Do businesses actually innovate new technologies?

[ksen]

Or do they ride on the coattails of government technological innovation by bringing to market what the government paid to discover?

My gut tells me it's the latter although I have no concrete evidence for that yet.

Yet.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a mixed bag. Government has the luxury of spending money on things the open market would not support, such as global navigation systems for military purposes. Once the technology is viable and in place, a lot of people will pay good money to use it, but no one would have put forth the capital if they had to start from zero.

One can consider Amazon as a technological innovator. When Amazon was new, a lot of people predicted their ultimate failure because warehouse costs would quickly swamp the profits of a discount retailer. Amazon's secret was an innovative computer controlled warehousing system. Instead of the old school alpha-numeric catalog system of rows of racks and shelves, which by necessity must always have some open(wasted) space, Amazon's computer stacks packages like tetris pieces, so warehouse space is maximized and nothing gets lost. People don't waste time pacing up and down the aisles, looking for the box which contains Barbie's Malibu Beach House.

Other companies had similar ideas, but Amazon made it work.

 

[ksen]

Computerized warehouses are only possible because government funded the technology that made it possible. Amazon built on the foundation laid by government research.

Maybe I'm being overly broad in my interpretation though. But I'm having trouble thinking of a sole technological innovation that wasn't made possible by prior government spending.

 

[ksen]

An article about companies leveraging public research for private gains.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem with this approach is that it will all be anecdotal and how you define different enough.

The Internet started in the government but they didn't do a whole lot with it, when private companies got involved was when the Internet grew. Mosaic and the web browser innovation was what drove Internet growth.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Considering that our economy is almost completely overwhelmed by the mix of Corporatism and Keynesianism that infects it, much current innovation would be done by government. This does not mean that is the only way it could be or the only way it has been.

 

[Bronzeage]

Computerized warehouses are only possible because government funded the technology that made it possible. Amazon built on the foundation laid by government research.

Maybe I'm being overly broad in my interpretation though. But I'm having trouble thinking of a sole technological innovation that wasn't made possible by prior government spending.

As I said, the government can spend money on things with no commercial marketability. It's not a strike against private business because Westinghouse or General Electric did not put a man on the moon.

What kind of time limit do you put on your question? As far as I know, neither the telephone or the telegraph were supported by government funds before being brought to the market.

 

[ksen]

Considering that our economy is almost completely overwhelmed by the mix of Corporatism and Keynesianism that infects it, much current innovation would be done by government. This does not mean that is the only way it could be or the only way it has been.

Private industry is risk-averse. You don't get civilization changing technological innovation without government research anymore.

 

[Derec]

Or do they ride on the coattails of government technological innovation by bringing to market what the government paid to discover?

My gut tells me it's the latter although I have no concrete evidence for that yet.

Yet.

Both. Governments do most of basic research while companies tend to do mostly applied, product oriented research, although big companies like IBM have done more basic research as well. In the end we obviously need both.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Considering that our economy is almost completely overwhelmed by the mix of Corporatism and Keynesianism that infects it, much current innovation would be done by government. This does not mean that is the only way it could be or the only way it has been.

Private industry is risk-averse. You don't get civilization changing technological innovation without government research anymore.

How are you defining risk aversion? 90% of businesses fail so we only really hear about successes.

 

[ksen]

Are you seriously going to suggest that corporate America is not risk averse?

https://www.google.com/#q=are+corporations+risk+averse

http://www.innovation-america.org/venture-capitalists-are-now-risk-averse

http://business.financialpost.com/2...isk-averse-private-investors/?__lsa=b464-809b

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Or do they ride on the coattails of government technological innovation by bringing to market what the government paid to discover?

My gut tells me it's the latter although I have no concrete evidence for that yet.

Yet.

I think technological innovation is actually better through central planning. It isn't something that gets better by throwing capital at it, you have to have viable ideas and direction. The dot-com bubble burst is a good example. Although a bit off topic - here is why Warren Buffet doesn't invest in technology.

That being said, there is innovation from private markets from time to time. Apple's development of smartphones and tablets come to mind.

aa

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or do they ride on the coattails of government technological innovation by bringing to market what the government paid to discover?

My gut tells me it's the latter although I have no concrete evidence for that yet.

Yet.

I think technological innovation is actually better through central planning. It isn't something that gets better by throwing capital at it, you have to have viable ideas and direction. The dot-com bubble burst is a good example. Although a bit off topic - here is why Warren Buffet doesn't invest in technology.

That being said, there is innovation from private markets from time to time. Apple's development of smartphones and tablets come to mind.

aa

the best thing that the government can do is if they have a large project with a set goal. But if it has no direction it's not very good.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you seriously going to suggest that corporate America is not risk averse?

https://www.google.com/#q=are+corporations+risk+averse

http://www.innovation-america.org/venture-capitalists-are-now-risk-averse

http://business.financialpost.com/2...isk-averse-private-investors/?__lsa=b464-809b

It can be risk somewhat risk averse in a short time, but if it's not risk averse over the long period, it fails. Want me to list all the businesses that didn't and have fallen apart? Even the old behemoth's?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Considering that our economy is almost completely overwhelmed by the mix of Corporatism and Keynesianism that infects it, much current innovation would be done by government. This does not mean that is the only way it could be or the only way it has been.

Private industry is risk-averse. You don't get civilization changing technological innovation without government research anymore.

Assuming you are right (which I do not assume) you added a key word which supports my point. You included "anymore."

 

[ksen]

Assuming you are right (which I do not assume) you added a key word which supports my point. You included "anymore."

Well sure because we've moved beyond the point in human history to where it takes a lot more money and time to progress than it does from back in the day when you could tie a piece of rock to a stick to invent the technological advance also known as "the hoe."

 

[Nexus]

Xerox parc research was very innovative. They haven't seemed to profit from it however.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Assuming you are right (which I do not assume) you added a key word which supports my point. You included "anymore."

Well sure because we've moved beyond the point in human history to where it takes a lot more money and time to progress than it does from back in the day when you could tie a piece of rock to a stick to invent the technological advance also known as "the hoe."

But things aren't going to be invented in a vacuum that you would like. An ipad was innovative but it combined other things.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Assuming you are right (which I do not assume) you added a key word which supports my point. You included "anymore."

Well sure because we've moved beyond the point in human history to where it takes a lot more money and time to progress than it does from back in the day when you could tie a piece of rock to a stick to invent the technological advance also known as "the hoe."

Not really. It is because we've moved beyond the point in history where companies are able to devote precious resources to R&D. It is easier to use government grant money, and a rational business choice to use grant money when the competition is also using government grant money. Also what used to be the R&D budget is now the lobbying budget.

 

[Juma]

Computerized warehouses are only possible because government funded the technology that made it possible. Amazon built on the foundation laid by government research.

Maybe I'm being overly broad in my interpretation though. But I'm having trouble thinking of a sole technological innovation that wasn't made possible by prior government spending.

So fucking what? That is exactly what government spending is for! What is your problem?

 

[Axulus]

 Bell Labs

Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Seven Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.

And this is just a single company