2012 Edition: What’s your raise this year?

[Anonymous]

[quote=bearishgurl]pri_dk, I’d just like to ask you a couple of $64M questions. Of course, you are free to choose to answer them . . . or not.

1. Are you against “big government” and all their “socialist programs” i.e. health and human services, etc?[/quote]

In general, no. And you know this. I actually am a strong believer in basic economic safety nets. But more for humanitarian reasons than for economic ones. They serve a humanitarian purpose, but come at a cost. And one of those costs is that they limit innovation. But I believe that committing a small portion of our resources toward protecting the needy is a worthwhile trade.

I also believe in strong government regulation for the purposes of consumer safety, environmental protections, etc.

But I am completely opposed to any system where the majority of economic activity and the allocation of capital is controlled by government bureaucrats.

In short, I actually understand the difference between socialism and capitalism, just like everyone else here that has a basic grasp of world history and economics.

[quote]2. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever benefited from any Federal or State programs at little or no cost to you??[/quote]

That’s an idiotic question. We all benefit from the government and we all pay taxes. I benefit, but I pay the costs as well.

Well, I did get a scholarship from the US Army “at no cost to me” – well except for those summers I spent crawling around in tick-infested woods of North Carolina and jumping out of airplanes in 100 degree Georgia heat or winter weekends spent freezing in the woods…

So are all government employees receiving their entire salary “at no cost to them?”

And now that you know about my “free ride,” how does this information alter the facts of this debate, or any debate, in any way?

[quote]I’ve been wondering this for awhile now …..[/quote]

Keep wondering, and don’t lose hope. Maybe someday you’ll get some ammunition to use on personal attacks against me or my family.

Although you do represent the bottom of the barrel for the Piggs, there’s always a chance that you’ll be able to lower the bar even further.

I have no doubt you’ll keep trying.

[Diego Mamani]

[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?[/quote]
I think it’s at best misleading, if not fallacious, to imply that stable government and rule of law go hand-in-hand with having safety nets for the less fortunate. Especially when the definition of “less fortunate” is so subjective (e.g., a person defined as “poor” in official statistics in the US is very likely to have a car and a cell phone, while in most of the world owning those two would make you middle class).

[Anonymous]

[quote=sheilawellington][quote=pri_dk]Of course almost all countries have a few state-owned enterprises, but there are no countries in the developed world where the majority of economic activity is controlled by the state (aside from a few, truly socialist exceptions – e.g. North Korea)[/quote]
North Korea is part of the developed world? I don’t think too many people would agree.[/quote]

They’ve got nukes.

I think most people would agree that North Korea is a little more developed than sub-Saharan Africa.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=sheilawellington][quote=pri_dk]Of course almost all countries have a few state-owned enterprises, but there are no countries in the developed world where the majority of economic activity is controlled by the state (aside from a few, truly socialist exceptions – e.g. North Korea)[/quote]
North Korea is part of the developed world? I don’t think too many people would agree.[/quote]

They’ve got nukes.

I think most people would agree that North Korea is a little more developed than sub-Saharan Africa.[/quote]

Pri_dk, your original statement made no comparison of North Korea to other poorer countries. You simply mentioned N.K. as an example of “developed”. So, are you really saying that “North Korea is a developed country”? I think that your second statement, i.e., that “North Korea is more developed that some of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa” is more accurate (provided we add “some” as a qualifier since some of these African countries have better quality-of-life measures, such as children nutrition, than North Korea).

To say that having nuclear weapons makes you part of the developed world is really a stretch…

[Anonymous]

[quote=Diego Mamani]To say that having nuclear weapons makes you part of the developed world is really a stretch…[/quote]

Ok, then…

How about their factories, roads, buildings…

OK, NK’s technology is stuck in the 1950s or so. So maybe they stopped “developing” somewhere around that time.

Which is my whole point:

Economic progress stopped when they because socialist.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I could literally go on for years about the role of public funding and public institutions in science, but know that I’d be wasting my time with you. You need to do more research before you spout off…your ignorance is frightening.[/quote]

Wow. I don’t know what to say. You have proven me completely wrong. I completely lost this debate.

You are correct. Europe is socialist. Capitalism never created anything. Your post above proves it. Your handful of cut and paste references to a few European scientists – many who did their work before socialism even existed – is irrefutable proof of your claim that socialist Europe is the driver of all innovation. I have no counter for your logic.

Your brilliance is staggering.

Nevermind that the US government didn’t even start funding scientific research until the mid 20th century.

Nevermind that you conviniently left out all the names of the private companines that were involved in your LCD example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display#Brief_history

RCA, Marconi, Samsung, Westinghouse, BBC, Hatachi, Toshiba, NEC, LXD, …

(Lots of Japanese names there – is Japan socialist also?)

Nevermind that 2/3 of university research is funded by corporations and only 10% is funded directly by government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

Nevermind the facts. The government invented everything! Your list, full of selective omissions, proves it!

BTW, if you really cared about the Piggs, you would tell all the engineers here to stop going to work every day. Poor flu spends his days at Broadcomm thinking he’s innovating when you have proven that it is impossible. If he really wants to create any value for society, he needs to go work for the government!

But wait…you still can’t name a single socialist country in Europe!

And until you do. I win.

(does a little victory dance…)[/quote]
————————

1. Where does it say that 2/3 of university research is funded by corporations and only 10% funded by govt? I’ve read through your link a few times, and couldn’t find anything to back up your point. Please “cut and paste” the entire paragraph where it says that.

Looks like you’re still battling problems with reading comprehension.

2. Where did I ever say that “capitalism never created [anything]” or that “the government invented everything”? I never said either of those things. Once again, you’re either intentionally twisting my words, or your total lack of reading comprehension skills rears its ugly head again. If you can find where I’ve ever said that, I’ll pay you $1,000.

3. I’ve already addressed Japan’s economy earlier in the thread — yes, the government was/is very heavily involved. Please refer to previous post regarding this topic.

4. Already named a socialist country earlier in the thread. I’ve also addressed how the real definition of socialism differs from your definition that’s based on the propaganda preached in U.S. schools. Again, see above.

5. The history of publicly funded scientific research in the U.S. (shall we go into the history of publicly-funded research/universities in Europe — which is responsible for so many of the discoveries and innovations made throughout history?):

“A Brief History of Federal Involvement in University-Based Research
The development of federal involvement in university-based R&D is intertwined with the broader issue of federal involvement in science and technology (S&T) in the United States. Federal involvement in scientific or technical matters was explicitly provided for in the U.S. Constitution only in the provisions for a system of patents and for a census to be held every ten years. For decades in the early history of the country, the doctrine of states’ rights (preventing a concentration of authority in the federal government) together with a strain of populist antielitism and a faith in the indigenous development of pragmatic technologies kept the nation from realizing either Thomas Jefferson’s vision of strong federal support for science, largely through agriculture, or Alexander Hamilton’s advocacy of government subsidies for the advancement of technologies to the benefit of industry. From time to time, the U.S. Congress would deviate from this stance and invest in limited operations in support of exploratory or commercial interests, such as the Lewis and Clark expedition or the establishment of the Coast Survey, both in the early 1800s.

In the 1840s, two events–the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution under federal auspices and the creation of the American Association for the Advancement of Science–highlighted the growing visibility of S&T and foreshadowed the later development of a more significant federal involvement in science and technology. These events, together with what William G. Wells Jr. called a “tide of technological developments … in industry, in agriculture, in communications, and in transportation” (p.8) in the 1850s, set the stage for a qualitative change in the federal role in these areas; this change came in the 1860s as a result of several events. First, the Civil War provided the first of several recurring examples of war focusing the government’s attention and resources not just on technology but on the science underlying the technology. Second, the creation of the National Academy of Sciences in 1862 put the elite of American scientists, most of them in universities, at the service of governmental needs. Third, the passage of the Morrill Act and the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both of which occurred in 1862, established the land-grant college system, heavily focused on agriculture and the mechanical arts, and developed government bureaus related to agricultural research, in a symbiotic relationship that, by the end of the nineteenth century, approached the Jeffersonian vision of a century earlier.

Meanwhile, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the forerunner of the National Institutes of Health was established and undertook programs of research aimed at public-health problems, although much of this work took place in government rather than in university laboratories. Additional initiatives putting governmental resources in the service of S&T-based activities in the areas of conservation, industry, and (to a limited extent) aviation took place in the first two decades of the twentieth century. These did not yet involve significant amounts of university-based R&D, but their importance was that, with the curious exception of military applications, the essential infrastructure of federal government involvement in S&T was firmly in place by the 1920s, and, according to A. Hunter Dupree, “a government without science was already unthinkable” (p. 288). Belief in the importance of research had become infused throughout much of the U.S. economy, and industrially based R&D was becoming established in certain industries.”

Read more: Federal Funding for Academic Research – A Brief History of Federal Involvement in University-Based Research, Key Federal Agencies – StateUniversity.com http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1987/Federal-Funding-Academic-Research.html#ixzz1tH24Hj2i

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=pri_dk]Keep wondering, and don’t lose hope. Maybe someday you’ll get some ammunition to use on personal attacks against me or my family.

Although you do represent the bottom of the barrel for the Piggs, there’s always a chance that you’ll be able to lower the bar even further.[/quote]
Time for me to use the “ignore user” button…

[CA renter]

[quote=Diego Mamani][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?[/quote]
I think it’s at best misleading, if not fallacious, to imply that stable government and rule of law go hand-in-hand with having safety nets for the less fortunate. Especially when the definition of “less fortunate” is so subjective (e.g., a person defined as “poor” in official statistics in the US is very likely to have a car and a cell phone, while in most of the world owning those two would make you middle class).[/quote]

Can you cite any examples of countries that have unstable governments and no rule of law…and also have social safety nets and a history of non-publicly-funded scientific discoveries and innovations?

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]To add on top of pri_dk’s point, it’s more than just the initial invention/discovery. Innovation comes at all stages, just the the initial discovery. Xerox invested the mouse and GUI. But who here thinks OSX, Windows, Android, iOS, etc. won’t exist without Xerox initial innovation. Xerox invented it, but they didn’t have the vision and the execution to bring that invention to the masses. Microsoft did that with Windows. They took the initial invention and found innovative ways to use that initial invention to bring PC to the masses and changed the whole landscape. Even after a product get released, innovations continue to occur. After all, iOS wasn’t the first mobile smartphone OS, but who here thinks Apple wouldn’t have come up with iOS if Microsoft didn’t come up with Windows Mobile or Palm with PalmOS? The smartphone market wouldn’t be where we are today if Apple didn’t innovate and came up with iOS. Now, Android have taken over the torch. Bottom line is, innovation happens everywhere and all the time at every stage of the development. It not just about the initial discovery.[/quote]

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.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter] Where does it say that 2/3 of university research is funded by corporations and only 10% funded by govt? I’ve read through your link a few times, and couldn’t find anything to back up your point. Please “cut and paste” the entire paragraph where it says that.[/quote]

In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government

Only had to read three paragraphs to get there…

[quote]Looks like you’re still battling problems with reading comprehension.[/quote]

Oh wait! I said “university research” and the citation just says “research!”

And that changes everything – doesn’t it?

Oh no, do I lose on a technicality?!?! (bites fingernails and looks about nervously…)

I’m skipping the usual cut/paste nonsense in the rest of your post, as you don’t even know what point you are trying to make anymore. You are just desperate to prove me “wrong.”

Can you even summarize your argument in three sentences or less?

Here’s mine:

Throughout history, most technological progress and innovation has occurred in countries with a capitalist economy where the majority of economic activity was controlled by private individuals and institutions motivated by personal profit. These countries, which include the United States, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea, have experienced dramatic increases in the standard of living for most of their citizens, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries. In contrast, every country where the majority of economic activity has been controlled by the state saw relatively limited economic growth and ultimately collapsed in economic failure with associated humanitarian tragedy.

The overwhelming evidence for my claim is found under “world history,” specifically in the chapter on the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now, since nobody has any clue what point you are trying to make anymore, please reiterate your thesis.

Since you are so well-read and articulate, I’m sure you can express your argument clearly. succinctly, and without contradicting everything else you’ve claimed in this thread (you have to use your own words, no cut/paste allowed!)

Let’s hear it.

(Alternatively you always have the option to “win” by naming one socialist country in Europe…)

[Anonymous]

[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.

[all]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=captcha]Did you guys define what ‘socialist country’ is? [/quote]

Do we really have to do that? Seriously?

The only credible and accepted definition of ‘socialist country’ is one where the majority of economic activity is controlled by the state. Specifically:

– Most industry is owned by the state
– Private property ownership is nonexistent or an uncommon exception
– Most of the workforce is employed by state-owned organizations

[/quote]

I don’t know, different people assume different things when they talk about socialism and socialist state. Isn’t there a self-declared socialist in the US Senate? What you you describing sounds like Leninist ‘Socialist State’ or Nazi Germany.

I wanted to propose Portugal and India for relatively successful and innovative socialist countries, but neither fits your definition of socialist country. Though some innovation did happen in both Nazi Germany and USSR and satellites.

[Anonymous]

[quote=captcha]I wanted to propose Portugal and India for relatively successful and innovative socialist countries[/quote]

I’m not sure about the success of India, and any recent success they could claim would be from the privately owned IT sector. Wipro is anything but socialist.

Yes, both India and Portugal have some large state-owned industries. Mostly infrastructure type stuff like railroads and utilities.

But think about it: Do the farmers own their own land or work on government-owned collectives? Are there small businesses, and can anyone start one at any time? Does the government impose restrictions on growth, ownership, wealth, or distribution of profits for most businesses?

Do they have equity markets and banks backed by private investments? Can people pool their money together and start their business as partners?

These are the things that create the distinction. Lots of people like to bandy about the term ‘socialist’ but few people understand that it means the corner restaurant owner doesn’t get to keep his business.

[quote]Though some innovation did happen in both Nazi Germany and USSR and satellites.[/quote]

Of course socialism doesn’t imply no innovation, it just implies much less innovation overall.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=bearishgurl]pri_dk, I’d just like to ask you a couple of $64M questions. Of course, you are free to choose to answer them . . . or not.

1. Are you against “big government” and all their “socialist programs” i.e. health and human services, etc?[/quote]

In general, no. And you know this. I actually am a strong believer in basic economic safety nets. But more for humanitarian reasons than for economic ones. They serve a humanitarian purpose, but come at a cost. And one of those costs is that they limit innovation. But I believe that committing a small portion of our resources toward protecting the needy is a worthwhile trade.

I also believe in strong government regulation for the purposes of consumer safety, environmental protections, etc.

But I am completely opposed to any system where the majority of economic activity and the allocation of capital is controlled by government bureaucrats.

In short, I actually understand the difference between socialism and capitalism, just like everyone else here that has a basic grasp of world history and economics.

[quote]2. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever benefited from any Federal or State programs at little or no cost to you??[/quote]

That’s an idiotic question. We all benefit from the government and we all pay taxes. I benefit, but I pay the costs as well.

Well, I did get a scholarship from the US Army “at no cost to me” – well except for those summers I spent crawling around in tick-infested woods of North Carolina and jumping out of airplanes in 100 degree Georgia heat or winter weekends spent freezing in the woods…

So are all government employees receiving their entire salary “at no cost to them?”

And now that you know about my “free ride,” how does this information alter the facts of this debate, or any debate, in any way?

[quote]I’ve been wondering this for awhile now …..[/quote]

Keep wondering, and don’t lose hope. Maybe someday you’ll get some ammunition to use on personal attacks against me or my family.

Although you do represent the bottom of the barrel for the Piggs, there’s always a chance that you’ll be able to lower the bar even further.

I have no doubt you’ll keep trying.[/quote]

Yes, I DO “know this,” pri_dk. I have no reason to “attack” you but I do find most of your posts about your perception of the role of all levels of government in all our lives (and its employees who make it function) to be somewhat disingenuous.

Ahem … your answer is trailing off, here. This makes we now want to ask you the $128M questions.

pri_dk wrote on March 8, 2012 – 11:58am.:
…The reason I have so much time during the day is that I choose to end my career early so that I could take care of my severely disabled son….

http://piggington.com/otcontest_to_guess_the_occupant_of_beautiful_new_building_in_rsf

3. pri_dk, was your son disabled all or most of his life, and if so, who, besides his parents, have assisted him throughout his life? As you know, there are several public “safety nets” in place at all levels of government to assist “severely disabled” children and adults.

In other words, has your son received any public special education, rehabilitative services, speech therapy, transportation services, day school, medical equipment and/or devices, etc, over the years which cost your family little or nothing and/or was NOT covered by a private insurance plan? Does he receive social security benefits? If so, has he ever paid any FICA into the “system?”

4. If yes to any of the above, do you think any of the “bureaucrats” who rendered services to your son over the years have been “innovative” with him while he was in their class/care and also deserving of their pensions after 30 yrs of faithful service?

Help me find my way out of the “bottom of the barrel,” pri_dk, and shed some light on why you feel as you do about government’s role in society and the value of its employees. Inquiring minds want to know :=]

[an]

[quote=CA renter]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. [/quote]
That’s where I’d disagree. But there’s no way to prove one way or another, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But I’m pretty certain that technology/innovation would have been where they are today w/out publicly funded R&D.

[Author]

Posts