2012 Edition: What’s your raise this year?

[sdrealtor]

Yes the seeds were sown in government research but it was developed and made what it is by the private sector. That is except for the CIA’s extremely successful Facebook initiative

[CA renter]

The REAL risks were taken by taxpayers/govt. Once the hard (and riskiest and most expensive) work was done, the private sector fine-tuned it and reaped all the rewards that really belong to the taxpayers as well.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]The REAL risks were taken by taxpayers/govt. Once the hard (and riskiest and most expensive) work was done, the private sector fine-tuned it and reaped all the rewards that really belong to the taxpayers as well.[/quote]

Yes, those NSF employees are taking the “real” risks.

I wonder how many Piggs have worked for a tech company or startup and have lost their job at some point in their careers…

So if all innovation and progress comes from the government, why did every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come from a capitalist country?

Immunizations, steam and internal-combustion engines, electrical lighting, air travel, automobiles, telecommunications, plastics, microprocessors, heart stents, breast implants, …

Why do socialist countries and their government-controlled economies always lose the race to invent and develop these things?

More state workers means more innovation!

I know it’s a lost cause, but try to understand the meaning of the word “empirical” before you respond.

[CA renter]

Basic research is where the real risks are taken, and the majority of it is govt-funded.

Before you start listing those items, do check the history to make sure there is no public funding involved at any level.

You should also check your facts before stating that “every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come[s] from a capitalist country.”

Remember, the U.S. isn’t really a “capitalist” country in the sense that our government provides for the physical, legal, social, and military infrastructure without which most of this “innovation” couldn’t or wouldn’t take place. If left to it’s own devices, the private market would not be nearly as innovative or productive as it’s been. Not only that, but the vast amount of money spent on public education (at all levels) is also a govt-funded “gift” to the private sector. Then, there’s the govt-funded R&D…but don’t let yourself get bogged down in facts or anything.

[CA renter]

BTW, meant to include this in my ARPANET post above regarding the Lincoln Laboratory:

“MIT Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center that applies advanced technology to problems of national security.”

Some of the work being done by those “state workers”:

Technology News
Real-time speech communication on packet networks named an IEEE Milestone
MIT Lincoln Laboratory radar technology improves breast-cancer treatment
New supercomputer at MIT Lincoln Laboratory is “green”
Journal cover image created by MIT Lincoln Laboratory technology
MIT Lincoln Laboratory wins four 2011 R&D 100 Awards
Lincoln Laboratory develops a technique to cure a broad range of viruses
Student interns experiment with satellite building
Recent News and Awards
Engineers help student designers build products of the future
MIT Lincoln Laboratory is awarded Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Flag
MIT Lincoln Laboratory helps celebrate the official unveiling of the Space Surveillance Telescope
Lincoln Laboratory presents the Small Business of the Year Award
Marilyn Wolfson named 2012 Fellow of the American Meteorological Society
MIT Lincoln Laboratory researchers receive NASA award
MIT doctoral students thrive doing research at Lincoln Laboratory
View all news

Features
RAPID Prototyping Technology
All-Weather Hyperspectral Atmospheric Sounding
Wind-Shear System Cost-Benefit Analysis
Rapid Prelaunch Testing of the JPSS VIIRS Sensor
High-Efficiency Error Correction for Photon Counting

http://www.ll.mit.edu/

There are multiple publicly-funded labs and research institutes across the country that are doing the research that serves as a springboard for private industry — so many of the innovations we enjoy today are a result of R&D done at these labs.

Damn those “state workers”!

[sdrealtor]

I dont think any of us are advocating for NO Gov’t. We get it that the public sector is a vital part of our country but you seem to think its everything. It simply isnt. Its both working together. Both should succeed together and both should suffer together. Our gripe is the inequality between things due to how much more the public sector has grown than necessary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA Renter]You should also check your facts before stating that “every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come[s] from a capitalist country.”[/quote]

Ok. I checked the facts.

And guess what, the facts prove me right!

You need to do more than google/cut/paste when you respond. Your list does nothing to support your thesis that all innovation comes from the government.

The US government did not start funding scientific research in any substantial amounts until about the mid 20th century. Most of the innovations I listed above came before then. The US led the world in innovation and technology long before the NSF even existed.

So let’s see if you can answer the question that I asked this time. Here’s my question again, the one that addresses the crux of YOUR claim:

[quote]Why do socialist countries and their government-controlled economies always lose the race to invent and develop these things?[/quote]

The Soviet Union did lots of “basic research” – they had more government scientists than the US did. North Korea and Cuba have a “physical, legal, social, and military infrastructure” – they actually spend a much higher portion of their wealth on these things.

So why do all innovations come from the capitalist US, Japanese, Korean, and European economies?

The answer is obviously NOT “basic research funding” because both the capitalist and socialist worlds have basic research, and there was plenty of innovation in the capitalist world before any government spent a dime on scientific research.

If you cannot specifically address the failures of the Soviet Union or another non-capitalist economy, then you have not answered the question, and you score a fail.

[CA renter]

Pri,

Which “capitalist” countries are you referring to? If you’re talking about countries that are 100% dependent on the private market, you have yet to list one.

You do realize that most European nations practice a form of socialism, not capitalism, right? Seems you’re confusing socialism with communism. Most “socialists” would not consider themselves communists, and many are as opposed to strict communism as they are to strict capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International

……………

Japan:

“Fukoku kyōhei (富国強兵?, “Enrich the country, strengthen the military”), originally a phrase from the ancient Chinese historical work on the Warring States Period, Zhan Guo Ce (Kanjigen, Gakken Co., Ltd.), was Japan’s national slogan during the Meiji Era, replacing sonnō jōi (“Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians”).

The slogan was the central objective of the Meiji leaders. Fukoku kyohei entailed the formulation of far-reaching policies to transform Japanese society in an all out effort to catch up with the West. Although the government played a major role in providing the setting for industrialization, destroying old institutions that proved obstacles to industrialization and creating new institutions that would facilitate economic and political modernization, private enterprise also played a critical role in the distinctly Japanese combination of public and private sector effort later criticized in the 1980s as “Japan Inc.” This symbolized an emerging nationalism in Japan.

Originating from the Iwakura Mission to Europe, the phrase not only demonstrated national objectives, but also revealed awareness of the predatory nature of international politics at the time. Both Okubo Toshimichi and Ito Hirobumi called for the advice of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck; his advice convinced the Meiji leaders of the necessity for a militarily and economically strong Japan and nationalism in order to preserve independence.

The fukoku kyohei objective led to massive governmental overhaul. Okubo thought that the Meiji government had to play a key role and formulate a clear set of policies. He thus espoused mercantilist visions and rejected the free trade ideas of Fukuzawa Yukichi. Ito Hirobumi also cautioned against free trade – he advocated the establishment of a protective tariff to ensure the prosperity of domestic manufactures. However, when the tariff has outlived its usefulness, Japan should imitate England and permit free trade. But before Japan could decide on its own foreign trade policy, it first had to get rid of the unequal treaties imposed by the imperial powers in the 1850s.

The industrial policy that resulted had 5 components:

(1) An active role for the state in the development of the economy;
(2) import substitution for industries that would compete with imports – the most important being cotton goods in textiles, threads and yarns;
(3) adoption of Western technology to increase production of sophisticated products;
(4) export development of crafts, tea and raw silk but also increasingly value-added products;
(5) avoidance of relying on foreign loans.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukoku_ky%C5%8Dhei

…………………

Again, where is this “Capitalist Utopia” where the private market creates 100% of all that is good and useful? Where is it? I’ve never seen nor heard of such a place. The best you can do is name countries that are have either a hybrid/mixed economy or ones that are well-known socialist countries. Other countries have received major assistance from the ***governments*** of other countries (namely, ours). Where are the 100%, free-market countries where the private sector is totally (or even primarily) responsible for a successful middle class and a booming economy. Where are they? Name one.
—————–

We’ve already discussed why many communist/socialist nations have failed — most failed because of trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and wars…most of this initiated by the U.S. in their fight against “communism” (we don’t like competition).

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Which “capitalist” countries are you referring to? If you’re talking about countries that are 100% dependent on the private market, you have yet to list one.[/quote]

I listed them in my prior post: USA, Japan, South Korea, all or Europe. Let’s not forget Australia and Canada.

Your definition of capitalism of being “100% dependent on the private market” is completely bogus. It’s a pathetic straw man argument that you are contriving because it’s the only thing you’ve got to knock down.

Nobody here (except you), in fact nobody, anywhere, ever, has defined a capitalist economy as one with no government.

[quote=CA renter]You do realize that most European nations practice a form of socialism, not capitalism, right?[/quote]

You do realize that you are repeating Republican party rhetoric?

What does “practice a form of socialism” even mean?

The vast majority of the European economy is privately owned business. Europe’s economy is capitalist, plain and simple. Only Sarah Palin and her ilk believe otherwise.

Ever hear of Shell Oil? Saab? Siemens? How about Nokia?

BP, BASF, Nestle, Phillips, … these are just a few of the ones familiar to most Americans. There are thousands of private, capitalist companies in Europe, some of them as big as anything here in the US.

I haven’t even mentioned the weapons manufacturers. There’s a big one with a site right here in San Diego.

And guess where most Europeans work? At private-sector companies:

http://specials.ft.com/ft500/may2001/FT3YUZJFKMC.html

Even IKEA, a symbol of “socialist” Sweeden is completely privately owned and uses a complex web of tax shelters that makes Mitt Romney look like an amateur:

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

[quote]Seems you’re confusing socialism with communism.[/quote]

There is no confusion. They are one in the same. You are using an argument that has been completely discredited by history. There has never been a socialist economy that was not communist or a dictatorship. Not one. And there’s a very good reason why that is the case.

[quote]Again, where is this “Capitalist Utopia” where the private market creates 100% of all that is good and useful? Where is it?[/quote]

Once again, capitalism does not mean “no government.” Quit with the straw man.

Need an example of Capitalist Utopia? How ’bout a place called San Diego, California?

[quote]We’ve already discussed why many communist/socialist nations have failed — most failed because of trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and wars…most of this initiated by the U.S. in their fight against “communism” (we don’t like competition).[/quote]

Yeah, they failed because we were not nice to them.

Now do you realize that trade embargoes and economic sanctions work both ways, and that wars have two sides? We didn’t trade with them, and they didn’t trade with us.

But for reasons you cannot explain, the “superior” socialist system – the one that you claim produces so much innovation and wealth – collapsed while the “broken” capitalist system continues to thrive.

[CA renter]

“Hasn’t socialism been discredited by the collapse of
Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their
bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.”
Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling
classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former
Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic
rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that
struggle throughout the world.
Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all
radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s
ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and
assembly.”

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

……………

“Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

………………

This article is instructive WRT how some view capitalism, socialism, and communism. It explains why many/most modern socialists disavow communism every bit as much as they disavow “capitalism.” It’s the concentration of wealth that causes corruption, and it is corruption that causes economies to fail. Whether the elite wear “communist” hats or “capitalist” hats, the actors are invariably the same — they are the sociopathic megalomaniacs whose sole purpose in life is to amass ever-increasing amounts of wealth and power. Socialism (as many “socialists” view it, including myself), seeks to distribute power among as many citizens as possible, preventing the concentration of wealth/power that corrupts and destroys entire economies and societies.

http://www.progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm
———————-

Socialism and communism are not at all the same. My entire family on my mother’s side is from a socialist country in Europe (one of the countries you would call “capitalist”), and I have relatives who have been in high-level positions in government (Socialist Party). My mother was a card-carrying communist who later became a socialist. I know the difference between the two. You are terribly misinformed regarding this topic.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter][…] is from a socialist country in Europe[/quote]

There are no socialist countries in Europe. You can’t name one, and the fact that you only make a vague reference to “some country in Europe” is proof of that.

One of the key distinctions between socialism and capitalism is ownership of private property.

There are a few small countries in eastern Europe where some large industries are still owned by the state (actually owned by corrupt thugs, but in the name of the state) but their economies are pretty much in shambles.

So let’s hear it: What is the name of this socialist European country? A country where the majority of property is owned by the government, where there are no privately owned corporations, where all major economic activity is controlled by the state?

You are so close. You can prove me wrong with one word (no cut and paste required!)

Can you do it?

[CA renter]

That’s communism, not socialism. Please read the above post WRT definitions and the **range** as one moves from pure capitalism to pure communism. Socialism is in between, and the governments in those countries might control the entire economy, or only portions of it.

Again, you can’t debate this topic if you don’t understand the terms and definitions.

Yes, most countries in Europe have a socialist or mixed economy.

Austria:

“Austria is one of the 12 richest countries in the world in terms of GDP (Gross domestic product) per capita,[7] has a well-developed social market economy, and a high standard of living. Until the 1980s, many of Austria’s largest industry firms were nationalised; in recent years, however, privatisation has reduced state holdings to a level comparable to other European economies. Labour movements are particularly strong in Austria and have large influence on labour politics.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Austria
——————-

Social market economy:

“The social market economy seeks a middle path between socialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism (i.e. a mixed economy), combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention.[1]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Socialism is in between, and the governments in those countries might control the entire economy, or only portions of it.[/quote]

Using your wish-washy definition above, every country with a government is socialist.

Hey, the US has a government, and we have state-owned businesses. (Post Office)

We live in the Socialist States of America!

[quote]most countries in Europe have a socialist or mixed economy.[/quote]

If you want to insist that Europe is socialist, then go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself. There is an upside to this particular ignorance: You’ll probably make some friends from the Tea Party.

But why are we talking about “socialist” Europe?

The subject you keep trying to change is this little gem:

[quote=CA Renter]If you’re right, then where are these “free market” countries with all the innovation and creativity?[/quote]

(BTW, Did you type that on a Mac or PC?)

We aren’t talking about the definition of socialism at all.

That you actually believe, and continue to defend, the sentence above shows a level of ignorance about the world that is simply astounding.

You can google/cut/paste all night, but I’m afraid it won’t get you any closer to having a clue.

[CA renter]

Once again, include the entire comment instead of selectively “editing” someone else’s comments.

If you still don’t grasp how different governments and the private market interact within an economy after being spoon-fed all of this info, then I can’t help you. The “private market” cannot function successfully all by itself for any length of time. It never has, and it never will.

And did you seriously miss the posts explaining how the GOVERNMENT was involved in the development of computers and the internet. Can you read?

And yes, the US has a “mixed economy,” which is a hybrid of captalism and socialism. Most successful countries do.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]The “private market” cannot function successfully all by itself for any length of time. It never has, and it never will.[/quote]

Another straw man dances past. Nobody ever said private market means “no government.” Nobody but you.

How much was the government involved in the first 100 years of US history and innovation? How many government scientists were employed? Who did all the inventing back then?

Before 1900, the government was less than 5% of the US economy. Almost all of that was defense spending. How’d we do up to that point?

Did the government invent the steam engine, or the sewing machine, or the cotton gin, or any of the other dozens of transforming technologies of the 19th century?

[quote]And did you seriously miss the posts explaining how the GOVERNMENT was involved in the development of computers and the internet.[/quote]

And did you seriously miss the other 99% of the history of computers and the internet that has nothing to do with government?

Did the government invent the transistor, the microprocessor, the PC, the programming languages, the database, the network router, the fiber-optic cable, …

Did Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ever work for the government?

Did the government invent the LCD display that you are staring at right now?

Did the government invent the search engine that you are so fond of using to prove how smart you are?

In your world, the thousands of engineers and scientists who work at IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Google, and Oracle, etc. spend their days just waiting for the government to invent things.

Ever drive past the Qualcomm buildings? If your arguments are correct, then nothing has ever been invented inside there. All those engineers working there (some of them are Piggs) just sit around waiting for the next government development to come along so they can sell it. Apparently they don’t actually invent anything (and yet they file thousands of patents…)

But of course you don’t understand any of this. You have this bizarre, simple-minded notion that only people who get paychecks from the government actually do anything. The other 90% of the economy is just dead weight.

You use lists of “famous scientists” to prove your point. Your depth of knowledge is no more than a 4th grader writing a report on how science works.

So let me take it down to your level:

What government agency did Thomas Edison work for?

[Author]

Posts