[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Absolutely. As a matter of fact, private industry funds the majority of applied research — where profits are more likely to be made. I’ve never said otherwise (Pri likes to twist my words and edit my posts to suit his purposes).
What I HAVE said is that technology/innovation would not be where it is today without publicly-funded R&D. I have also said that our economy is based on a symbiotic relationship between public and private entities.
If there is any question as to my stance, please feel free to re-read my posts in this thread. Do not pay attention to the hack jobs that Pri has done to my posts. His claims about my beliefs and statements are not at all based in reality.[/quote]
No, what you actually said was that “”free market” countries don’t innovate (citation above.) Then you started backpedaling, along the way claiming that the government does all the “hard” work and that corporations just pickup the “easy” parts and now you’ve settled on the “we wouldn’t be anywhere without government research” argument.
Keep in mind that the NSF and most major government research funding did not even exist before the 1950s or so. The US had a helluva lot of technology before the government started handing out research grants.
I have no problem with government-funded research and I generally think it’s a good investment. But history has proven that we would still have plenty of progress without it, and the argument that all innovation is rooted in government research is absolutely ludicrous and completely unsubstantiated.[/quote]
No, I didn’t say that. Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head, yet again. I never said that “free market” countries don’t innovate; I was asking whether “free markets” flourished in low/no tax countries without stable govts, etc. vs. in higher-tax countries with all of those conditions. What I said was that [successful] “free markets” cannot exist without a stable government, rule of law, and social safety nets — all of which require a strong government and public infrastructure that is supported by taxes.
Here is my ENTIRE post (free from your “editing” hack jobs) from which you’ve clipped that paragraph, in addition to sdr’s post to which I was responding (from the second page in this thread):
[quote=sdrealtor]Submitted by sdrealtor on February 20, 2012 – 11:52pm.
I have to laugh because you constantly miss the point. Its not public vs private for me. It is socialism vs capitalism. You beleive in the former and I in the later. The public sector is simply the workplace of choice for socialists. I believe in expanding one’s mind through education be it public school or private school. There are winners and loser in that environment. You beleive in a sheltered and controlled education such as home schooling where there are only winners. Sorry but that contradicts your zero sum game philosophy. We cant all win.
I beleive in the risk taking and innovation that is the core of the American Spirit. These are the things that make this the best country in the world. You beleive that everyone should put their head down and work hard as part of a large machine. That work ethic while admirable can be found anywhere in the world. No where else in the world do you find the innovation, creativity and spirit that exists in our country.
I am not a right winged rah rah USA patriot. If anything I am left of center, live and let live liberal. But I am a beleiver in the American Spirit that recognizes the value of someone willing to put their ass on the line and take the risks that create a better world. That can be through pursuing higher education or pursuing an entrepreneurial enterprise. Just being being another cog in the machine is not what got us here nor is it what will keep us here.
[/quote]
[quote=CA renter]If you’re right, then where are these “free market” countries with all the innovation and creativity? Are they in no/low-tax countries with no/few social safety nets, or are they in places where there is a stable government, rule of law, and safety nets for those who are less fortunate — along with the relatively high taxes required by those systems?
If you have to focus on basic survival (which is what you see in countries with weak/no governments, weak law enforcement, and unpaid or low-paid public employees), you will not likely be coming up with new, innovative inventions. Let’s not forget all the basic research that enables this “innovation” to take place — with most of that being funded by good ol’ taxpayers, not private industry.
Where you and I disagree is that you seem to think that “socialism” and “capitalism” are two disparate systems; I think the two are absolutely essential for the other to exist successfully — it is a symbiotic relationship.
BTW, where in the world did you get the idea that I was opposed to entrepreneurial enterprise or education? I come from a long line of educators and college graduates, and have always emphasized learning for the sake of learning (one of the many reasons we homeschool, BTW).
There is a HUGE difference between entrepreneurial enterprise where someone creates or improves upon a good/service vs. leveraged speculation. A HUGE difference. I favor the former and oppose the latter because it drains money from the economy while not providing any material benefits to society.
Going to Vegas and throwing $100K on red is “taking risks,” but I fail to see how that should entitle someone to any kind of reward. You and I define “risk” differently, and we differ on what we feel is beneficial vs. detrimental to society as far as those “risks” are concerned.
I also have to comment on your persistence that “rich” people take risks, as if they do so with their own money. The most successful speculators rarely use their own money; they usually borrow it or obtain it from suckers in some kind of “investment” scheme.[/quote]
