:zzz:

Aren't you assuming that China, India, et al, would pay for that technology and not just use it? Or worse yet, take it, make it, and sell it cheaper to the rest of the world.

Stifling technology is why Honda and Toyota now eat GM's lunch. Stifled technologies resulted in superior Hondas and Toyotas ten and twenty years later. The innovator who does not stifle the innovation always has the inside trace on the next innovation. The market leaders have so much advantage that only the market leader can cause loss of markets.

Making and selling a technology cheaper is why Intel is fighting for it life in microprocessors and memories? Cheaper China means Intel cannot survive? Also explains why platinum coated devices from Johnson Matthey cannot compete against low cost Chinese manufacturers? Michelin can no longer compete against low cost producers? Nonsense. Only if that company stops innovating. Innovators always have the inside track as long as they keep marketing and advancing on their innovations.

US steel companies used a classic business school theory that steel is a smoke stack industry. US steel companies are no longer world class - do not appear in the top ten. They stopped innovating. Instead used business school cost controls.

Companies do not lose business to low cost producers. They intentionally surrender their business by cost controlling - by discontinuing innovation. Innovation is why so many tried to steal Cisco's market - while Cisco's previous innovations made future innovations both possible and faster.

Once a company becomes the world class innovator, low cost producers gain market share only when the company decides to surrender its market - decides to stop innovating.

A principle that applies routinely to free markets. Only way a low cost producer can steal the market? The innovator must decide to stop innovating. What undermined or destroyed DEC, Xerox, Ashton Tate, AT&T, Shugart, etc? Each decided at the highest levels of management to stop innovating. They surrendered their markets.

Of course the greatest myth is a miracle technology bought up and hidden to restrict competition. The 100 MPG carburetor whose patents would have expired decades ago and still cannot be found? Was a myth then. Is still a myth today.

A company who innovates (ie coal to gas) easily dominates that industry due to an inside track.

But were not taking about some little electronic gizmo or disposable product for the fickle, gotta have the latest, consumer. Coal fired plants are a huge investment, slow pay back, long lead time, project. Not something they are going to upgrade every six months.

I understand your reasoning in theory, and see it working in say the chemicals mixed into some sort of plastic or new material in an electronic gizmo, that can be changed with out a ripple in production. But large industrial installations are another animal.

Even refineries are rebuilt (if I remember) every 18 months. No plant is fixed. For example a nearby coal and gas electric plant from the 60s is constantly being upgraded. Accidentally met the plant manager. A latest innovation now means they can startup in something like less than 20 hours.

These big plants are constantly innovating - upgrading and changing hardware and procedures. Many innovations are constant small improvements. Ever work in a semiconductor plant? It never stops. Then periodically, they do a major strip out and retooling. Any company that is not constantly doing that deserves to be out of business ASAP.

Exactly why American steel companies only survived with government welfare. They were smoke stack industries. Constantly upgrading was no longer possible.

How does Gillette keep ahead of the competition now that everyone has triple blade razors? The same Gillette razor is now produced by massively upgraded production method. Its still a razor to you. But their costs due to constant upgrading and innovation means either their profits are much higher or their razor sells for an even lower price.

Your reasoning reflects a classic bean-counter theory of a smoke stack industry. So similar to communism. Explains why business school graduates destroy jobs and companies.

No, my reasoning reflects working in power plants, all over the country, coal and nuke, for twenty years.

And....

Your communist business school graduate bean-counter job eradicating theory of a smoke stack industry? :biggrin:

I'm afraid of water if it's radioactive. And the whole point I was making is, it might be OK this time, but the fact that there are ANY KIND of leaks or accidents at a nuclear facility is just unacceptable. AND the fact that they have done NO inspections. Come on. You can't really be OK with that, can you?

I don't believe that. Of course we can teach ethics, and should. If people didn't get away with unethical practices in this country then people would be more responsible. But we actually create a culture where unethical practices are encouraged. Why is that?

Didn't they teach you about ethics in medical school? And don't they encourage it in the medical field? At least in the end you're in?

yea, and if we PUNISH them for NOT doing the right thing. And if a company is fined for something, they should NOT be allowed to farm off that expense to their customers, which is what most companies do.

Who defines what is ethical?

How would you regulate that and who are you proposing should be in charge of that oversite?

It's the same thing with increasing business taxes. They are a cost of producing a product or service and that gets added into the cost the end user pays.

In my environmental engineering class, we debated ethics on the basis of how much money is a human life worth. For example, if we find we have a heavy metal in our water but the chances of someone dying is only 1 in 100,000 and would take $30 million to clean up, is it worth it to clean up that water.

So in reality, it is the politicians that define ethics. You scared yet?

By the time most people have graduated, most (hopefully) have a general idea of what is good is bad to our society's standards. But, most people will put other priorities ahead of perceived ethics.

Depends on how many people that $30 million is spread across. If it's a community of 50 people, nope. If it's a community of 5 million people, yep.

Why did you misquote me sugarpop? I didn't write what is contained in your last post #44.