Technology: Public and Business Policy

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Some novices are so captivated by obscure and hyped "high" technology, they believe it's better than proven methods (that may be seen as "low tech"). Clearly, candidate technologies competing for investment should not be judged by how they may be seen as "high" or "low" tech. It's not relevant. If that criteria influences public funding decisions, resulting programs can be very wasteful. See my webpage on dual-mode electric vehicles (EVs) for one example: A proven conductive power transmission method, to provide the EVs in-transit power, was shelved for one with inductive power coupling. Conductive should have easily won, based upon rudimentary efficiency and cost considerations. But inductive apparently had "high tech" appeal to influential bureaucrats. Or maybe they wanted to give an impression they were supporting EV technology, but didn't want the program to succeed. After funding was all spent to demonstrate inductive coupling, the entire project was quietly abandoned. Readers may wish to share their experiences by email, about other projects, where public funds could have been far better invested for public benefit. If you want to bring specific examples to public attention, and have a website describing them, please include its URL, so I can add it as a link on this webpage.

In my opinion, public projects should never be judged on their relative "high" or "low" tech content. Most worthy projects are an intelligent mix. New technologies should stand on their merits. Many certainly can extend our capabilities. Some can be developed with small-budget, well-planned, programs. I'd like to see more of them. But for the right reasons. The same opinion applies to privately funded ventures.

Public interest vs. easy money to parasites who corrupt representative government

Good public programs should be based on public benefits vs. cost -- and not what benefits the unethical parasite class who buy influence in government. Buying that influence can (and has) amounted to "investments" with 1000x payback over several years (essentially at public expense). They are, in fact, destructive "WIN (parasites and corrupt politicans) - LOSE (those directly hurt) - LOSE (ultimately most citizens) scams.

Let's take a quick look at a scam that, over the past 14 years, has skimmed an estimated $100 Billion from programs funded at US public expense: All US government laboratories and contractors are pressured, by a vague 1986 law enacted for influential parasites, to require that salaries for engineering consultants and many former staff employees, is instead paid to an "agent" (parasite) who usually keeps 30% to 50% for absolutely no service or investment (except for payments to politicians and minor bureaucrats to cooperate with the parasite's scam). These parasites falsely claim to have recruited and screened workers for the same job the workers already hold. The parasites have even attempted, with less success, (using the US Internal Revenue Service for coercion) to extend this scam into the private business sector. Worker morale and efficiency is also a victim here.

I'm aware of only a few articles, in trade journals, which describe details of this scam. But even those million or more workers directly threatened by it have not added any anecdotes or voiced unanimity to help stop it. In fact, the parasites who perpetrated this scam are expanding it, with apparent immunity, and mostly silent victims.

Specific abuses are so incredulous that most people think it certainly can't be happening in their country. You haven't heard about it from news media, who earn income from political advertising. Concern shown by some, for political campaign funding reform, is encouraging. But far broader exposure of specific abuses is needed, before reform can be expected. If your website describes specific bad -- or good -- government policies, or scams like that described above, please email your URL, so I can add a link to it here.

Too many large corporations depend on lobbyists and advertising to divert attention and escape responsibility for negative aspects of their products. But an enlightened public is not fooled indefinitely by these schemes. So environmental cost, hazards associated with the product, later cost borne by buyers, and other societal costs, must ultimately be factored into product cost. They are usually not factored into product cost by manufacturers and sellers, until they are hit by costly lawsuits. That's a very near-sighted view by business, and is inconsistent with long-term business success. The public is aware they aren't getting the truth, but can't point a finger at specifics.

Ultimately, a product line that is "good" in terms of past and present profit, will be seen to be "bad" or "ugly" when its other costs are identified and payment for them is enforced. Cigarettes are a prime current example. Health cost to buyers and victims of second-hand smoking have only recently been identified. Recent lawsuits filed against that industry are only beginning to impact total cost of their product. Its global market is increasing. Now it fits a WIN (company profits) - LOSE (smoker health) - LOSE (2nd-hand smoke victim) scenario.

A movie "The Insider" was not a big box-office success. Perhaps this indicates the US cigarette industry will be able to stay in WIN - LOSE - LOSE scenarios for many years, especially in global markets it's reaching, because most of the public is really not interested in such current events. Or the diversification we see by some of its major players may be a sign they see a less profitable future for cigarettes.

People everywhere aspire to drive their own car. Driving them is expensive. Still, nothing else offers such flexible portal-to-portal transportation. But a few aspects of gasoline-engine cars are very troubling: Over the past 20 years, about a million people in the US have been killed by them, with many times that number badly injured. And car accidents continue to kill about 40,000 people in the US every year. Air and water pollution they cause hurts all of us. This seems to be another WIN (profits) - LOSE (buyers) - LOSE (everyone else) scenario.

Lawyers have been largely responsible for decisions by auto makers not to implement technology that could solve this horrendous problem. Thus far, most auto collisions are ruled by the courts to be "accidents" or caused by the vehicle's driver. So technology intended to prevent collisions is not implemented because, if a collision occurs with it, the auto maker might be held responsible.

Collision avoidance electronics was demonstrated over 30 years ago, for highway and rail vehicles. About 20 years ago, a far more complex 3-dimensional version was demonstrated for aircraft. None are deployed. Can we afford not to widely deploy a technology that very likely would prevent such carnage by today's autos, and (to a lesser extent) by trains and aircraft? This is a situation where we know the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of new equipment that would solve crucial problems. Agencies charged with that responsibility need to be reminded how costly their inaction is to the public they are chartered to serve.

Such collision avoidance technology is ideal for EVs (where integration cost with their drive system is far less than in fuel-burning cars). Added benefits of dual-mode EVs would be: Far lower total and driving cost, no air or water pollution, no incendiary explosive fuel, no need for fuel stops, unlimited range, minimal maintenance, higher reliability, and more. A description, with illustrations and analysis, on how EVs can be powered in-transit on electric highways, can be seen by clicking on this website link. A companion website describes, illustrates, and analyzes urban EVs with an exercise option, which even affords redundant "drive home" capability in the unlikely event of electric power failure.

Both EV options appear to be promising WIN - WIN - WIN scenario candidates. Your comments and suggestions, on any aspect of this important subject, are very much appreciated. Send me an email.

Another website describes RPM's (Regenerative Power & Motion's) no-loss no-maintenance unlimited-life flywheel battery. It would offer user advantages as a grid-connected UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) over existing UPS. Moreover, it would offer user and environmental advantages, safely installed so it better enables solar and wind powered buildings. RPM's flywheel battery will have lower life-cycle cost, compared to lead-acid batteries, with no environmental disposal problems. It appears to offer another WIN - WIN - WIN scenario.

Other websites you might like to explore: They describe new technologies to solve problems now largely ignored by promoters of existing products, who heretofore have escaped responsibility for their negative consequences. These websites cover our technologies and plans, to make the better future we envision a reality. We hope you share our vision.