Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "Asianometry"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@agt155 : You must be joking. That's exactly what Britain has repeatedly done - ever since WW2. Sometimes they did by cash handout, sometimes by nationalising, and sometimes by State-owned enterprises eg RAF, BPO, awarding propping-up type contracts. They have a habit of subsidizing the most lame, as in the examples I gave in my earlier post.
The most famous of the misguided British subsidising of lame industries was the spending of 1.5 billion pounds on developing most of the Concorde airliner.
The funniest thing was the Transputer. When all the American semiconductor firms came out with microprocessor chips in the late 1970's, the remaining Britain based manufacturers saw that they had no hope of competing, and their market would die. So the British Govt decided to step in and subsidize. The cash was used to design a computer chip - called the Transputer. It was actually a clever design, but not likely to sell well as it was very different. So the government decided to have it made by contract. The lowest price tender was from an American company. So, British taxpayer's money was used to have a product, that practically nobody wanted, made in the USA - no benefit to Britain at all, except for a handful of boffins.
1
-
@krashd :The "processor" you are thinking of is no doubt the ARM. The ARM company is a design house, which sells to chip makers and others the VHDL and instruction set license, essentially they sell the modern computer equivalent of a set of drawings for a mechanical machine. The actual implementations are made by other (non British) manufacturers.
The device I typed this on is a Chinese-made laptop, which has an Intel processor and GPU, probably made by TSMC in Taiwan. I could have used my mobile, which has a Korean-made processor that is a not an ARM. The reason why the number of processors using the ARM design is so high, is not because it is used in the PC and personal device field, it is used in embedded controls - for example your bread maker, your coffee machine, microwave oven, washing machine may have an ARM design processor. More likely an Intel derivative though.
The existence of the ARM company in Britain, although very successful, provides a minute amount of employment for Britons, whereas their car industry used to employ vast numbers, who paid, collectively, vast amounts of income tax.
You know perfectly well Britain lost its' markets. Before WW2 there were ships carrying British made goods of all kinds, cars, planes, electronic parts, knives, forks, plates etc etc to the British Commonwealth countries and returning carrying wheat, wool, cotton, etc etc. Not any more.
1
-
1
-
@AstralS7orm You live in partly fantasy land.
Britain most certainly DID NOT have the funds, nor the technology, to compete with the USA. For a start, the USA had 5 times the population, and a government less inclined to meddle with industry. Following WW2 Britain was broke.
Japan is a special case in 2 ways, that led them to be very strong competitors in cars and electronics:-
1) Their constitution allows them to only have a limited defence capability and not an offensive capability. .So their military spending is very low for a country with a huge population - about half that of the US. They tax less and put their tax moneys to industrial use.
2) They indulge in industry cooperation at levels that would be regarded as anti-competitive and illegal in Western countries.
However, Japan is not a innovative country. Most of their technology is either imported from the West through licensing or by copying when patents ran out.
West Germany had a population only a little above Britain, so also did not have the funds the USA could deploy, However, they were better run, WW2 did not bankrupt them, the USA supported them and so their economy became strong.
However, your last paragraphs beginning "That USA took...." is pretty right. It was part a reaction to the perceived Soviet threat, and part a response to the immediate post-WW2 United States Strategic Bombing Survey Committee reports.
These reports seem to be almost unknown by the general public these days, but were a major influence on the US Government. To put it simply (at a risk of over-simplifying), this committee said that the USA won the War against Germany and Japan in large part through superior technology, but were somewhat unprepared and had to lift their game, and it said that the USA should never make that mistake again.
As you say, we'll see how it goes from now on. The job of the US President is a difficult one, and they seem unable to find someone who is up to it. The USA is in decline and China is ascendant.
1
-
@AstralS7orm When have I called you names, and what names did I call you? I did say you were partly in fantasy land - you were if you thought countries like Britain and Germany could have coughed up the taxpayer funds the size that the USA channelled into semiconductor R&D via their military.
Japan, Korea, and China didn't what? They are manufacturing successes by using technologies developed in the USA - sometimes legally (eg with US companies setting up manufacture in China), sometimes not entirely legally, and sometimes just waiting for patents to expire.
The USA is in decline - there are a multitude of reasons, including:-
# a form of government that puts great demands on the president - he must be a clear thinker, and most important, inspire Congress to follow him. Kennedy and others before were up to it, Clinton was pretty good, but the last 3 no good - they either lacked persuasiveness, lacked clear thinking, or both.
# They went over the top on OH&S other regulation - driving manufacturing off-shore.
# Wars, space exploration, and competing with the USSR no longer inspires the American people.
1
-
@SolomonSunder : Oh, our system is better than the US system, alright - because it works with a prime minister that doesn't have the inspirational/charismatic talent that is necessary for a US president to get things done. But our system is not perfect - something which is quite obvious at times. Effectively, the prime minister is the chairman of the cabinet, much as a company chairman of the board conducts the meetings of the board. Really, a PM just has to be good at running meetings. Decisions are made by cabinet vote, and when they vote, that is it. Not like the US where the president has to persuade congress, who may well decide otherwise. But it does of course depend on how good the prime minster and cabinet ministers actually are. Ministers on their own have very little decision making power - they must put up proposals to cabinet, to be voted on.
Just as a company board is not involved in day to day running of the company, the cabinet is not involved in day-to-day running of the country - that is the job of the departments - but by their voted decisions they set the parameters and policies that departments must comply with. There is no chaos.
One recent example of how the Australian system does work better than the US system is how COVID was dealt with in each country. In Australia the prime minster and state premiers took control, accepted advice from appropriate medical experts, and forthwith acted on that advice. In the USA they had decision paralysis. Result: the number of deaths per head population was miniscule in Australia compared to the USA.
But there is also a recent example of the system not working well - the stuff up over submarine purchases - fundamentally because there are too many difficult conflicting requirements that Cabinet can't get its mind around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deborahdean8867 : Where did you get that data? You are very precise about a soldier's needs - 4 figures - that's nonsense. How much a soldier (or anyone) needs depends on how hard they are physically working, how much stress they are under, and their environment.
And how much they weigh: a large chap, say 183 cm and 150 kg, will need twice the calories of a short chap, say 165 cm and 60 kg, just to maintain their bodies.
In airconditioning design, we take the heat load of the occupants as 300 watts per person at 24 C. If you raise the environment to 38 C (body temperature), the heat shed by live bodies shrinks to almost nothing. So they need to eat less calories. Take their environment down to 0 C and they'll need to eat more.
When I was in my late teens. I was a skinny guy, so I decided to do weight lifting. In a short time I doubled the weight I could lift, but my appetite shot up so much I couldn't afford to continue. in intensive weight training, you need to double your calorie intake, or your muscles will not build up.
You are dead right about vegans though..
1
-
1
-
1