FORD CEO ALAN MULALLY TESTIFIES ON CAPITOL HILL

[Johnny Dangerously]

Originally Posted by GT500KR

you guys remind me of a Too Young joke

Too Young
A guy's walking down the street and sees Dirty Johny smoking a cigarette. He says, "Kid, you're too young to smoke." Johny looks up and doesn't say anything. The guy says, "How old are you?"
Johny says, "Six."
The guy says, "Six? When did you start smoking?"
Johny says, "Right after the first time I got laid."
The guy says, "Right after the first time you got laid? When was that?"
Johny says, "I don't remember. I was drunk."

`

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

Good point Dan. Why can't they go to the same banks that are loaning Honda and Toyota money? I'm ignorant on this....are they Japanese just not in need of loans, or are they using Japanese banks?

I think they can't for two reasons. Honda and Toyota are relatively flush from competing on an uneven playing field here and in a largely closed home field (they're a bit more open now because the luxury segment that US carmakers were in demand for there has now been filled by Lexus, etc). I did analyze the Japanese keiretsu system extensively in the 80s at big blue and I can assure you that a top keiretsu bank would never permit a situation to exist where one of it's key businesses (in their vertically integrated keiretsu structure) to fail -- imo they would bail them out immediately to maintain the health of the structure. The keiretsu weakened after the early '90s banking meltdown in Japan but they most certainly still function today. Toyota is part of the most powerful keiretsu so would be assured of funding even if keiretsu banks had to merge to preserve mutually competitive structures ...and that happened in the early '90s and weakened the dominant Mitsui keiretsu, but Toyota is one of the crown jewels of that keiretsu and the Imperial bank would preserve them at all cost, imo. These days, however, I suspect they need no such special financial assistance -- they're too flush with US$ from competing on our beneficially-uneven field.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

This doesn't give me any tummy comfort, as our Congress has oversight of many things that have turned into a mess...so I don't trust them to do the right thing either.

Me neither, but realize that the context was in terms of protecting the public's investment. The discussion centered around forcing liquidation of peices to recoup the loan if the financial mileposts wer not met. In that context and assuming similar skills would be tapped as a bankruptsy court would employ, I'm ok with it -- with the unfortunate context of the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

First of all, let's assume it's NOT any different. I still don't want it...I didn't want it for the banks either and I'm irate that they did it anyway. Secondly, I think they are a bit different because the banks affect ALL parts of the economy, not just one. If you do this for the Big 3, why not the boat business? What about RVs? What about mattress makers? How about Eli Lilly? Microsoft? Where does it end?

They do affect all parts of the economy, and the government has injected money into the banks not just to bail out existing bad mortgages and flattened 401Ks, etc., but also to force new capital to be available to new loans to stimulate housing, etc. ...so why not for autos? One answer I think you would agree with is because new mortgages, etc are low risk ...the automakers are not low risk. And I think this is the crux. From what I know (just the public documents) of their financial statements, only Ford would reasonably be considered a prudent risk. The problem as I see it is that if the capital is made available to only Ford, they'll have no supply chain within 30-60 days of GM going belly up. It's just not viable, imo. Even if you let the big-3 and all the leveraged jobs of the tier-suppliers collapse, the government would still feel compelled to underwrite the warranties (rightly or wrongly, and they've said as much). I just don't see that as viable or financially as beneficial.

The where does it end is a critical question. Ideally it ends with the big three unless some other industry as deeply capitalized is also in trouble (aerospace?). Microsoft just doesn't 'qualify,' imo, because they can shed workforce with little 'tier' effect. They do not have deep capital investments in plant and machinery. They can get out of pieces of their business and enter others with little capital implications. I think the auto indistry is quite different. Drug companies have long product cycles but it's advertising-intensive with huge mark-ups not capital-intensive with razor-thin margins. Drugs are about exclusivity protected by patents -- there's little exclusivity in autos. A drug company going under does not jeopardize national security, nor does Microsoft because they largely do operating systems and Office. I clearly can't say where the line is, but I do perceive the auto industry as being somewhat unique. But giving all theree of the automakers loans without addressing the systemic playing-field problems might only permit Ford to justifiably survive (which can't happen in a vacuum as discussed before).

I don't like it either, I just feel it's the lesser of two evils as long as we're only talking about collateralized loans based on plans with checkpoints granular enough to assure mandatory restructure can pull out sufficient assets to cover the loan if those checkpoints aren't met.

When the magic of Obama (lol) ascends to the throne in January, i sure hope that's sufficient for the media to change to a more upbeat tune because I think wall street has disgested the bulk downturn now as evidenced by the market but unless folks who *do* have jobs resume spending on durables, the pit will get deeper -- and the media are a huge influence on how folks perceive 'life.'

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

Why not bypass the Big3 and just give all Americans the money to spend at any business they want...which would address my issue above about picking a particular industry? I know the answer...because some people would save the money instead of spending it on cars.

I think you'll see another "economic stimulus" (lol) too, but that won't help GM pay make payroll or pay their electric bill on December 15th, etc.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

I agree on this point....I think the union is going to have to make the lion's share of the sacrifices. Until they get to the point where their wages/benefits/productivity are essentially the same as the Japanese, the Big3 will be in trouble. What's amazing is that the wages are not THAT different...Honda is paying a fairly good wage...but they are not unionized, so the labor flexibility is much greater, which increases productivity and drives down costs.

If you just look at wages it's not all that diff, I admit. But when you look at total cost of labor (as fully burdened $/hr) the diff is rather huge, isn't it? At least that's what I've seen in print and it's consistent with the nums in that second PDF I posted a lint to (the congressional supplement). Even when cast across the total cost of a retail vehicle (so labor is now only a piece) it's about 20% (per TV commentary) which is rather consistent with the $4K on a Fusion example I've used int he past.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

I say let them fail. The consequences would be dire. Lots of unemployment, lots of downside in the market..IN THE SHORT TERM. But over time, someone will start a new car company and compete....perhaps more than one. I think there is room for at least 2.

Well, I'll be damned then that we've beiled the banks and all the bad loans. I say, bail out the banks *for* the bad loans but let those who owned those bad loans lose their homes -- those that got in over their heads should pay the price, should they not? That's the way it always was. You don't pay the mortgage you lose your home. They can't take it out of your pocket -- the home is the collateral -- it's not a signature loan. Problem is, we're dealing with politicians (and democrats are in control!) and they are loath to let the $hit hit the bottom of the pyramid directly because that would tarnish their Robin Hood image and we (those that pay their bills) would have to pay to house the huge increase in homeless, etc. So in that regard it's the lesser of the two evils. In that regard the automakers are similar, imo -- measured loans seem to be the lesser of two evils. Still, that we help those who directly caused the problem while considering letting and industry fail that wants nothing more than what it could have gotten from the banks two months ago, before liquidity dried-up, pi$$es me off.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

We've lost whole industries on other items. It's not good, but it happens. Electronics. Shoes.

That because they could not compete heads-up. Electronics is not totally lost. IBM competes succesfully -- even at a chip-fab level, as do a few others, but I understand your point. Shoes? ...ok, maybe combat boots could be strategic ;-)

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

I am terrified of the consequences of failure in the short term, but I still think leaving them to the free market is the best long-term approach. The union guy has been saying "this is not a bailout, it's a LOAN". Well guess what....a loan IS a bailout when no one except the government will give it to you.

At least for Ford, it's not that no one would do that (give them loans) it's that no one *can* now do that because of the banking meltdown. Ford got loans right up until the meltdown. They've converted old debt at poorer rates as the reates dropped. The rates are exceptionally low right now, just that the meltdown has belched the pump and only the government can re-prime it quickly. If we could fastforward past the meltdown, Ford would get loans not problem, imo. GM too, just at less favorable rates, I think. Chrysler is on life support already. The minivan is dead and the only nameplate that's sellable is Jeep -- which is what GM wanted before the meltdown since they were/are jettisoning Hummer.

If I could fix things with a magic want, I'd fund Ford (not because I like Ford, which I do, but because they're 'fundable' in the capital markets if they had money), restructure GM (at least two divisions need restructure or dissolution, imo) and gut Chrysler back to Jeep and maybe a CUV. At a business level that's what I think makes sense and what will happen anyway. If the playing field were leveled, Ford would be golden, GM would be 'OK, and Chrysler would still be in trouble, but possibly surviveable, imo.

Congress won't address the tough issues, imo. Japan (the country)declared economic war on the US going back to the '70s. Japan (the country) specifically targeted the auto and electronics industries in the US because both were relatively easy pickings given this country's insane policies. Even the Japanese infiltration a US corporation to outright steal their engineering books is not too far to go when you're determined to win -- that's the mindset of keiretsu Japan. If you get caught, you fall on your sword and resign (lol). It's not like us companies are competing against Japanese companies -- they're competing against Japan itself ...blocks out exports when convenient, directly provides long-term funding for entry into strategic indistries.

Congress is a bunch of fools, imo.

[68fastback]

Why should the US bear all the burden? ;-) ...released by Ford Media today:

FORD OF CANADA SUBMITS BUSINESS PLAN TO GOVERNMENT

• Ford submitted to the governments of Canada and Ontario its business plan, saying it expects both its overall and its North American Automotive business pre-tax results to be breakeven or profitable in 2011.
• Company requests access to a "stand-by" line of credit of up to $2 billion to be used only if the current economic crisis worsens.
• Ford of Canada urges the federal government to support auto financing activities -- more than 90 per cent of Canadians purchasing new vehicles rely on loans and leases and the current credit crisis threatens their access to financing.
• Governments also encouraged to assist automakers with the transition to new fuel efficient technologies to meet changing consumer demand and to consider consumer stimulus actions.

More...

[Alloy Dave]

Originally Posted by 68fastback

If you just look at wages it's not all that diff, I admit. But when you look at total cost of labor (as fully burdened $/hr) the diff is rather huge, isn't it?

The legacybenefit costs are much different, but not the new employees (less than about 12-15 years experience). They have been cutting health benefits, raising health care premiums, using HMOs, etc. for some time now...but those who had the benefits "back in the day" and have retired are still entitled to those...I think that's where all the costs are. I can't blame them for not giving that up...you worked your whole life for that and now can't return to work because you're too old...so what to do? What other companies are doing is ending health care once you reach age 65...they are forcing the government to take care of you via Medicare. Our company did that 2 years ago. The other biggies is the jobs bank...laid off workers get about 95% of their pay...kinda like unemployment on steroids...no incentive to return to work elsewhere.

I still think the work rules are the key...the companies need the flexibility. I led a team of union employees 4 years ago (not UAW), and it was amazing the things that went on. Let's say we had to produce 65 items to meet customer demand, but by the end of the shift we only had 55. I'd ask someone to stay over to work...but had to do it in seniority order. Let's say Joe was most senior. He'd say "sure, I'll work". But Joe has not been trained on the testing stand that's needed to pass the items through final inspection...he normally runs the shim machine up front. So the union rules said that I had to pay a second person to stay overtime to train Joe. In other words, I had to pay two people to do one job.

One might say, "well, why didn't you train Joe earlier on that job?". The answer is that of my 13 employees, I had at least one absent EVERY DAY and had to scramble to keep production moving. The attendance policy was so lax that you had to TRY to get in trouble. You had to have 4 unexcused absences in a calendar month to get written up. So guys would have 3...then be a "good boy" until the following month. It drove me absolutely nuts.

Originally Posted by 68fastback

Well, I'll be damned then that we've beiled the banks and all the bad loans. I say, bail out the banks *for* the bad loans but let those who owned those bad loans lose their homes -- those that got in over their heads should pay the price, should they not?

Agree completely. I've been told I'm not "compassionate" for stating this.

Originally Posted by 68fastback

Electronics is not totally lost.

I was thinking TVs...should have been more specific.

Originally Posted by 68fastback

At least for Ford, it's not that no one would do that (give them loans) it's that no one *can* now do that because of the banking meltdown.

Cerberus has plenty of cash...why would they not invest in Ford? Heck, they invested in Chrysler and now want to sue because they say they were "misled" about the poor state of Chrysler.


We do agree on the politicians being idiots.

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

The legacybenefit costs are much different, but not the new employees (less than about 12-15 years experience). They have been cutting health benefits, raising health care premiums, using HMOs, etc. for some time now...but those who had the benefits "back in the day" and have retired are still entitled to those...I think that's where all the costs are. I can't blame them for not giving that up...you worked your whole life for that and now can't return to work because you're too old...so what to do? What other companies are doing is ending health care once you reach age 65...they are forcing the government to take care of you via Medicare. Our company did that 2 years ago. The other biggies is the jobs bank...laid off workers get about 95% of their pay...kinda like unemployment on steroids...no incentive to return to work elsewhere.

Yeah, big blue has done much of that for healthcare. Fortunately they had vested the legacy pensions adequately and that has all been farmed-out to a Fidelity. That's what I'd like to see the automakers also do, except that's financially impossible for them at this point. The jobs-bank is inexcuseable. Perfect example as unions as business terrorists, imo.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

I still think the work rules are the key...the companies need the flexibility. I led a team of union employees 4 years ago (not UAW), and it was amazing the things that went on. Let's say we had to produce 65 items to meet customer demand, but by the end of the shift we only had 55. I'd ask someone to stay over to work...but had to do it in seniority order. Let's say Joe was most senior. He'd say "sure, I'll work". But Joe has not been trained on the testing stand that's needed to pass the items through final inspection...he normally runs the shim machine up front. So the union rules said that I had to pay a second person to stay overtime to train Joe. In other words, I had to pay two people to do one job.
One might say, "well, why didn't you train Joe earlier on that job?". The answer is that of my 13 employees, I had at least one absent EVERY DAY and had to scramble to keep production moving. The attendance policy was so lax that you had to TRY to get in trouble. You had to have 4 unexcused absences in a calendar month to get written up. So guys would have 3...then be a "good boy" until the following month. It drove me absolutely nuts.

I can't imagine having to tolerate that crap. I'm sure that's one of many situations too. This is how unions cripple productivity. Up until the 60s sometime (forget the exact date) big blue permitted a number of sick days and they were, not surprisingly, used. The policy was then changed to unlimited sick days but if you take off as sick and you're not sick, you're fired! Sick days plumeted to an average of only +/- 3 per year! Need time off for the doctor, no prob. Need time off for family, no prob. Lie and take a day off as sick -- you're history. Of couse you still have vacation and personal days (doctor, etc). Then they also added flex holidays (forget when, '80s?) so that they could limit the days a facility actually shuts down (like XMAS, July 4th, etc). So instead of 10 rigid holidays the whole company observed, it might now be limited to 6 plus 4 flex-holidays the employee can allocate (within the needs of the business, coverage, etc). These are all proven strategies most large businesses now use ...makes you wonder how the automakers survive with union shops (ooops, maybe that's the point?).

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

Agree completely. I've been told I'm not "compassionate" for stating this.

I was thinking TVs...should have been more specific.

Well, it's not compassionate. I would feel terrible for anyone who got in over their head and had their house forclosed but no one made them do that. I think it's bit different if you lose your job but had a prudent mortagage for a house you could afford. Those folks I feel more compassionate toward. Life's not fair.

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

Cerberus has plenty of cash...why would they not invest in Ford? Heck, they invested in Chrysler and now want to sue because they say they were "misled" about the poor state of Chrysler.


We do agree on the politicians being idiots.

For sure ;-)

But, re Cerberus, I thought they primarily invest to own/control. A bank accepts collateral. I thought Cerberus would want partnership rights at a minimum. I don't think Ford/GM are interested in that right now tho they may become interested if they miss performance checkpoints (lol) if a loan is given. Then I think you may see folks like Cerberus acquire or become partners in a sliced-and-diced Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, etc (actually, maybe not! -lol).

Overall, for me, the sad part is that the playing field is uneven and, in spite of that, the big three have competed anyway and parts of GM and much of Ford are higly competitive outside the US. I genuinely think that much of the problem is the timing right now -- the cars have improved dramaticall but untill public perception catches up it will be a huge struggle and after perception does catch up (if they live long enough) it will still be a very competitive arena, even if the playing field were level.

[Joe G]

BREAKING: Automakers to get $15 billion in federal loans - Autoblog

BREAKING: Automakers to get $15 billion in federal loans

It's taken two rounds of Congressional hearings, some major pride swallowing and three detailed business plans, but it looks as if the Detroit 3 will be getting the federal loans they need, though not as much they asked for. A deal was reportedly reached between Democratic leaders and the White House that will supply around $15 billion in federal loans to the struggling U.S. auto industry. While General Motors, Ford and Chrysler asked for a combined maximum of $34 billion, the $15 billion is designed to ensure they stay alive until March when the issue will be readdressed with the input of a fresh Obama administration. GM and Chrysler reportedly need around $11 billion to survive the new year, while Ford has said it would only need government aid if one of the other two went under.

-

[VaporDude]

I am glad to see the big 3 get this money although I hate the idea of the tax payer having to foot the bill. They do need to have someone oversee how to make them more efficient and to revamp the executive pay structure.

I like what I see how Ford is making progress with their restructuring but I think they can move a little faster in new technology. I know there needs to be alot of testing done and to get the government approvals on alot of it but I think it can move along a little faster than it does now.

[The Bone]

It's a loan just like Chrysler got in the 80's right?
Not the same as the banks they gave them 480 BILLION without a plan and no accountability whatsoever.
Talk about bad management It was harder to get a car loan than a house loan.
All you had to do to buy a home was have a pulse and a faint one at that.
AIG went on a holiday on our money and Citicorp has its name on a ballpark for 400 MILLION with our money now. Congress has the balls to talk to the automakers like this.
Art

[68fastback]

...plus it was the banks (certain ones, anyway) that created all the crap loans to begin with -- they were addicts for the turnover ...evenif it meant tossing prudent risk-management to the wind.

True politicians, they caome up with a way to delay a real decision to March 31st

[HSURB]

Word is on the street, once they get the money, they are going to load the hybrids up onto the corporate planes and head back to Detroit.

OK, that wasn't funny.

HSURB®

[KR]

Any way you look at it, it's a bailout........We'll all pay for their ineptitude and greed!

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by GT500KR

Any way you look at it, it's a bailout........We'll all pay for their ineptitude and greed!

...you talking about Congress or the auto execs?

[KR]

Originally Posted by 68fastback

...you talking about Congress or the auto execs?





Flip a coin, You can't lose on that one

Flip a coin, You can't lose on that one

[68fastback]

This very brief Ford Media statement was released this afternoon. Here's the text in it's entirety:

Ford Motor Company Statement on Proposed Congressional Automotive Industry Bill

DEARBORN, Mich., Dec. 8 – As we told Congress, Ford is in a different position. We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we will not be seeking a short term bridge loan. But Ford fully supports an effort to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler, as our industry is highly interdependent and a failure of one of our competitors could affect us all.

I don't think this means Ford won't belly-up for longer-term financing (for in-plan retooling, green-initiatives, etc) that they would otherwise have gotten from a healthy banking industry (and/or the soon-to-be-depleted-by-Congress EPA green-initiatives fund).

...good news of the merely-not-so-terrible variety?

[Joe G]

I just found last weeks "USA Today" in my briefcase - a leftover from my last business trip.

Reading the editorial page I saw this. Goes well with many thoughts already posted here.

Blame and the Big 3 - Opinion - USATODAY.com


-

[VaporDude]

Good article......

[HSURB]

This thread has very good information on it. It just takes a tremendous amount of time to read it all.

My theory is, I try to tell most of the story with photos. Really good quality photos tell a thousand words!!!!!!

I'll go now.

HSURB®

[KR]

House approves $14B auto industry bailout
The rescue package sped to approval in the U.S. House, but the bailout was still in jeopardy from Senate Republicans.

No balls!

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Joe G

I just found last weeks "USA Today" in my briefcase - a leftover from my last business trip.

Reading the editorial page I saw this. Goes well with many thoughts already posted here.

Blame and the Big 3 - Opinion - USATODAY.com


-

I think he's on the competitiveness piece but he's singing right out of the liberal-left and ultra-greens on artifically pushing up gas prices. His position on that, imo, is cloaked talk for artificially making alternatives 'competitive' by making gas non-competitive. While such an approach could successfully put gas in the big squeeze, it's not clear to me that it would not be better for government to provide incentives ($$$) focussed on alternative energy forms (both research $$$ and re-tooling incentives -- like what's being done but more focussed and more $$$). Politically, it works much better to make oil/gas non-competitive, but it's artificial and will only slow progress, imo. Plus, as he mentions, artificially escallating the price of oil/gas hits the poorest workers/commuters in our society the hardest and he proposes subsidies/kick-backs for that. Unfortunately, the nations seniors would not see a cent of that because they don't commute -- they drive to survive, to shop for food and other necessities. Up here in rural America communities are having to set up driver assistance programs because many just can't afford gas ...period. Artificially forcing it higher every year, while artificially perdictable, is also the wrong approach, imo, because it creates an atrificial (suboptimized) market for the new technologies which, defacto, will compete on price only here ...on the artificial field created by that legislation. Imo, the US needs to lead the world in key emerging technologies (not just compete here) if we are to truly prosper.

Admittedly, the Achilles-heel of focussing and increasing R&D and tooling incentives means that someone needs to determine what those are -- which is prone to political mischief (ethanol comes to mind). Ethanol is a poster-child surogate for farmer subsidies without the political stigma and with a green halo -- unfortunately, it comes with huge enviro impact and over twice true costs vs gas when measured on an equal footing.

At big blue I reviewed dozens of strategic business proposals every year to compete in the spring strategic cycle. Of course every proposal was a winner in the eyes of the owner, but they had to convince us (strategic staff) before we'd let it near an executive. We'd publish 'guidance' on what we felt were important strategic competitive areas we'd like to see addressed but untimately they decided what they wanted considered for funding. But they also knew that if it went forward with our thumbs-down, it didn't have a prayer. This encouraged deep, healthy and ongoing collaboration between strategy and pragmatics. Such a system works well when the strategists are uncorruptable (I was). Unfortunately, I don't feel government is. So I would want to see a national science advisary board that works with government and industry to focus both R&D (at the inlet of the process) and specific tooling/production inititatives (at the downstream-end) to make sure that, as a country, we're focussed on what's important and that what's important is getting attention thru the entire pipeline. The businesses with the most competitive technologies should get more 'pipelining' benefit because they are, by definition, more effectively impacting not only America's energy security, but America's global competitiveness.

This is a model that works at all major technology companies in the US today in one form or another, from GE to Ford to IBM. Yes, the auto indistry needs stable assumptions, but the proce of gas is not the problematic variable. The problematic variable is lack of a forward-thinking and realtively stable energy *policy* focussed by the realities of good science and talented planning. I.e., keep the *rules* realtively stable and focussed on the right (science-based) strategic goals, not the cost of gas, and American industry will compete effectively and prosper under those rules by virtue of the 'smartest-rat' scenario. And to the extent those goals are globally-wise, the smartest US 'rats' will successfully compete globally and better shift our balance of trade toward export, etc.

The wisdom of the 'make-gas-expensive' approach (if there is any wisdom in it) is that any idiot can administer it (i.e. perfect for Congress ). The disadvantage is that the results may be non-competitive with those in the global market -- what really matters over the long haul -- not to mention all the inherent domestic social 'breakage' that will inexorably follow.

As an example of the approach I'm suggesting done right, look at solar-electric installs in NY (it took NY forever to get 'religion' on net-metering and solar, but now their program is considered a national model of excellence). Rather than artificially doubling the cost of electricity (a burdensome and suboptimal approach), NY, in conjunction with the Federal incentive programs, mandated net-metering (by law, so all future homes would be solar/wind/etc capable on the grid because all utilities can install only* bi-directional meter boxes, etc, on new homes) and used the existing NYSERDA agency (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) to establish programs to exploit best-practices, etc. Further, installers must be licensed for the resident to get the assistance which flows to the resident as a tax rebate under the ID of the licensed installer). Long story short, the program has been highly subscribed. It started by focussing on homes that had no electric grid attachment (the most in need of solar-electric assistance), then small grid-interactive residential systems, then larger residential and commercial/business solar installations, etc. The point is that incenting focussed solutions are always better, imo, than artificially dis-incenting the status quo through burdensome pricing -- but it takes science, realtively stable policies and good management practices to work. That may disqualify Congress (lol) ...no-probllem, let them assure stable and adequate incentives-funding for world-class science-based R&D goals/programs, etc. This country has the talent -- we just need to have science-based global competitiveness, not politics, steer our energy futures, imho.

[KR]

This country has the talent -- we just need to have science-based global competitiveness, not politics, steer our energy futures, imho.
As always you sum up nicely