Andy Grove From Intel Is Wrong

Reference:

Altucher, J. (2010, July 6). Andy Grove From Intel Is Wrong. Retrieved September 13, 2010, from The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/financial-adviser/2010/07/06/andy-grove-from-intel-is-wrong/


Summary:

In his article, “Andy Grove from Intel is Wrong,” James Altucher explains how the former Intel CEO Andy Grove is mistaken in his protectionist financial views. According to Altucher, Grove is a great business man and personal hero but is mistaken on his views. He points out that Grove is unable to point out one country that has thrived by being protectionist. He refutes Grove’s claim about tanks in the streets in 1932, by pointing out that the crisis that drove them there were protectionist policies. He then uses as an example post World War Two Germany and Japan whose open trade policy led to a remarkable financial boom. He finishes by claiming that innovation is still being done in America, pointing out Google and Facebook. He finishes by stating that if everything was made in America it would be too expensive to purchase.


Response:

I am unclear whether I agree with Altucher or Grove. Both make good points about their views on the economy and business. I tend to side more with Grove because he laid out a better argument. However, Altucher does make some valid points. I do agree that being to protectionist could be bad for business, and eventually for the consumer. We have to remember that if it costs a company more to make something, it will cost more to buy it. I cannot help but wonder if it may not be better to combine the two views. Still, it is not healthy for any economy to be totally reliant on outside sources of manufacturing. There are certain things that a country should make for itself. While I do agree more with Grove, I don’t want to get carried away and completely do away with free trade between nations.

Is American Tech Industry Oiling Its Own Guillotine.

• Reference:

Hiner, J. (2010, August 30). Is the American Tech Industry Oiling Its Own Guillotine? Retrieved September 4, 2010, from ZDNet: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/is-the-american-tech-industry-oiling-its-own-guillotine/38594


• Summary:

In the article “Is American Tech Industry Oiling Its Own Guillotine,” the author Jason Hiner talks about the impact of moving manufacturing jobs over sees. The article is based upon the assertions made by former Intel CEO Andy Grove about the modern trends in business. According to the article, Grove has begun to warn about the problems of moving manufacturing jobs overseas and is promoting what some call a protectionist business agenda. According to Grove, if America continues the practice of exporting manufacturing jobs it will destroy its own economy. Gates said that innovation is tied to manufacturing and that by allowing manufacturing elsewhere the innovation will occur elsewhere. Grove uses the battery industry as an example. The batteries manufactured now are made by companies in Asia, while this was not a problem, now with the growing demand for lithium batteries other countries are set to profit. According to Grove, the government should start enacting policies designed to keep manufacturing jobs in America by providing incentives to companies here and applying additional taxes and tariffs to companies who manufacture their products overseas.




• Response:

I can understand the concerns of Grove. Any country that does not manufacture its own products is at a disadvantage to countries that do. I do not see how this is allowed to happen. Countries have many people who need jobs and a way to learn a trade or occupation; however, without the opportunity they will not have the chance. I would think that countries would want to manufacture their own products for economic reasons. For one, more people working means more tax revenue. It is also good for security. It is not good for a nation to have to rely on another country for products. If something happens, then that country can refuse to produce the products and that would hurt everyone. Also, not everyone can work in an office or have a degree; some people need manufacturing jobs to support their families. I believe it is time for America to reconsider whether it wants to allow all of its manufacturing to be done by other countries when it has people here who could do the work.

MIT uses nanotechnology to build autonomous oil-absorbing robot.

Reference:

Nanowerk News. (2010, August 26). MIT uses nanotechnology to build autonomous oil-absorbing robot. MIT.Retrieved August 30, 2010, from Nanowerk: www://nanowerk.com/news/newsid=17787.php


Summary:

The article is, “MIT uses nanotechnology to build autonomous oil-absorbing robot,” about the new technology developed by MIT to help with oil spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. The prototype, called the sea swarm, was revealed on August 28. The robot uses a conveyer covered with nanowire mesh designed to absorb oil. The fabric can absorb up to twenty times its weight in oil while repelling water. According to the article, the fabric can then be heated to remove and burn the oil and the fabric can be reused. By using solar panels, the robot can do this while using only the power used for one household light bulb. This gives it the potential to clean for weeks. It is designed to work with other units like a swarm around the clock without human workers being involved. They estimate that a swarm of 5,000 of these robots could clean a spill the size of the one in the gulf in a month.


Reaction (Response):

For me this is a good thing. When oil spills, it can be terrible for the environment and the animals. A system like this one would be a big help to countries like mine that are at risk of oil spills. Anything that helps is very important to design and produce. The idea of it not using people is also good. People need rest and food so they can only work for a limited time. Robots do not need either so they can work without stopping for days, even months. I think something like this is just now being made because of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico making people think of answers to a problem. It would have been better to develop this before it was needed though. Still, now is better than it not being made at all. I see this technology being very important in the future; let us just pray that it is not needed.