Cold Fusion and the Broken State of Publicly Funded Science Research (Achi)

The following post was submitted by Achi

Publicly funded scientific research has dug its own grave.

The shunning of cold fusion, and LENR, has led us to a point where the integrity of the system as it currently stands is compromised.

Scientific funding was already dangerous close to the edge in this time of economic unease and budget cutting. As it is now around of one third of all R&D, both scientific and technical, is publicly funded, accounting for around 133 billion dollars of the US budget according to the OECD.

That is a large amount of money, and while it is very improbable that heavy cuts will come to the defense spending side of it, it is very possible for the rest of it.

LENR is a conservative’s wet dream, it was shunned by all aspects of government: funding, the patent office, universities, even just simple support of the idea, and yet it refused to die. It is living proof that capitalism, as screwed up as it is, works.

It shows that if you have something really worthwhile it will be funded, it will be developed, and the government does not need to hold its hand. While I will agree that it may not be the most ideal way for a tech to come to market, if the system is broken then what is there to help convince the government to fund it?

I’m not saying that this is likely the end of all publicly funded scientific initiatives, but I do see it as a huge blow to the system.

Achi

  • mike

    That small article is so refreshing. It gives me hope that I am not alone in understanding how the world has gone wrong in at least the last 60 years, or more. I feel like building an LENR alter and dropping to my knees just to anger the tyrannical establishment types. I’ve heard my whole life how conservatives love oil and used it to control people. But yet it is conservatives fantasizing removing the chains of oil from around their necks. Ironically it is the left wing that will burn the world to keep their oil as it is one of their main means of power over the people.

    • Achi

      I don’t know if they will do it for oil, but I do expect them to try to regulate and tax LENR to the point we are paying the same exact thing. If they can’t control the end product expect them to strike higher up on the chain by imposing a nickel tax or for vehicles when oil has been replaced a mileage tax.

      • Omega Z

        If you want to drive your LENR car, you have to pay for the roads. My only concern is that we get what we pay for & the money is not wasted. I don’t expect nothing for free. I also don’t want ripped off.

  • mike

    That small article is so refreshing. It gives me hope that I am not alone in understanding how the world has gone wrong in at least the last 60 years, or more. I feel like building an LENR alter and dropping to my knees just to anger the tyrannical establishment types. I’ve heard my whole life how conservatives love oil and used it to control people. But yet it is conservatives fantasizing removing the chains of oil from around their necks. Ironically it is the left wing that will burn the world to keep their oil as it is one of their main means of power over the people.

    • Achi

      I don’t know if they will do it for oil, but I do expect them to try to regulate and tax LENR to the point we are paying the same exact thing. If they can’t control the end product expect them to strike higher up on the chain by imposing a nickel tax or for vehicles when oil has been replaced a mileage tax.

      • Omega Z

        If you want to drive your LENR car, you have to pay for the roads. My only concern is that we get what we pay for & the money is not wasted. I don’t expect nothing for free. I also don’t want ripped off.

  • bachcole

    Good article. It could very well be that the system is broken precisely because of money. Ben Franklin didn’t worry about where his grant money was coming from. I do a lot of research in my kitchen, and I don’t worry at all whether I am going to get grant money for it or not. But as soon as someone’s income is dependent upon the supremacy of their paradigm, then resistance to change happens.

    • Sanjeev

      Exactly.
      Anything linked to basic survival and its instincts will become corrupt and will be misused to sustain the survival and related behaviors. Science is pure exploration, its dependency on public funds means that sooner or later it will become a sink for funds instead of exploration or innovation. (e.g. ITER and various military projects around the world). People getting the funds do not want the project to complete, as the funds will disappear, they keep announcing tiny “improvements” and big promises, while billions get transferred to their Swiss accounts.
      To protect the funding they become dogmatic, become yes-men for the fear of ridicule and withdrawal of fund because of that ridicule. They start suppressing competition and penetrate the advisory bodies to perpetuate belief systems and general opinions. Sounds familiar?

      Gov funding of science is an evil and it will end someday, its not the job of gov to explore, they are there to govern and defend. I’m very much in favor of individual research (old style) or group research (corporations), for profit or non-profit, doesn’t matter. A scientist or group of them should be smart enough to earn for themselves and to carry out their own experiments with their own money, not begging for funds. A scientist by definition is smarter than an average person and when even a factory worker can survive easily, it should be a piece of cake for a scientist or engineer to not only survive but to find enough money and time for exploration and experimentation. A true scientist does not need funding, he only needs freedom to explore.

    • Obvious

      Ben Franklin was also a master at tall tales. He often created controversy just for the sake of raising the level of discussion. He was wily enough to know that people learn more when then storm off to prove something wrong, than when you clobber them with facts.

  • bachcole

    Good article. It could very well be that the system is broken precisely because of money. Ben Franklin didn’t worry about where his grant money was coming from. I do a lot of research in my kitchen, and I don’t worry at all whether I am going to get grant money for it or not. But as soon as someone’s income is dependent upon the supremacy of their paradigm, then resistance to change happens.

    • Sanjeev

      Exactly.
      Anything when linked to basic survival and its instincts will become corrupt and will be misused to sustain the survival and related behaviors. Science is pure exploration, its dependency on public funds means that sooner or later it will become a sink for funds instead of an adventure in exploration or innovation. (e.g. ITER and various military projects around the world). People getting the funds do not want the project to complete, as the funds will disappear, they keep announcing tiny “improvements” and big promises, while billions get transferred to their Swiss accounts.
      To protect the funding they become dogmatic, become yes-men for the fear of ridicule and withdrawal of fund because of that ridicule. They start suppressing competition and penetrate the advisory bodies to perpetuate belief systems and manipulate public opinions via mass media. Sounds familiar?

      Gov funding of science is an evil and it will end someday, its not the job of gov to explore, they are there to govern and defend. I’m very much in favor of individual research (old style) or group research (corporations), for profit or non-profit, doesn’t matter. A scientist or group of them should be smart enough to earn for themselves and to carry out their own experiments with their own money, not begging for funds from the overlords. A scientist by definition is smarter than an average person and when even a factory worker can survive easily, it should be a piece of cake for a scientist or engineer to not only survive but to find enough money and time for exploration and experimentation. A true scientist does not need funding, he only needs freedom to explore.

      This is the reason startups, garage inventors and small groups succeed more often and giant corporations or gov projects stagnate. In the age of internet, we have kickstarter or indegogo etc to help in arranging one’s own funding. This is causing an acceleration of innovation and reducing the dependency on gov funded R&D.

    • Obvious

      Ben Franklin was also a master at tall tales. He often created controversy just for the sake of raising the level of discussion. He was wily enough to know that people learn more when then storm off to prove something wrong, than when you clobber them with facts.

    • orsobubu

      >the system is broken precisely because of money

      the big news here is that bachcole is turning bolshevk like me and george

  • GreenWin

    An excellent article Achi. In fact it is this social and research fallout that is a huge secondary benefit of LENR/Rossi/P&F et al. Cold Fusion is a glaring indictment of Big Science (BS) and the MIC, just as predicted by President Eisenhower in his farewell address. Billions$ of taxpayer funding have been squandered on BS projects like ITER and NIF and government subsidies for the fission power industry.

    This evolved out of the Manhattan Project supporting a disastrous troika of government funding, academia, and the defense industry. The defense industry was allowed to co-opt the commercial power business due to the volatility of nuclear fission. As Einstein said back then, “It’s a hell of a way to boil water.” This unholy alliance of defense and commercial energy predictably festered into the corrupted fission/fossil cabal that has run commercial energy for the last 60 years. It is now incumbent upon government – (in USA) the Congress – to address these failures with a series of public hearings and actions to amend failures.

    On the positive side, LENRG has some very good ideas of how to separate industry and research to best allow innovation. This speaks to the heart of the issue IMO. For innovation to flourish it must be insulated from political and industrial vicissitudes. We need to respect innovation regardless of political or industrial impact. The advent of “New Fire” provides a welcome forum to address these issues. And to honor intrepid scientists (e.g. Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, Gene Mallove, Storms, Hagelstein, etc) who have been so poorly treated these past 25 years.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, we should also thank that very long list of establishment and academic scientists that have tried to help and keep an open-mind on Cold Fusion, Brian Josephson and ?????

      • GreenWin

        Yes George. Brian stands head and shoulders above many in science. And there IS a long list of brave-hearted souls who have stayed the true course. I hope governments around the world polish up their highest civilian medals for these deserving individuals. These men and women are heroes of the highest order in my book.

        And I would add a special honor for President Carter for seeing the great promise in Dr. Rossi.

  • GreenWin

    An excellent article Achi. In fact it is this social and research fallout that is a huge secondary benefit of LENR/Rossi/P&F et al. Cold Fusion is a glaring indictment of Big Science (BS) and the MIC, just as predicted by President Eisenhower in his farewell address. Billions$ of taxpayer funding have been squandered on BS projects like ITER and NIF and government subsidies for the fission power industry.

    This evolved out of the Manhattan Project supporting a disastrous troika of government funding, academia, and the defense industry. The defense industry was allowed to co-opt the commercial power business due to the volatility of nuclear fission. As Einstein said back then, “It’s a hell of a way to boil water.” This unholy alliance of defense and commercial energy predictably festered into the corrupted fission/fossil cabal that has run commercial energy for the last 60 years. It is now incumbent upon government – (in USA) the Congress – to address these failures with a series of public hearings and actions to amend failures.

    On the positive side, LENRG has some very good ideas of how to separate industry and research to best allow innovation. This speaks to the heart of the issue IMO. For innovation to flourish it must be insulated from political and industrial vicissitudes. We need to respect innovation regardless of political or industrial impact. The advent of “New Fire” provides a welcome forum to address these issues. And to honor intrepid scientists (e.g. Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, Gene Mallove, Storms, Hagelstein, etc) who have been so poorly treated these past 25 years.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, we should also thank that very long list of establishment and academic scientists that have tried to help and keep an open-mind on Cold Fusion, Brian Josephson and ?????

      • GreenWin

        Yes George. Brian stands head and shoulders above many in science. And there IS a long list of brave-hearted souls who have stayed the true course. I hope governments around the world polish up their highest civilian medals for these deserving individuals. These men and women are heroes of the highest order in my book.

        And I would add a special honor for President Carter for seeing the great promise in Dr. Rossi.

  • Billy Jackson

    Lets not forget about perspective. Pretty much how you look at things will determine your overall outlook at its influence on your views. The system is to easily influenced by political and public dissent. LENR/Cold Fusion or what ever you want to call it is simply not well known in the public beyond the overall view put forth by the misrepresentation in the past that it doesn’t work. We have a large hole to dig ourselves out of that is grossly unfair but exists regardless of our wishes.

    The fact is no politician can survive throwing away public funds with no signs of progress for long. Despite our belief in LENR and the papers showing its progress, there simply is not enough there to show the public just yet that this works. You dont see NASA throwing billions into building a LENR Powered EM Drive system just yet even though they have come out and said yes both technologies have something going for it.. This is all incremental advances that will take time before you start to see large funding.

    LENR will get there and it will get its share of the funding sooner or later. It is disappointing that we have to jump through the hoops we do. Its people like you, and this website and those that support it with their daily comments that will slowly conquer the misconceptions that have held LENR back.

    Lies can conquer the truth if its said long enough and loud enough.. yet every lie caves in to one single problem…the corroboration of evidence, authenticated and verified through multiple attestations and replications… . simply… Proof will conquer all barriers.

    • GreenWin

      Billy, you make a couple hard-to-defend statements. “The fact is no politician can survive throwing away public funds with no signs of progress for long.”
      Contrary to your thought is the enormous boondoggle of hot fusion. Starting in 1951, BS sold politicians on “unlimited, clean energy.” There has been essentially ZERO progress toward this goal. Yet politicians have refunded hot fusion globally to the tune of some $250B tax dollars. Not to mention subsidies for fossil/fission and defense black holes. And holes dug not by US; by mainstream science: MIT’s PSFC, Caltech, American Physical Society, etc.

      “LENR will get there and it will get its share of the funding sooner or later.”
      We have just seen Japan officially fund research into a new CMNR division of Tohoku University. NASA funded Boeing and GE aerospace for their SUGAR project. Navy funded SPAWAR cold fusion. ENEA funded De Nino’s CF work, DARPA – our ARPA etc. Public Congressional hearings will air out the mischief and hopefully reinvent public funding of science. To the great benefit of all. 🙂

      • Billy Jackson

        You are correct. But remember my leading statement. Its all about perspective. and how we view things. For good or worse. the perception is that the gains we have received justify the cost. I don’t and obviously you do not agree with that assesment. Yet it remains a proven technology with “hidden” costs that are deemed acceptable by the public. I am not defending the status quo at all, i find its practices just a bit to political and self agendizing to suit my tastes.

        LENR is being funded, not at the level either of us would like to see. I believe on a personal level that as the public is educated we will begin to see a swing from disbelief to eager embrace.

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for the clarification Billy. We remain on the same page my friend.

          • Billy Jackson

            i am as fallible as the next person at times i find i am unable to get my point across without wandering around 5 other points 😛

  • Billy Jackson

    Lets not forget about perspective. Pretty much how you look at things will determine your overall outlook at its influence on your views. The system is to easily influenced by political and public dissent. LENR/Cold Fusion or what ever you want to call it is simply not well known in the public beyond the overall view put forth by the misrepresentation in the past that it doesn’t work. We have a large hole to dig ourselves out of that is grossly unfair but exists regardless of our wishes.

    The fact is no politician can survive throwing away public funds with no signs of progress for long. Despite our belief in LENR and the papers showing its progress, there simply is not enough there to show the public just yet that this works. You dont see NASA throwing billions into building a LENR Powered EM Drive system just yet even though they have come out and said yes both technologies have something going for it.. This is all incremental advances that will take time before you start to see large funding.

    LENR will get there and it will get its share of the funding sooner or later. It is disappointing that we have to jump through the hoops we do. Its people like you, and this website and those that support it with their daily comments that will slowly conquer the misconceptions that have held LENR back.

    Lies can conquer the truth if its said long enough and loud enough.. yet every lie caves in to one single problem…the corroboration of evidence, authenticated and verified through multiple attestations and replications… . simply… Proof will conquer all barriers.

    • bachcole

      “We have a large hole to dig ourselves out of that is grossly unfair but exists regardless of our wishes.” I can’t tell that you won’t be too tolerant of my unicorn thinking. (:->)

    • GreenWin

      Billy, you make a couple hard-to-defend statements. “The fact is no politician can survive throwing away public funds with no signs of progress for long.”
      Contrary to your thought is the enormous boondoggle of hot fusion. Starting in 1951, BS sold politicians on “unlimited, clean energy.” There has been essentially ZERO progress toward this goal. Yet politicians have refunded hot fusion globally to the tune of some $250B tax dollars. Not to mention subsidies for fossil/fission and defense black holes. And holes dug not by US; by mainstream science: MIT’s PSFC, Caltech, American Physical Society, etc.

      “LENR will get there and it will get its share of the funding sooner or later.”
      We have just seen Japan officially fund research into a new CMNR division of Tohoku University. NASA funded Boeing and GE aerospace for their SUGAR project. Navy funded SPAWAR cold fusion. ENEA funded De Nino’s CF work, DARPA – our ARPA etc. Public Congressional hearings will air out the mischief and hopefully reinvent public funding of science. To the great benefit of all. 🙂

      • Billy Jackson

        You are correct. But remember my leading statement. Its all about perspective. and how we view things. For good or worse. the perception is that the gains we have received justify the cost. I don’t and obviously you do not agree with that assesment. Yet it remains a proven technology with “hidden” costs that are deemed acceptable by the public. I am not defending the status quo at all, i find its practices just a bit to political and self agendizing to suit my tastes.

        LENR is being funded, not at the level either of us would like to see. I believe on a personal level that as the public is educated we will begin to see a swing from disbelief to eager embrace.

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for the clarification Billy. We remain on the same page my friend.

          • Billy Jackson

            i am as fallible as the next person at times i find i am unable to get my point across without wandering around 5 other points 😛

  • Mark

    I disagree that this proves that capitalism works. I think that a system that would work better is one where the government is more open to outside-of-the-box research.

    • bachcole

      How do you make that happen?

    • Billy Jackson

      the problem with this is that there is truly a tremendous amount of bad idea’s and those attempting to game the system.

      • Mark

        Life sucks and then you die. We may have to fund a lot of bad ideas and waste a lot of money and effort to get to those few diamonds in the rough.

  • Mark

    I disagree that this proves that capitalism works. I think that a system that would work better is one where the government is more open to outside-of-the-box research.

    • bachcole

      How do you make that happen?

      • Mark

        Simple, have philosophers run the government, under Plato’s definition of philosopher as a lover of wisdom. Okay, it would be easier said than done – getting such a system in play – but that’s what needs to happen, I think, in the long run, unless computers take over at some point.

        • Sanjeev

          Unfortunately, philosophers are not interested in controlling or ruling people, they want to be free and want others to be free. I guess even a “normal” human beings wouldn’t want to rule. Its the sub-human types that love leadership, power, money, deception, manipulation and build large armies to murder each other.

          Its a genetic trait, we all have that, but the will to dominate and rule is expressed more in some. These are fit to form governments, armies etc. and eventually rise up above everyone else. No matter who you put into the government, after few years/centuries, its taken over by such people.

          • Mark

            I totally disagree with Sanjeev, and, although I think that there are a lot of those types out there, I don’t think that it is appropriate to make these kinds of assertions without offering some kind of better supporting argumentation. However, Sanjeev, one point that you might want to consider is the fact that, I believe, Plato believed that the philosophers would have to be forced to be the rulers, against their will, because most of the best people to rule would be the ones who are the least likely to want to rule.

          • Sanjeev

            Mark, life around you is the evidence. I can’t show you a specific case study with a complete psychological profile of a king or president, but the world and its history is full of cases for you to study.
            At most, you will find that the philosophers or wise men or saints sometimes do act as an advisers to kings or rulers, but never rule themselves. Anyway if you disagree you must be having some strong reason, so I have no problem at all 🙂

        • bachcole

          Plato was all wet, although Socrates was not. Plato thought that society should be divided into 3 groups, soldiers, philosophers, and warriors. But we now know that every citizen needs to be educated; we all need to be philosophers because too many merchants and politicians want to take advantage of us.

          • Mark

            Jeez, people love to just make assertions and act like anyone with half of a mind will automatically agree with them. We “know” no such thing as is asserted in the comment above. This is depressing…I think that I should bow out, now.

    • Billy Jackson

      the problem with this is that there is truly a tremendous amount of bad idea’s and those attempting to game the system.

      • Mark

        Life sucks and then you die. We may have to fund a lot of bad ideas and waste a lot of money and effort to get to those few diamonds in the rough.

        • bachcole

          And after you die your consciousness continues.

          • Mark

            HA! I agree with you, there, but I don’t know what’s coming up after the death part. Hopefully it’s better than this universe.

    • Achi

      You just said that you don’t think this proves capitalism works, yet LENR has not received significant public funds since the 1989 mess. Most research has been funded by private sector individuals and corporations. That is capitalism incarnate, if it reaches the market before the universities break their stonewall stance on the topic. I agree if public funds could be used for out-of-the-box research it would be awesome, but the problem becomes how to control research without wasting obscene amounts of money. Hell I’d be all for gutting some social programs and reappropriating the funds for fringe research. It would be like moving money from one wasteful thing to another 🙂

  • William D. Fleming

    A true scientist is like the driver of a powerful sports car. Powered by the engine of intense curiosity and deep awe of nature and guided by the keen vision of intelligence, he uses the steering and brakes of the scientific method only as a tool for staying on course. He pounces on new information with greed.

    The scientific establishment is something entirely different. The scientific establishment is all about academic degrees, making tenure, getting published, fulfilling university and public service requirements. It is about obtaining grants. It is about defending the official paradigm by “debunking” any ideas or studies which appear to be in conflict. For the establishmentarian the scientific method is a weapon for cowing and silencing upstart enemies. He refuses to even look at new evidence unless it fits with the established world view.

    Is this an exaggeration? Perhaps, but look at the shameful treatment given cold fusion researchers Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, and the continuous campaign to squelch the study of cold fusion since that time. Look at the billions spent meanwhile on the study of hot fusion–that’s where the grant money is, but there has not been a single successful demonstration.

    • Warthog

      “Is this an exaggeration?”

      No. It is an ideal that REAL scientists try to live up to. Apparently that ideal is no longer taught in our universities.

  • William D. Fleming

    A true scientist is like the driver of a powerful sports car. Powered by the engine of intense curiosity and deep awe of nature and guided by the keen vision of intelligence, he uses the steering and brakes of the scientific method only as a tool for staying on course. He pounces on new information with greed.

    The scientific establishment is something entirely different. The scientific establishment is all about academic degrees, making tenure, getting published, fulfilling university and public service requirements. It is about obtaining grants. It is about defending the official paradigm by “debunking” any ideas or studies which appear to be in conflict. For the establishmentarian the scientific method is a weapon for cowing and silencing upstart enemies. He refuses to even look at new evidence unless it fits with the established world view.

    Is this an exaggeration? Perhaps, but look at the shameful treatment given cold fusion researchers Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, and the continuous campaign to squelch the study of cold fusion since that time. Look at the billions spent meanwhile on the study of hot fusion–that’s where the grant money is, but there has not been a single successful demonstration.

    • Warthog

      “Is this an exaggeration?”

      No. It is an ideal that REAL scientists try to live up to. Apparently that ideal is no longer taught in our universities.

  • Christina

    Okay, I’m not a scientist, but it has always seemed to me that if the universe worked the way scientists explain it does–multiple universes and all that–then what we would have is magic. I propose that anyone not believing in God making the universe and describing the universe as one of many is describing our world in such a way that “magic” would work because of the way they describe the origins and continuation of the universe.

    Then the Rossi Effect comes along and it does look like magic when proposed in words so the science is ignored. They’ve got to say its just a scam because Rossi is apparently describing “magic” or some sort. Hey, it’s real and God put it into nature for us so we wouldn’t continually have to destroy the land to dig oil wells and/or frack.

    Science worked a lot better when it was totally working under capitalism and Christianity.

    • Mytakeis

      Our atomic bombs awoke the universe for us. We just have not been informed. With the help of friends of God and man, humanity comes around to recognizing Rossi’s ‘magic’ and who’s helping out. The worst crime ever was suppression of methods that would save and improve the lives of everyone. We’re on the cusp of that now, thank goodness. It is the charisma generated in these pages that help make real a bright future. I love reading the entries.

  • Christina

    Okay, I’m not a scientist, but it has always seemed to me that if the universe worked the way scientists explain it does–multiple universes and all that–then what we would have is magic. I propose that anyone not believing in God making the universe and describing the universe as one of many is describing our world in such a way that “magic” would work because of the way they describe the origins and continuation of the universe.

    Then the Rossi Effect comes along and it does look like magic when proposed in words so the science is ignored. They’ve got to say its just a scam because Rossi is apparently describing “magic” or some sort. Hey, it’s real and God put it into nature for us so we wouldn’t continually have to destroy the land to dig oil wells and/or frack.

    Science worked a lot better when it was totally working under capitalism and Christianity.

    • HS61AF91

      Our atomic bombs awoke the universe for us. We just have not been informed. With the help of friends of God and man, humanity comes around to recognizing Rossi’s ‘magic’ and who’s helping out. The worst crime ever was suppression of methods that would save and improve the lives of everyone. We’re on the cusp of that now, thank goodness. It is the charisma generated in these pages that help make real a bright future. I love reading the entries.

  • orsobubu

    >It is living proof that capitalism, as screwed up as it is, works.

    to me, this is the proof that capitalism doesn’t work; and it will become more evident when LENRs will fail to put an end to unemplotment and crisis due to fall of profit, and when will start military applications.

    • Achi

      LENR is not meant to put an end to the unemployment crisis. In fact LENR will probably cause a huge financial crisis as the markets rearrange themselves. The way that LENR shows that this broken form of capitalism still works is despite lack of government assistance, corporations and private individuals used their own money and initiated an energy revolution. LENR isn’t even protected by a patent, another aspect of government, under trade secret alone it has gone from idea to actualization, and then sold to a corporation who has the money to release it to the public and then defend the patent after the fact.

      • orsobubu

        I said that because one of the main pillars in capitalism theories is the ability to reach full employment, and most economists struggle with this irresolvable problem. Capitalism goal is to produce non-fictious capital, and this is possible exclusively by the means of human employment. If LENR should cause unemployment, this would mean fall of profits hence a capitalistic loss (anyway, I sadly admit that there is also a very slight possibility that LENRs, coupled with other breakthrough innovations, will represent an age of capitalistic renaissance).

        About government, I think you should comprehend state intervention as an essential part of capitalism, it is really the biggest among capitalists. So, if private capitalism is on LENRs and state capitalism is off, this doesn’t show that capitalism is well alive, but only that government is, to date, not required yet to sustain or save the capitalistic accumulation process in this specific industrial sector.

        • Omega Z

          The problem with capitalism at this time is there is not enough available for the necessary investments. It’s akin to having a 100 acre field & enough seed to plant only 90. It’s not reaching it’s full potential.

          Presently, in the U.S. you’ve seen on average of 3% return on investment & a 2% inflation rate. A net 1% annual gain isn’t near good enough to even keep up with current population growth. Strictly as an example, you have 10 people & $100 cash flow. Your population increases to 20, but your cash flow only increased to $150. A dwindling cash flow. You need at least 3/5 percent gain to see beneficial results.

          You need an injection of cash flow. Given the U.S. has a 16 Trillion$ GDP based on about 1 Trillion$ cash flow, It wouldn’t take that much to make things right within a couple years. There is a means to do this without devaluing currency or incurring debt..

          The problem isn’t capitalism, but Government policies. Much aimed at increasing cash flow by means of debt. Some because they don’t grasp the present situation and don’t know any better & some who do but want to maintain the status quo. Learn to differentiate the 2. We have a saying of don’t throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

          You’ll find greed & corruption everywhere, but it’s much worse in poor countries. If you want to minimize it, produce more, People tend to hoard & control that which is in short supply. Not what is plentiful. LENR will be of help in this matter, but know that greed & corruption will always be around. Some are just wired that way.

          U.S. GDP of 16 Trillion$is based on 1 Trillion$ in cash flow changing hands on average 16 times in a calendar year. It does not have 16 Trillion$. In fact, the world at large only has about 5 Trillion$ in total.

    • Omega Z

      IH/Rossi market the Model-A E-cat with zero profit margin.
      The Model-T never gets developed because there were no profits to pay for the research. Actually. Without someones previous profits, the Model-B never gets built.

      You have no clue to economics. In a nutshell, Capitalism & profits are about investing in the future. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t have one.

      • orsobubu

        Omega Z, sorry but frequently my posts here are moderated and deleted, including a recent long reply to you. So I’m not encouraged to stick with the thread. If I’ll find the time we could communicate via email. Some sentences like “capitalism and profits are about investing in the future” let me totally speechless, anyway, You are inverting the factors, since to me investing in the future is about making more capital, you seem believe that the interest of capitalists is invest to obtain social user value instead of exchange value. And ME is the one who has not a clue? So I wonder on which bases we could find a common scientific ground of discussion. Sincertely, if you have not assimilated the first and third Marx Capital books, and in general the post-keynesian critique to Menger/marginalist theories, I’m not very interested. Keep in mind that the goal is to approach Lenin imperialism theory to start understanding something useful in the epistemologic sense of capitalistic social production relationships, and I think here there is a long way to go.

        • Omega Z

          Sorry, I gave you credit to be able to extrapolate the rest.
          No investing means capitalism can’t really take place.
          Capitalism
          “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”

          Such a system is much more efficient & productive when those involved have ownership. Unless those involved are just looking for a free ride in which case they tend to fold.

          Why do you keep throwing in economic theories that don’t work. Theories created by people who never had a real job or ever ran their own business.

          Marx was clueless. Once a factory is built, all value is arrived from labor.(Idiot) The Factory always has value as long as the product produced is needed. He should have built a factory & ran it. I’m quite sure his view would have substantially changed. Perhaps I should write a theory for brain surgery & propose all surgeons abide by it. I have as much experience at that as Marx has at economics. Maybe more. I can Google much info about it. Just pray you never need the surgery.

          Marx stated that when the people own the factories, things would be much better. Buy Stock. Make his dream come true. Many Corporations & businesses encourage their employees to do so. Tho most don’t like investing in the one they work at. Reality slaps them in the face. Pay increases reduce their returns & maintaining the infrastructure does as well.

          Understand the man & understand where he is coming from. Marx was looking for a way to enjoy the fruits of life without the need to contribute to it. That pretty much says it all. Something for nothing. He “Exploited” others misery to promote his theory.

          As to economic theory, I was watching a show 1 day & a person/professor who studied economic theory was brutally honest. He said they had no understanding of how economics really work. I was impressed by his honesty.

          You want a NEAR perfect economic system. Replace all humanity with Bots. All managed by a central processor. Their is no individual thoughts, wants or needs or free will. Only a single entity. The central processor.

          • orsobubu

            Where did you find such a definition?? This is absolutely ideologic, without any scientific credibility. If you rely on wikiquote, you obtain every definition will serve your ideology. There are also marxist definitions, such this:

            Capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour. Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property

            For what weird reason I should choose you definition instead? If wiki is your source, you cannot progress a centimeter.

            There is also a definition by Einstein, SURELY a more clever guy than you and me, isn’t it?

            The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour…I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. Albert Einstein, in Why Socialism?

            In general, it is a great mistake extrapolate concepts from wiki. Take this:

            We must first decide what the meaning of the term ‘capitalism’ really is. Unfortunately, the term ‘capitalism’ was coined by its greatest and most famous enemy, Karl Marx. We really can’t rely upon him for correct and subtle usage. And, in fact, what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call ‘free-market capitalism’ on the one hand, and ‘state capitalism’ on the other. The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation.
            Murray Rothbard (2011) Economic Controversies. p. 671

            Here you get a contradiction with your definition, in first place, because explains (correctly) that free market capitaism and state capitalism are both “capitalism”; for example, in soviet union capitalism was hugely extended, and just minutes after the collapse of the regime there were huge capitals in the country, ready to be privatized. But in Rothbard’s definition there are also enormous errors, such describe free market capitalism as peaceful, voluntary exchange, when everybody knows the incredible violence of free market expropriation described by Marx in the Capital, during XVIII and XIX centuries (I intend violence against proletariat. As a class, bourgeoisie did not used violence to establish its economic domain: the violence was exerted by the old noble classes to defend their privileges and, obviously, by bourgeoisie too, after they seized the power though).

            You see how much problems raise only taking into account your approach to capitalism as an ideologic definition…, but I exort you to abandon this way and go toward science instead. So, first step for you must to be correcting your definition, purging it from the wrong sentence “contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth”. States are the biggest among all the capitalists.

  • Sanjeev

    Unfortunately, philosophers are not interested in controlling or ruling people, they want to be free and want others to be free. I guess even a “normal” human beings wouldn’t want to rule. Its the sub-human types that love leadership, power, money, deception, manipulation and build large armies to murder each other.

    Its a genetic trait, we all have that, but the will to dominate and rule is expressed more in some. These are fit to form governments, armies etc. and eventually rise up above everyone else. No matter who you put into the government, after few years/centuries, its taken over by such people.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    And they’re digging our graves.
    If the topic is funding, I just have to ask the question: WHO IS FUNDING THIS INSANITY. Just as I was getting excited about a world with LENR, I see this disconcerting video. Maybe bacteria will survive this but us multicellular organisms won’t. Is this the depraved 0.01% plan to “make the world a better place” for themselves. Do they think they can ride this out in their trillion dollar bunkers and then reseed the world with their seed vaults? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0Pwz4_c

  • Alan DeAngelis

    And they’re digging our graves.
    If the topic is funding, I just have to ask the question: WHO IS FUNDING THIS INSANITY. Just as I was getting excited about a world with LENR, I see this disconcerting video. Maybe bacteria will survive this but us multicellular organisms won’t. Is this the depraved 0.01% plan to “make the world a better place” for themselves. Do they think they can ride this out in their trillion dollar bunkers and then reseed the world with their seed vaults? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0Pwz4_c

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes,”
    Let’s not forget that F&P DID achieved deuterium-DEUTERIUM fusion. The hot fusion gang gave up on that (they reneged on their 1950s’ promise). They’re now squandering billions of our hard earned tax dollars trying to do the much easier deuterium-TRITIUM reaction with their simple-minded banging
    billiard balls together approach that even if it did work word produce lots of neutrons (and therefore radioactive waste).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      …would produce…
      i get tired thinking about this.

      • georgehants

        Alan, never worry about a few word errors, we know what you mean. 🙂

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “There’s a hole in daddy’s arm where all the money goes,”
    Let’s not forget that F&P DID achieved deuterium-DEUTERIUM fusion. The hot fusion gang gave up on that (they reneged on their 1950s’ promise). They’re now squandering billions of our hard earned tax dollars trying to do the much easier deuterium-TRITIUM reaction with their simple-minded banging
    billiard balls together approach that even if it did work word produce lots of neutrons (and therefore radioactive waste).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      …would produce…
      i get tired thinking about this.

      • georgehants

        Alan, never worry about a few word errors, we know what you mean. 🙂

  • Sanjeev

    Mark, life around you is the evidence. I can’t show you a specific case study with a complete psychological profile of a king or president, but the world and its history is full of cases for you to study.
    At most, you will find that the philosophers or wise men or saints sometimes do act as an advisers to kings or rulers, but never rule themselves. Anyway if you disagree you must be having some strong reason, so I have no problem at all 🙂

  • Omega Z

    IH/Rossi market the Model-A E-cat with zero profit margin.
    The Model-T never gets developed because there were no profits to pay for the research. Actually. Without someones previous profits, the Model-B never gets built.

    You have no clue to economics. In a nutshell, Capitalism & profits are about investing in the future. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t have one.

  • Omega Z

    The problem with capitalism at this time is there is not enough available for the necessary investments. It’s akin to having a 100 acre field & enough seed to plant only 90. It’s not reaching it’s full potential.

    Presently, in the U.S. you’ve seen on average of 3% return on investment & a 2% inflation rate. A net 1% annual gain isn’t near good enough to even keep up with current population growth. Strictly as an example, you have 10 people & $100 cash flow. Your population increases to 20, but your cash flow only increased to $150. A dwindling cash flow. You need at least 3/5 percent gain to see beneficial results.

    You need an injection of cash flow. Given the U.S. has a 16 Trillion$ GDP based on about 1 Trillion$ cash flow, It wouldn’t take that much to make things right within a couple years. There is a means to do this without devaluing currency or incurring debt..

    The problem isn’t capitalism, but Government policies. Much aimed at increasing cash flow by means of debt. Some because they don’t grasp the present situation and don’t know any better & some who do but want to maintain the status quo. Learn to differentiate the 2. We have a saying of don’t throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

    You’ll find greed & corruption everywhere, but it’s much worse in poor countries. If you want to minimize it, produce more, People tend to hoard & control that which is in short supply. Not what is plentiful. LENR will be of help in this matter, but know that greed & corruption will always be around. Some are just wired that way.

    U.S. GDP of 16 Trillion$is based on 1 Trillion$ in cash flow changing hands on average 16 times in a calendar year. It does not have 16 Trillion$. In fact, the world at large only has about 5 Trillion$ in total.

  • Omega Z

    Sorry, I gave you credit to be able to extrapolate the rest.
    No investing means capitalism can’t really take place.
    Capitalism
    “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”

    Such a system is much more efficient & productive when those involved have ownership. Unless those involved are just looking for a free ride in which case they tend to fold.

    Why do you keep throwing in economic theories that don’t work. Theories created by people who never had a real job or ever ran their own business.

    Marx was clueless. Once a factory is built, all value is arrived from labor.(Idiot) The Factory always has value as long as the product produced is needed. He should have built a factory & ran it. I’m quite sure his view would have substantially changed. Perhaps I should write a theory for brain surgery & propose all surgeons abide by it. I have as much experience at that as Marx has at economics. Maybe more. I can Google much info about it. Just pray you never need the surgery.

    Marx stated that when the people own the factories, things would be much better. Buy Stock. Make his dream come true. Many Corporations & businesses encourage their employees to do so. Tho most don’t like investing in the one they work at. Reality slaps them in the face. Pay increases reduce their returns & maintaining the infrastructure does as well.

    Understand the man & understand where he is coming from. Marx was looking for a way to enjoy the fruits of life without the need to contribute to it. That pretty much says it all. Something for nothing. He “Exploited” others misery to promote his theory.

    As to economic theory, I was watching a show 1 day & a person/professor who studied economic theory was brutally honest. He said they had no understanding of how economics really work. I was impressed by his honesty.

    You want a NEAR perfect economic system. Replace all humanity with Bots. All managed by a central processor. Their is no individual thoughts, wants or needs or free will. Only a single entity. The central processor.