Christina Lampe-Onnerud
Credit: Boston Power
Energy
Why Boston Power Went to China
Christina Lampe-Onnerud, founder of the battery startup, discusses the advantages of moving the company's manufacturing and research to China.
- Tuesday, December 6, 2011
- By Kevin Bullis
While it's normal for established technology companies to turn to low-cost Asian manufacturing, lately even very young companies have been heading east.
A prominent example is Boston Power, a startup based in Westborough, Massachusetts, that's developing longer-lasting, higher-capacity lithium-ion batteries.
The company has won widespread recognition for its technology, and lists HP and Mercedes-Benz among its early customers. But in 2009, it failed to get a $100 million grant it had applied for as part of the U.S. Recovery Act, and in late 2011, the Chinese government stepped in with a package of $125 million in venture capital, low interest loans, and grants.
Now Boston Power is building a factory in China that can make enough batteries for 20,000 electric cars. It's also building a new R&D and engineering facility there.
Boston Power's founder, Christina Lampe-Onnerud, says money was only a part of China's draw. Recently she talked to Technology Review senior editor Kevin Bullis about the other attractions China has to offer, the impact the move could have on U.S. innovation, and what it takes for a newcomer to take on big battery manufacturers.
TR: What makes China attractive to young technology companies?
Lampe-Onnerud: It's not like China is all good and the U.S. is all bad. It's not that simple. We love being based in the United States for the innovation culture. Boston is a phenomenal community where there's a lot of support and infrastructure for innovators and entrepreneurs. What China has given us is scale and recognition, very, very high up in the bureaucracy.
The premier of China invited me to meet with him. In the United States, well, I understand that I cannot speak to President Obama, but could I speak to someone in the administration? It would be good for me to know at least what my country wants to do. I could not get through. We would love to do manufacturing in the U.S., but if China is more eager and more hungry, that's where we will go.
Although you're based in the U.S., you've long had connections to Asia. What was the attraction in the beginning?
When we set up the company, we went immediately to China to do prototypes. In the U.S., the idea was, you could run pilot trials, but pay $1 million up front. And I'm like, "I'm not going to pay you a million dollars. I don't even know if it works."
In China, I was able to make our prototypes in production facilities. I paid for the materials and we were able to do small runs. I was there donating time to the team at the factory, sharing my insights from 15 years in the battery industry, so it was more like a trade. We had working prototypes two months into the journey, and I paid for it out of my Bank of America savings account—$5,000 or $6,000 per run.
- 1
- 2
Related Articles
China Beckons for Green-Energy Startups
Boston Power's move reflects China's willingness to provide incentives for companies in strategic industries.
China Spends More on Clean Energy than the U.S.
A report suggests that the U.S. is losing its edge in the clean energy market.
netitout
4 Comments
- 532 Days Ago
- 12/06/2011
Boston Power, It's just business.
As an American, I don't begrudge Christina Lampe-Onnerud getting some love from her homeland, Europe nor taking her business to China. This as long as we, the American taxpayers, haven't unwittingly enabled another foreign based manufacturer to have an advantage over our own American counter parts.
While in the US did she have access to superior R&D services, in part funded directly or indirectly by US taxpayers? And as such was Boston Power able to develop new IP allowing it to become an attractive source of IP to the Chinese. Sounds like quite a bit of technology transfer has been going on with more planned.
If there is any US government ownership interest to her IP portfolio that enables this business venture I say we scuttle it or at least have some one hold up the US's interest. I'm looking to get a higher rate of return on my tax dollars. Nothing personal, it's just good business.
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
It may not be business in a simple sense.
The US Government and current leadership were so gung-ho about Global Warming they were able to convince the voters to get them into the seats of power, yet EVERYTHING this Administration has done since then has been contrary to those original beliefs. Green-Green-Green was their rallying cry. TaxMoney-TaxMoney-TaxMoney was their band-aid.
Now we have a failed Solyndra, A123 laying off workers, suspect electric vehicle quality issues from the domestic automakers and more and more brain-drain technological transfers going to China BECAUSE these companies can't get funded.
If there was a conspiracy theory lurking in my mind, its based on the fact that the LESS oil China uses means we (the US) has more for our needs. The US CANNOT BE THIS STUPID so there has to be some freakin reason we keep shooting ourselves in the foot. We have smart people and excellent schools and colleges, great engineering, 1st class manufacturing and a culture that fosters original thinking.
IMHO - this makes no sense at a broad level, so something else has to be going on. The Solyndra debacle and Steve Chen's "sorry about that" explanation just don't cut it with me. Chinese companies swooped in and picked up all that equipment for 10 cents on the dollar and shipped it home and this Administration let them do it.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
Now we have a failed Solyndra, A123 laying off workers, suspect electric vehicle quality issues...
Fox News much?
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
Yes actually it pays to stay informed.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
Wow, if you think you're being informed by Fox news, then I think I have a couple of bridges to sell you around here somewhere...
mkogrady
425 Comments
chir0pter
17 Comments
yotab
56 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
Cheney and co. spent $3.7 trillion in Iraq on a wild goose chase courtesy of the US taxpayers, makes solyndra seem like small potatoes
GaryB
119 Comments
- 525 Days Ago
- 12/13/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
Iraq: $61B in no-bid contracts. Solyndra is just noise. I bet if we had funded 121 Solyndras, we'd have gotten something. I personally think that its better for the Government to really support research than to fund companies and that one day the Chinese government's role in controlling their companies will sink them, but Solyndra is just, as they say, a red herring.
chir0pter
17 Comments
- 516 Days Ago
- 12/22/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
I think you're getting the wrong message- the US lost out because it didn't have ENOUGH government meddling in market-making and investment for green tech companies, relative to China. You savvy now?
Then again, why even respond to someone who trusts the physicists when they're making a better battery cathode but not when they're modeling climate dynamics..
yotab
56 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: Boston Power, It's just business.
America treated Boston Power like a stray dog. What to do when china has open arms? Though Boston power may still yet regret that decision!
dmillerfla
21 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
I don't understand the comment: "(When we set up the company, we went immediately to China to do prototypes. In the U.S., the idea was, you could run pilot trials, but pay $1 million up front. And I'm like, "I'm not going to pay you a million dollars. I don't even know if it works.")" Why would she have to pay One Million Dollars for pilot trials?
elidyl
2 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
It is a bit confusing. Maybe she means in US her own company has to put up the money for pilot trials (before attracting government or venture capital funds from private sector). This does seem to be how the DOE and stimulus grant programs worked, drawing on a public/private partnership model for "shovel ready" projects rather than direct grants, and funds for the earliest stages of product development (as it appears China is doing).
Kevin Bullis
179 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Here's some clarification from Lampe-Onnerud:
"In 2005, China already had 200+ battery factories; many with some idle production capacity. I was able to tour quite a few, all of which were interested in partnering with me to enable pilot runs on a real production line in exchange for advisor/extended exec help.
In the US at that time, there were very few production facilities or R&D lines and none able to allow continuous production with stop/start options for 6-12 months. So, I got either too long lead times or too long secure runs which did not work - and as a global company of one, I went where I could get results in a timely fashion at a price we could afford.... It turned out to really fast track our start of this journey!"
shomas
246 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
On the upfront cost of doing business.
There is a solution that would lower the upfront cost of doing business. Simply change the way we tax. I realize that the article has little to do with taxes but the way we tax effects everything to include how much it cost business upfront and the strain it puts on cash flow. Hear is a simplified model to illustrate the issue. Say I buy a paint brush for $20 and a $80 step ladder to get started as a painter. If at the end of the year I am to pay an 8% income tax and a 15% self employment tax, then deducting $100 from my taxable income saves me from paying $23 in taxes. If the after tax deduction savings is applied to my original purchase, my equipment cost would net $77. Now if we replace all production taxes with a revenue neutral retail sales tax(no tax on business to business), then I would simply collect the tax from my retail consumers, and my tools would drop in cost to $77 with out any production taxes embedded. the difference being under our present system I had to come up with $100 to get started; where as with a retail sales tax, I only need $77. The difference is $23 or 23% which may seem small, but when were talking about building a million dollar production facility a company ends up financing the cost of embedded taxes in the construction of the building. Further more to realize the full benefit of deducting the construction of a new facility, it is often amortized over 30 years which significantly delays the complete removal of cascaded income taxes.
Further more the situation is even worse with small upstart companies that may not see a profit for several years or are heavily invested in R&D. Apparently Boston power is both a new upstart and heavily invested in R&D. Every one knows deductions are worth more when you have a net income to deduct from, and so larger more established companies have an advantage with tax deductions because we progressively tax income.
kbillet
60 Comments
- 510 Days Ago
- 12/28/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Down on Manufacturing!
The US congress and social service sectors view manufacturing as capitalistic and Evil [Bad]! That is why these taxes are the way they are. Government, including school systems will only continue to let manufacturing exist if they can treat it as a cash cow [Drain it's Blood]! Tax it heavily to provide for [themselves], Schools, more government etc, all the things they profess as "Good"!
Well, they have totally desimated manufacturing [Spit on it].
Those whom produce are subserviant to these folks. These folks, whom profess that they know better than manufacturing folks, do not understand that wealth, and shared wealth originates from having a strong manufacturing base. Be it not for manufacturing folks and their briliant ingenious inventions, these folks would not be able to experience the standard of living and the lifestyles they enjoy!
Being a person associated with manufacturing in this country gets you [No] respect! These attitudes and perceptions need to change!
They need to [Value] not [De-Value] the manufacturing sector of our society. Young people need to be taught the value and importance of a society having a manufacturing base.
Oh! that's right we need to be competative.
Manufacturing persons are greedy and lazy [The Big Lie]. Maybe your child can work for 97¢ an hour. If it's all about money? Then continue sending all manufacturing abroad so that your children can be subservient to these countries that exploit worker because they can.
Well, we in the US got what we ask for.
Good luck China, take us, you win the REAL WAR!
The greedy [US Gov, & Wealthy folks] in the US are getting what they bargained for! The rest of us suffer at the hands of their [GREED/POWER]. Something to think about!
Sad but true comentary. Say it isn't true!
I'm thankful for the comentaries being written on this forum.
Best Regards,
shomas
246 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
On my previous point of embedded tax, it would further help US companies if the Federal government stopped taxing domestic productivity which are biased against domestic production and taxed consumption of imports and domestic items the same. To see the problem lets look at the Chinese pay many taxes among which is a 17%VAT that is reimbursed to the producer when it is exported. The Chinese then sell their product hear freed of embedded taxes, while if you produce hear, your consumers not only pay the embedded cost of your taxes, but your Chinese consumers pay the embedded cost of your taxes and their governments 17% VAT. Ninety eight percent of all imports into America come from a country like China with a 17 VAT, Mexico with a 16 VAT, Canada with its 13% goods and service tax. From the perspective of a consumer, our domestic production taxes look more like a hidden sin tax (as if to say how dare you buy America), and has significantly contributed to our trade deficit.
Eliminating bias against productivity will make America a more attractive place to produce in. If any one is interested in looking further into a solution, have a look at congressional bill h.r.25
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Yes. We need to raise tariffs back to historical norms -- simple as that -- to counter this tax advantage (and cost of labor advantage, and lack of environmental-responsibility advantage) that imports to the U.S. currently have.
shomas
246 Comments
- 515 Days Ago
- 12/23/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Since a production tax from the point of a consumer is a hidden consumption tax, if we eliminate the taxes biased against domestic production and tax consumption of domestic items and imports the same, then we would not need tariffs to make American companies more competitive.
Eliminating production taxes makes American companies more competitive in both domestic and international markets. Keeping production taxes in the cost of our exports along with a tariff on imports only makes American products more competitive in her domestic markets with out impacting her competitiveness in international markets. Furthermore tariffs will tend towards trade wars that may be averted if we make free trade, free and fair trade with the Fairtax.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 504 Days Ago
- 01/03/2012
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Forgive me for responding to your posts in reverse order (bottom of the web page to the top). I will try to make my response here free of the context of my other responses.
We don't need to tax domestic and imports the same, we need to tax imports more, to counter e.g. lower labor and environmental costs.
Also note that FairTax would make our own labor costs even higher than they are now, because it would complete the shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the upper levels of the poor. Yes, workers' income taxes be gone, but the increased sales taxes they would be paying would much more than counter this. Sales taxes would have to, because of the shift in burden I just mentioned. The labor market would then price wages up to counter for this increased tax burden on workers.
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Taxes are part of the solution. The other is to make sure any of our incentives for renewable energy and EV technologies are based on US Content. If 100% of the batteries in an EV car ar US MAde, then the tax offsets should be weighted at 100%.
The Prius and Leaf are 0% made in the US, yet they are recognized as fuel efficient and the buyers get tax credits. The GM Volt is 40% US Content and gets 100% of the tax credits. Solar installations using foreign made panels get 100% of the tax credits.
It would be nice if China and Japan put up some of the money for those tax credits. Otherwise, they should price all their goods at least 30% cheaper so US consumers can afford them without any tax credits.
yotab
56 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
We spend close to $400 billion importing oil, hoe about a Tariff on that? This would result in more efficient cars. And a whole lot of cash to invest in the good old US of A
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
We also pay subsidies to mature industries.
Abdussamad
15 Comments
- 524 Days Ago
- 12/14/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
There is already a tax on oil in your country. I live in Pakistan and even I know that. It's amazing how little Americans know about their own country!
shomas
246 Comments
- 515 Days Ago
- 12/23/2011
Re: One Million for Pilot Trials?
Mr Abdussamad, American taxes on oil are not tariffs. They are excise tax's that are levied the same on both imports and domestic sources. The difference is tariffs are biased and levied against importation only.
shomas
246 Comments
- 515 Days Ago
- 12/23/2011
We can do a lot better then a tariff
People acustomed to thinking of taxing income aften jump to tariffs but we can do better then a tariff.
Tariffs only increase the cost of consuming an import to drive people to consume more domestic sources, but we can balance trade by both increasing exports and decrease imports if we eliminate production taxes and raise the same revenue with an unbiased progressive national retail sales tax like the FairTax.
While balanced trade is good and both countries benefit, tariffs lead to trade wars or worse and every one suffers. As to switching tax burden away from production to consumption? virtually every country we trade with is doing this, and in 2008 accounts for an estimated $518 billion dollar “border tax” disadvantage to U.S. producers which contributed significantly to the trade deficit.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 504 Days Ago
- 01/03/2012
Re: We can do a lot better then a tariff
Tariffs worked well for this country for 200 years, until they started being dismantled under Reagan. Yes, a sudden increase in a particular tariff can trigger a "trade war", but gradually restoring tariffs to historical norms wouldn't do that, because they would be countering the tariffs that our trading partners still levy on our exports (among other advantages, such as lax environmental laws).
To bring it back to the point of this article: China is essentially already waging with a trade war against us in many areas; so far we have been unilaterally surrendering.
And your "FairTax" proposal would only make matters worse, by increasing domestic labor costs and decreasing the political power of the average American (see my other responses to you here today).
MATR
94 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
What I would really want to know, but don't have a clear idea on because the information is inferred rather than stated, is what specific policies of our Government have made it more advantageous for this startup to launch itself in China rather than the US?
The upshot is that our innovators are bringing their knowledge, skills and resources to China, which in the short run may prove beneficial to them, but in the long run may wind up a sacrifice that was not worth the temporary advantages. For example, as one possibility among many, how will the owners of small entrepreneurial firms feel if and when China decides to nationalize their facilities? Do they honestly believe that is not possible? I would say that if they believe that they are being naive. It is something that they should consider before entering into terms with China.
Again, though, I would want to know what specific US policies are responsible for the conditions that have lead American innovators to feel compelled to launch their enterprises in China, and who, specifically, is responsible for those policies. I realize that may be a difficult question to answer for several reasons, most of them political, but I would submit that this is what we need to know, and resolve. And sooner rather than later.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
From the clarification above, it had a great deal to do with manufacturing capacity already ready to go.
So another layer of the question, why is the manufacturing capacity in the US less, or simply less flexible?
Maybe it has to do with 50% tax rates 20% regulatory overhead, and so many regulations on businesses that it practically takes an act of congress to bring products to market?
Maybe.
shomas
246 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
Speaking of taxes and regulatory burden.
For 2010 all tax revenue the CBO estimates to be about $2.2 trillion while it is estimated that Americans spent roughly 431 billion just to prepare and collect taxes. At almost 20% of what is collected, most of it is in addition to what is collected.
We need to simplify the process.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Actually, I'd wager that most of that tax overhead cost is what's being paid to high-priced accountants and lawyers (for corporations and for the rich) to figure out how to dodge as much tax burden as possible. The differences, for example, between income and dividend taxes can make this a lucrative activity.
shomas
246 Comments
- 515 Days Ago
- 12/23/2011
I would say quite a bit.
If $431 billion is spread out across every one in America, it would average more then $1,300 for each man woman and child.
My wife and I spend no ware near $2,600 to to have our taxes prepared, but as consumers all Americans pay for the cost of corporate tax lawyers and accountants in every loaf of bread, shirt, and auto we buy.
Further more if companies do not spend the money they do, to as you put it "dodge as much tax burden as possible", a higher tax burden might close the profit margin entirely as domestic companies struggle to compete against imports. For example, say you sell widgets witch I use in making gadgets, but government raises the hidden cost of taxes. You then are forced to pass those cost along to me. If my Gadgets are priced the same their imported competition, then the increased cost of your widgets may just eat any profit left. So i close my shop and open up in China. My American workers are left unemployed, and your selling fewer widgets then before the tax hike, forcing you to lay off some employees as well.
So the question is then how can we streamline tax perpetration cost and make it cheaper to produce in America. I propose that the FairTax (a 134 page bill) replace nearly 70,000 pages of IRS tax code.
Seriously, every tax is payed because there was a consumer. With out him there is no profit or sale to tax. The consumer ends up paying the cost of an income tax so long as it is possible for the domestic producer to compete.
If any one doubts that consumers pay the cost of income taxes, then i suggest taking a look at taxable corporate bonds, and tax free municipal bonds. If your in a 30% income tax bracket, a 7% corporate bond and 5% tax free municipal bond of the same risk have roughly the same after tax or no tax yield. Answer these questions
1. Who is paying the 2% premium to the corporate bond investor? The company.
2. Why? To pay the investors tax on his taxable income.
3. Who is paying the company? The consumer.
But what about companies that don't have bond holders? There is no reason to expect shareholders and other proprietors to not look at investing in lower taxing jurisdictions or moving assets to tax free sources. All taxes and all tax collection cost are passed onto the final consumer.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 504 Days Ago
- 01/03/2012
I just looked at fairtax.org, assuming that's what you're talking about. So it's a flat federal sales tax to replace the federal income & related taxes.
So, ok, it's simpler. A radical change to our system to address a minor problem with it. Ok.
It claims to be "progressive" by giving a small "prebate" to families. Looking at the amounts, this would prevent the FairTax from utterly decimating the poorest people, but that's a far stretch from calling it progressive.
I don't want to take too long with this, so let's just look at the high level: the only justifiable times that money can be taxed are the times when it really exists -- and that's when it's changing hands. That means money received in income, and money spent in expenditures. FairTax really just proposes shifting from the "income" point in the economy to the other side of the circle, expenditures.
Now, it's worth reviewing some of the fundamental motivations behind the idea of progressive taxation. One is for the state to tax people in a way that aligns with how much they actually utilize the state's infrastructure -- and the rich tend to place a greatly heavier burden on the system, because of their greater power, e.g. in the court system. Another is to fight against the self-acellerating property of wealth (the "rich get richer" concept). Attacking the monetary power of the wealthiest reduces their tendency to have undue power over everyone else. Finally, let me just quote what one wealthy European industrialist told an incredulous American reporter recently, on why he was fine with paying over 50% of his income in taxes: "I don't want to be a rich man living in a poor country."
I don't see how FairTax can accomplish any of the goals above. By shifting taxation from personal income to personal expenditures, you lose nearly all ability of the system to accomplish any of these desired effects, because expenditures drop off enormously as a percentage of wealth, as that wealth exceeds certain levels. Income (from all sources), on the other hand, will tend to be highly correlated with wealth, over time.
So the FairTax system would go to great lengths to make the system simpler, in exchange for the final death of the middle class (with no hope of resurrection), and the permanent dominance of the wealthiest elite. And, therefore, the effective death of democracy.
Doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me.
shomas
246 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
One school of thought may say the federal government did not give them enough corporate welfare tax credits to lower their tax burden. Well maybe they wouldn't use the term corporate welfare.
Another school of thought will say many problems arise from taxing income in a global market. One can view a CBS 60 minute segment New tax Havens that shows how top corporate management jobs, production jobs, IT jobs and intellectual property are being exported from this country because of our tax system. It needs Changing
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
what specific policies of our Government have made it more advantageous for this startup to launch itself in China rather than the US?
In a nutshell, China just wants it more.
1. They accept the reality of global warming, and realize that the technologies to combat it will become central to the global economy for perhaps centuries to come. They also are acutely aware of how bad the pollution is from their own factories, and making e.g. coal plants obsolete will win those in power a lot of domestic public favor, over a very long time horizon.
For the case of Boston Power, this in turn led to the early excess battery-production capacity that facilitated Boston Power's startup needs.
2. China levies import tariffs on foreign goods, especially for industries that they are intensively trying to develop domestically (so that includes all green tech). Any U.S. company has to have production located within China if it wants access to that market. In contrast, no such barrier exists for U.S. imports, so why bother building a second factory in the U.S., if the shipping costs for the final products are low enough?
3. The lack of vision, and lack of recognition of the need for green tech, on the part of U.S. politicians (read: all Republicans, most libertarians, and some Democrats) has lead to a poverty -- and inconsistency -- of stimulus plans in the U.S. China is thus a more fertile ground than the U.S. for the steps that take innovation to market.
4. The stimulus money that does come about has no "buy domestic" restrictions, so much of the activity spurred by them winds up stimulating China's industries (and those of other countries), rather than recirculating within the U.S. So a grant to, say, a new electric car company may not in turn lead to demand for U.S.-produced batteries.
China's stimuli, on the other hand, are strictly domestic-oriented, so the reverse does not happen.
There are probably more specific factors as well, that I haven't thought of.
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
And China doesn't have the overhead costs of Military Deployments to maintain their Energy, but the US has a staggering amount.
How many billions did we spend in the middle east? If those funds were allocated to enhance our manufacturing capabiltiies, then we would own the global market on Solar and probably batteries.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
How many billions did we spend in the middle east?
Trillions.
Of course, that money doesn't go to the middle east, it goes mainly to defense contractors who skim off enormous profits. All part of the mass migration of the country's wealth into the hands of a very few persons.
fkearney
6 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
I think the strong implication from Lampe-Onnerud is that it's political. She could meet with the Chinese Premier, but couldn't get anyone in the Adminstration to pay attention. They were only interested in rushing $700 billion into the the economy. It's not possible to effectively place that much money where it will do good in so short a time. In our system, the government picks the winners, and often gets it wrong. That's how Solyndra happens. It's done so badly you can't help but wonder about political favors and fraud.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Often? What are the other failures, besides Solyndra? Or is Solyndra a singular example that has been viciously over-hyped by the right-wing media, maybe?
But otherwise, I agree: it's political. China wants green tech, because they see clearly that it's the future. The U.S. wants oil and coal tech, because that's where the money for our politicians' election campaigns comes from.
R Sweeney
72 Comments
- 527 Days Ago
- 12/11/2011
Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corporation debacle is a good example of government choosing winners... or more correctly, choosing losers.
yotab
56 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Cheney's war in Iraq is the biggest loser at $Trillions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for a "Mission Accomplished" Banner.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Cheney's war in Iraq is the biggest loser...
Yes, an example of electing people who decry government waste, who then proceed to prove their point in the biggest way possible. The self-fulfilling prophesy.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
... Synthetic Fuels Corporation debacle...
Ok, if we're talking about the larger scope, I'll give you that one, and also the Ethanol subsidies.
But how about anything relating to the actual loans program that Solyndra's "debacle" involved? You know, the program that was designed to take risks on new technologies? Any other failures there?
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
Ahem - the CHinese Premier isn't owned by Big Oil like our governemnt officials.
Mapou
357 Comments
- 531 Days Ago
- 12/07/2011
I say this figuratively, of course, since some countries are indeed islands. Bravo to Christina Lampe-Onnerud for not being afraid to make the right decision in the face of strong nationalistic antagonism.
The whole world is now a single market, which is as it should be. China is not on another planet or another galaxy. Thanks to modern communication and transportation technologies, China is just our next door neighbor. One does not buy bread at $2 a loaf from one vendor while the next door vendor is selling a better loaf for $1. This is not how you conduct business.
A US citizen bitching against US companies for "selling out to communism or Maoism" is like a resident of Tennessee complaining that McDonald's and Walmart are also conducting business in California and Kentucky. You might as well be barking on the moon.
Edit: The Chinese have migrated to the US in the past for a better market for their labor. Maybe it's time Americans return the favor?
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Ah, that's it. U.S. workers need to emigrate to China, to work in Chinese factories, for low wages, under poor labor standards.
What's to complain about?
P.S. the Chinese still have 800 million in poverty that they'll give those jobs to first. So I guess we can come begging on their doorstep after their economy has expanded to accommodate another 3 America's worth of workers, by your plan.
Mapou
357 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
That's not what I meant. The Chinese helped us develop the old North American frontier. The US economy benefited immensely. What is wrong with us helping them now with their economy? It is not as if they're asking us to work for a bowl of rice a day. I'm sure Christina Lampe-Onnerud and her colleagues will be handsomely compensated for their expertise and hard work.
On another tangent, a sudden breakthrough in AI can put all the 800 million poor Chinese you mentioned and every American worker on the unemployment line within a decade or so.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
What is wrong with us helping them now with their economy?
Uh, I think we've been doing so tremendously in the last 30 years. With the one-sided reductions in our tariffs on their exported goods, we have donated millions upon millions of jobs to them. No, we haven't yet sent actual citizens over there in large numbers yet -- forced to emigrate in search of the opportunities that are no longer present at home -- but if the trickle-down-based economic agenda that dominates the U.S. political scene were to continue unabated, that would probably come to pass in another decade or two. Fortunately, it looks like we might be starting to turn back in the right direction, towards remembering the hard lessons of the 30's.
Basically, we've helped China's economy plenty, self-sacrificing to an enormous degree in the process. I think they can make their own way now.
On another tangent, a sudden breakthrough in AI can put all the 800 million poor Chinese you mentioned and every American worker on the unemployment line within a decade or so.
Rises in productivity, in and of themselves, have not meant mass unemployment for several centuries now. In fact, at least when the legal/political landscape is not under the thumb of the ultra-wealthy, rises in productivity are accompanied by rises in real wages and in quality of life.
The only way that AI could make labor obsolete in totality, which is what you seem to be suggesting, is if the AI constituted a new race of sentient beings who become our caretakers/masters.
Is that what you're predicting will happen in a decade?
kbillet
60 Comments
- 509 Days Ago
- 12/29/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese. Nice Theory! Totally unsupported science? Contemplate this all you warm and fuzzy feel folks. Those 800 million want to eat your lunch! And the Lunch of your children. They want to be at the top of the pecking order. And they will do anything to get your lunch. Including distroying your life, providing you with proverty! Can you blame them? We would do the same in their shoes.
Sorry but that's the way I see it. I'm not a protectionist, nor do I believe in giving the farm away, and allowing effortless stealing without consequences [which is exactly what big business and the US Congress is doing].
They are not looking out after our best interest!
At one time I had been a Manufacturing Engineer. I had been been directed by management to provide company technology sold to others that would have taken them years to assimilate on their own. While we were handing our technology over for a profit, we were also being taught the ethics of maintaining proprietary company information. And this was all legal. I regret to this day, that I didn't tell management to go pound sand! As the foreign competition picked up [using our technology] many whom were good hard working americans faced layoffs [Including myself]. The company downsized, but the leadership of that company still had it's piece of the pie. Just hope they don't give your piece of pie away! Between a rock and a hard place. My family is more important to me than to let them eat my kid's lunch. Been there, done that! Oh, and after the layoff, I never did get to take my kids to see the Grand Canyon as planned!
Happy theorizing you PH'Ds. Get the Picture?
Best Regards,
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
The whole world is now a single market, which is as it should be.
Simple question:
Why?
Why is that as it should be?
I'd like to see the rationale enunciated at least once.
Mapou
357 Comments
- 530 Days Ago
- 12/08/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Because we are one species and we need to get along. That is all.
A common market with few border restrictions promotes good neighborliness. Look at the European union. They used to be at each other's throats. Many tens of millions have died as a result, in the last century alone. Now that they have a common market, they get along fine and there is no threat of wars among them.
If I had to sum up the reasons in one word, it would have to be 'survival'.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
A common market with few border restrictions promotes good neighborliness. ... no threat of wars ...
I wholeheartedly agree with your basic principle here.
Significant trade among countries will prevent the powerful within them from seeing profit in making war among said countries. And I'm not saying to just halt trade. But I don't believe that a "free, unfettered" global market accomplishes the anti-war goal in the long run; it only allows the largest corporations to gain power over governments on all sides. And the current imbalances in our trade with China are spurring what I worry is a growing anti-China sentiment in this country. This concerns me significantly, as my wife is from China (born & raised, all the way through college), and my children are half-Chinese.
I believe that "fair trade" is the sustainable path -- each country protects its domestic industries to the degree needed to build & maintain a healthy middle class, but has no other barriers to trade. Especially encouraged would be trade in cultural items -- movies, shows, cuisine knowledge, etc.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 526 Days Ago
- 12/12/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Actually, I'm rethinking this a bit. Relying solely on market "free trade" connections just means that the power centers migrate from states to the biggest corporations -- fascism writ large, by definition (that's Mussolini's fascism, not the death cult that the Nazis layered on top of it). Sure, you don't have countries waging war, but other ways can be found to enrich the weapons makers, such as the increasing militarization of domestic police forces that we're seeing in the U.S. and U.K., at least. And there always seem to be other little countries to pick on.
There are other ways to facilitate communication among countries. Mutual trade is one of the ingredients, but can't be relied upon exclusively. Those who would profit from war must be denied political power, domestically in each country.
And I don't think the unity of the countries in the E.U. formed because of the dropping of trade barriers among them; rather, it's the reverse -- they dropped the barriers and entered a monetary union precisely because the possibility of wars among them was already eliminated.
Abdussamad
15 Comments
- 524 Days Ago
- 12/14/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Because that has been the policy of western powers for decades. They called it globalisation and the idea was to allow free movement of capital while restricting the movement of labour. The reason they structured it this way was so that western companies could invest in poor countries and exploit the cheap labour there. However the workers in poor countries would not have the same freedom of movement so they couldn't go to where more lucrative labour markets existed i.e. they couldn't migrate to the west easily.
Unfortunately this policy is now backfiring on the west. Almost all manufacturing has moved East and you are left with massive trade deficits, unemployment and loss of manufacturing prowess.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 523 Days Ago
- 12/15/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
Well I knew that. :)
I wanted to see if one of these fools who buys into that ideology could present a coherent reason. This one was reasonably coherent, but this "free trade brings world peace" is one of those ideas that sounds "true" only if you don't think about it too much.
Globalization is backfiring on the people of the West, but the corporations that actually influenced the policies are doing quite well.
kbillet
60 Comments
- 509 Days Ago
- 12/29/2011
Re: A Country Is Not an Island
That's a Great concept and reality!
Maybe you and your Kids will enjoy working for 97¢ an hour!
Best Regards,
david_42
2 Comments
- 529 Days Ago
- 12/09/2011
When I started my company five years ago, there wasn't a single company in the US that was interested in assisting in the development. The only people who returned calls were salesmen wanting to sell me Chinese parts at 500% markups. The company I work with in Taiwan has developed two products at very small margins over their costs. They share in the risk and share in the profits.
US venture capital? They don't do hardware. Small business administration? Need a track record. Bank loans? Only if you don't need them. And Uncle Sam gets his cut whether or not you make money.
rocket7777
124 Comments
- 527 Days Ago
- 12/11/2011
"Money was really not the biggest draw."
"the Chinese government stepped in with a package of $125 million in venture capital"
"The premier of China invited me to meet with him. In the United States, well"
"In the U.S., the idea was, you could run pilot trials, but pay $1 million up front"
Where do we get these people.... Can't even afford $1m... and talk about meeting president. And what???? Money is not an major issue? Oh, I get it... only $125m
"sharing my insights from 15 years in the battery industry"
If former chinese national did this, they will be accused of spying.
markduran
6 Comments
- 525 Days Ago
- 12/13/2011
She's just another cheap B***H using slave labor to get her product to market.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
lasertekk
146 Comments
Really, one reason not stated. No environmental responsibility. They can dump waste and for the right price, officials will look away.
Reply
Abdussamad
15 Comments
Re:
Corruption is a worldwide phenomenon. In absolute monetary terms the US is the most corrupt nation on earth!
And as far as US environmental waste goes it gets dumped on poor countries. Where do you think the wreckage from the WTC towers went? To India! Where do you think obsolete computer and other electronic parts that Americans dump end up? In poor countries in Asia and Africa. I know because I live in one and your used pentium 4 PCs sell like hot cakes here!
Reply