point, what are you going to do today and tomorrow and the next day to keep your hands clean here? What are you going to do to uphold the right of the fellow you disagree with to believe and proclaim his belief that you disagree with? Or are you one of the partisans?



at 1/21/2009 5:06:47 AM, arclight said:
Second of three comments:

It was inevitable that competing ideologies would be injected into this, since this country has since the late 1960s been locked in an undeclared Cold Civil War between competing ideologies. It's truly sad to see so many folks continue to fight those battles, and to view every new problem, every policy issue, even daily life from those viewpoints. What's worse is that the backers of the different ideologies have continued from that time to today to try to hijack the government to assist them in enshrining their ideology as supreme and forcing other citizens to bend to it. Some of the ideologies are religious in nature, some of them are not. It doesn't matter: ALL such efforts fail first to acknowledge the right defined in our country's founding documents of every person to freely believe and proclaim that belief (or not) as they wish. They fail second by not recognizing that "the consent of the governed" is supposed to be at the heart of what our government does. Finally, all such efforts drastically raise the cost of government with very little benefit, because both money and time that would otherwise be spent benefitting the country as a whole must be diverted so the partisans can battle each other over and over again. Think very hard before you declare your hands clean here. More to the point, what are you going to do today and tomorrow and the next day to keep your hands clean here? What are you going to do to uphold the right of the fellow you disagree with to believe and proclaim his belief that you disagree with? Or are you one of the partisans?



at 1/21/2009 5:07:26 AM, arclight said:
This nation is some $54.5 TRILLION in debt (that counts the "recognized" debt of about 10.7 TRILLION dollars, the 825 billion about to be passed in the stimulus, and the ~43 TRILLION in unfunded Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid obligations). Whatever direction we ask our government to set (whether free market, or regulated, or whatever), and whatever new spending we ask them to do, we had better be asking them first to focus on dealing with this debt with integrity. Perhaps the person(s) who are best serving the country are not the ones fighting for a given ideology but the ones who are holding our feet to the fire on our debt.



at 1/21/2009 5:07:26 AM, arclight said:
This nation is some $54.5 TRILLION in debt (that counts the "recognized" debt of about 10.7 TRILLION dollars, the 825 billion about to be passed in the stimulus, and the ~43 TRILLION in unfunded Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid obligations). Whatever direction we ask our government to set (whether free market, or regulated, or whatever), and whatever new spending we ask them to do, we had better be asking them first to focus on dealing with this debt with integrity. Perhaps the person(s) who are best serving the country are not the ones fighting for a given ideology but the ones who are holding our feet to the fire on our debt.



at 1/21/2009 9:39:34 AM, John Galt said:
Mr. White, like many other ignorant Americans, is sorely in need of a lesson in morality and basic economics. Where does he derive the parasitic right for some to use brute force to steal from others to support them? He also obviously believes in the thoroughly discredited Keynesian broken window fallacy, which views any counterproductive activity that requires visible new spending as an economic panacea, while ignoring that which is not seen, such as the net loss of productivity by taking away from the productive elements of society that could have led to increased prosperity and economic expansion. Government redistribution schemes aren't free and it's ironically the poor that suffer most in countries that most aggressively practice them. Making people chronically dependent on government welfare or workfare programs only helps bureaucrats and politicians who gain a living from such plunderous activities. History has shown us many times that the types of "caring", redistributionist policies that Mr. White supports do not work. The best economists recognize that it was overtaxing, protectionism, and overregulation that turned a recession into America's Great Depression. Today's lessons are seen in European welfare states and places like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. We emulate such governments at our own peril. Look it up, the freest economies always have the highest per capita standard of living. The poorest in the most free nations have a standard of living that far exceeds many of the "rich" in socialist slave states. The surest way to perish is to follow the path of Marx and his disciples by pretending that government creates wealth and seizing most of the wealth of the most successful and productive in a free society leads to Utopia. Trying to enforce economic equality only ensures that everyone but the rulers will be impoverished.



at 1/21/2009 9:39:35 AM, John Galt said:
Mr. White, like many other ignorant Americans, is sorely in need of a lesson in morality and basic economics. Where does he derive the parasitic right for some to use brute force to steal from others to support them? He also obviously believes in the thoroughly discredited Keynesian broken window fallacy, which views any counterproductive activity that requires visible new spending as an economic panacea, while ignoring that which is not seen, such as the net loss of productivity by taking away from the productive elements of society that could have led to increased prosperity and economic expansion. Government redistribution schemes aren't free and it's ironically the poor that suffer most in countries that most aggressively practice them. Making people chronically dependent on government welfare or workfare programs only helps bureaucrats and politicians who gain a living from such plunderous activities. History has shown us many times that the types of "caring", redistributionist policies that Mr. White supports do not work. The best economists recognize that it was overtaxing, protectionism, and overregulation that turned a recession into America's Great Depression. Today's lessons are seen in European welfare states and places like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. We emulate such governments at our own peril. Look it up, the freest economies always have the highest per capita standard of living. The poorest in the most free nations have a standard of living that far exceeds many of the "rich" in socialist slave states. The surest way to perish is to follow the path of Marx and his disciples by pretending that government creates wealth and seizing most of the wealth of the most successful and productive in a free society leads to Utopia. Trying to enforce economic equality only ensures that everyone but the rulers will be impoverished.



at 1/23/2009 11:56:45 AM, Cooler Heads Will Prevail said:
Agreed with arclight on at least one thing - the sort of diatribe found in (most of) these comments certainly is sad ... in fact, President Obama spoke against just this sort of behavior in his inaugural address ("On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.").

And, while we're examining the record - a few corrections for Mr Right:

- President Obama did not say that Americans need to lower their expectations; rather, he said "These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. -- Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met." It doesn't sound like a concession to me ...

- What is a Gonzalas? Concerning the pardoning of Mark Rich, I believe that Eric Holder is the party of interest (although, of course, it was President Clinton that actually made the pardon)



at 1/24/2009 2:37:36 PM, John Galt said:
It's amazing how far some can go to deny reality and cling to beliefs based on well-worded propaganda. So pointing out economic facts and the lessons of history about the failures of socialism is "rhetoric", while uncritical acceptance of the grandeur of failed 1960s and 1970s policies repackaged and sold by a talented politician as "unity, hope, and change" are treated as absolutes. To the extent our new president advances liberty and all of its proven benefits, I shall credit him. If you want to wave pom-poms for every thrill he gives you, don't expect anyone with an independent, rational mind to join you. It's funny how Obama and the Democrats are labeling anyone who dares to take a principled opposing stance on new legislation they want to ram through as petty and divisive. Yet you can bet that they will do little compromising on their stance, while ignoring all of the partisan obstacles they erected when they were in the minority. Apparently it's only unifying if you cave in to the left, but never if you support increasing liberty. I agree with Obama in the importance of civility in politics, but civility does not require blind support of a radical, wrong agenda. Unfortunately he is not off to a great start, pushing even more of the same bailout socialism and interventionist government as the disappointing Bush administration.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2010 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

ADVERTISEMENT
You will be redirected to your destination in a few seconds.