Jan
10
2014

This 60 Minutes “The Cleantech Crash” segment is hysterical.

That’s hysterical-funny, not hysterical-froth-flecked-panic.  For froth-flecked-panic, Watts Up With That? has cheerfully reproduced the Center for American Progress’s remarkably semantic-free response.  I recommend reading it after you watch the video: to quote CS Lewis, you will not find a dull page in it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHlE2FHY__E

Executive summary of the video: We gave billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to Silicon Valley venture capitalists so that they could develop trendy ‘green’ technologies: the ROI on that was awful, the venture capitalists largely cashed out, and various elements of Chinese state-sponsored ‘businesses’ have now swooped in to buy up the companies* (and the research data that those companies managed to produce).  So you can see why CAP is freaking out and demanding a Public Editor for 60 Minutes; people get very cranky when you call their religious dogma into question.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*As to the PRC getting their hands on our research data… well.  I suspect that it will work out for them just as well as buying up American real estate worked out for the Japanese in the 1980s.  Better battery and solar power technology will not address the PRC’s major block to true economic progress and prosperity (said block being, of course, the PRC) and you can’t power either a tank or an ICBM with a battery. Mind you, the real problem there – and one that 60 Minutes didn’t address – is that Chinese investment in American companies eventually means Chinese investment in American political parties (in this case, the Democrats).  And that is something that we need to take seriously.

12 Comments

  • BigGator5 says:

    Can you say: 到美国的死亡

  • jetty says:

    “the real problem there – and one that 60 Minutes didn’t address – is that Chinese investment in American companies eventually means Chinese investment in American political parties (in this case, the Democrats).
    .
    Honestly I think I would prefer a Chinese-controlled Democratic Party over the current (America-hating-Israel-hating-church-hating-conservative/TeaParty-hate-hate-hate-hate-hating) Democratic Party. Am I missing something here?

    • Cameron says:

      No difference in the level of hate towards those groups with the Chinese, jetty. They would just act nicer about it.

      • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

        In fairness to the Chicoms, they probably do not want the Jews exterminated as much as they are indifferent.

    • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

      Yes.
      .
      Think about the history.
      .
      When the racist pseudoscience underlying much of the Democratic Party fell out of fashion with the American people, the Democrats looked around for a substitute. The Soviet Union, at the time, had a long standing interest in overseas investment to promote their ideology.
      .
      So the Democratic party switched to that form of pseudoscience.
      .
      The case can be made that it didn’t much change their actual practices on the ground so to speak.
      .
      There are over fifty parties of each of the big flavors. The core of them is the political technicians, which carry the institutional memory and corporate culture of the party. A party is not successful while replacing these wholesale.
      .
      So regardless of who the Democrats brought on board in terms of candidates, activists, and voters, there was much continuity at a certain level. Some of their political technicians had few scruples about the new message, as they had few in general when they joined The Party for power. The big city machines and the segregation parties, at the very least, had profound ethical issues.
      .
      The USSR probably did not fundamentally transform the Democratic Party. Hillary and Barack may be as much creatures of the Arkie Democrat Mafia and the Chicago Machine as anything else.
      .
      Why should the PRC be special snowflake enough to do what USSR could not?
      .
      Well, one thing that might cause that is if the USA is dead in the future, and it was alive during the Cold War.

      • jetty says:

        Yeah, I don’t see the PRC changing the Democratic Party much. However, in their insatiable quest for power, I do think that the Democrats, at least at the national level, will embrace Sharia in about 20 years. Nullify the Constitution and behead their enemies in exchange for Burkas and Adhan? That’s a no brainer for liberals, IMO.

        • Crawford says:

          The difference between the PRC and the Democrats is that the PRC is less dedicated to dynastic politics.

  • midwestconservative says:

    I’m perfectly fine with letting the Chinese waste money on “cleantech”
    I’m amused that the Chinaman was using “capitalism” against us as a justification for him to buy these companies.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com