Do businesses actually innovate new technologies?

[Axulus]

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.

And I am having trouble thinking of any scientific discovery that didn't utilize some of Francis Bacon's and Galieo's scientific methods, and few that don't apply Omar Khayyam's algebra and/or Newton's calculus. Does that make these men responsible for every single discovery since?

 

[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.

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

Whoa, calm down man.

 

[ksen]

 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

How much of that was done with government funding? I don't know which is why I'm asking.

I think Bell Labs is a special case since AT&T was able to keep it going since they were a monopoly. When the government broke it up it looks like Bell Labs started to suffer as the company had to deal with competitive pressures.

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v5/n5/full/nmat1643.html

I admit that technological innovation can occur in the private sector very often competition limits a private company's ability to shovel the funds needed to do the basic research required to get to that next step of advancement.

 

[untermensche]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

 

[coloradoatheist]

 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

How much of that was done with government funding? I don't know which is why I'm asking.

I think Bell Labs is a special case since AT&T was able to keep it going since they were a monopoly. When the government broke it up it looks like Bell Labs started to suffer as the company had to deal with competitive pressures.

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v5/n5/full/nmat1643.html

I admit that technological innovation can occur in the private sector very often competition limits a private company's ability to shovel the funds needed to do the basic research required to get to that next step of advancement.

Competition is the driving force for most of that innovation and even at the government level it's the competition between countries that have driven the innovation whether it's the military or the original force of the space program. It's when they didn't have competition that there was no innovation, like the postal system or education in general.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

 

[untermensche]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

So the real problem is too much government innovation?

The economy has not recovered from the damage done to it by those at the top over the last 30 years.

They took too much for themselves. And continue to take too much and give workers too little.

If people don't have money the government can innovate all it wants. People don't have money to buy it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

Currently this is true. That doesn't mean it is necessarily true. Your post is an example of the Is/Ought fallacy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

So the real problem is too much government innovation?

The economy has not recovered from the damage done to it by those at the top over the last 30 years.

They took too much for themselves. And continue to take too much and give workers too little.

If people don't have money the government can innovate all it wants. People don't have money to buy it.

I didn't say too much innovation. To much involvement yes, a difference. And actually, some of our issues stem from having too much innovation from the private sector, things we will have a hard time giving up.

 

[ksen]

Competition is the driving force for most of that innovation

Not according to the history of Bell Labs it isn't. Bell Labs was at its most innovative when its parent company didn't have to worry about competitive pressures. Competitive pressures lower profit margins which tends to decrease the amount of innovating companies want to or can do.

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~gilbert/wp/competition_and_innovation.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/~nbloom/PevertedU.pdf

 

[ksen]

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

How would that good argument go? Because here in the real world it's not playing out that way. What is stifling innovation is the insistence of one of the political parties to constantly beat the drum to shrink government spending.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say too much innovation. To much involvement yes, a difference. And actually, some of our issues stem from having too much innovation from the private sector, things we will have a hard time giving up.

When have we seen a vibrant growing economy without government involvement?

The problem is too much wealth created over the last 30 years has ended up in too few hands.

If that wealth had ended up in the hands of the workers that created it the economy would be in much better shape.

The problem has nothing to do with government involvement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

How would that good argument go? Because here in the real world it's not playing out that way. What is stifling innovation is the insistence of one of the political parties to constantly beat the drum to shrink government spending.

And how are you measuring stifling innovation? Own personal thoughts?

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say too much innovation. To much involvement yes, a difference. And actually, some of our issues stem from having too much innovation from the private sector, things we will have a hard time giving up.

When have we seen a vibrant growing economy without government involvement?

The problem is too much wealth created over the last 30 years has ended up in too few hands.

If that wealth had ended up in the hands of the workers that created it the economy would be in much better shape.

The problem has nothing to do with government involvement.

Where's boneyard to desibe the differences of growing economies over the last centuries and how much government has become involved? What country would say that is out there is growing greater than the US over a long period of time?

 

[Bronzeage]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

There is an argument, but not a good one.

Since the founding of the Republic, government carried the mail. Government invested billions of dollars in every conceivable mode of transportation, for the simple purpose of getting millions of letters from any door to any other door for 35 cents.

Along comes a guy who says, "If I carry only a few million letters, but promise to get them there tomorrow, I could make a lot of money." It worked out well for him.

That would not have been possible without such things as uniform address systems across the country and a well developed transportation grid, which includes roads, trains, airports and air traffic controllers. All of these are present and work because of government investment in infrastructure which makes it possible for people like Freddy Laker to take advantage of an innovative idea.

 

[untermensche]

Where's boneyard to desibe the differences of growing economies over the last centuries and how much government has become involved? What country would say that is out there is growing greater than the US over a long period of time?

No economy has grown very much without a lot of government involvement.

But, again, the problem in the US right now is that too much wealth is ending up in too few hands. The problem is that "trickle down" is a sad joke.

The problem has nothing to do with government involvement.

It is far more related to ineffectual government involvement because the government is in the pockets of big business and is looking after the interests of corporate managers, not workers, or the economy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

There is an argument, but not a good one.

Since the founding of the Republic, government carried the mail. Government invested billions of dollars in every conceivable mode of transportation, for the simple purpose of getting millions of letters from any door to any other door for 35 cents.

Along comes a guy who says, "If I carry only a few million letters, but promise to get them there tomorrow, I could make a lot of money." It worked out well for him.

That would not have been possible without such things as uniform address systems across the country and a well developed transportation grid, which includes roads, trains, airports and air traffic controllers. All of these are present and work because of government investment in infrastructure which makes it possible for people like Freddy Laker to take advantage of an innovative idea.

Did you maybe quote the wrong thing because I'm not sure how that applies. The postal system without competition said that they couldn't deliver next day. Competition found a way. It's the argument used against monopolies. Our education system is faltering because we haven't experimented with different systems.

 

[ksen]

It's the argument used against monopolies.

Are you intentionally ignoring the Bell Labs example?

Our education system is faltering because we haven't experimented with different systems.

lol no, our educational system is floundering because we keep spending less and less on it because of some perverse notion that if you spend less government money on it then it will get better. Well, how's that been working lately? We should ask kids buried in student loan debt how that's working for them.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is how the US, and every single other successful economy, works.

It is called State Capitalism.

The driving force of the economy is government funded innovation.

Not this myth called "free enterprise", which produces some innovation but mainly relies on earlier innovation from the government.

If all we relied on was individual effort and "free enterprise", the US was have an economy similar to Guatemala.

It requires a whole more than that for the advancement of the system. And there is a good argument now that we are stagnating economically because of government having too large of a role in the economy.

There is an argument, but not a good one.

Since the founding of the Republic, government carried the mail. Government invested billions of dollars in every conceivable mode of transportation, for the simple purpose of getting millions of letters from any door to any other door for 35 cents.

Along comes a guy who says, "If I carry only a few million letters, but promise to get them there tomorrow, I could make a lot of money." It worked out well for him.

That would not have been possible without such things as uniform address systems across the country and a well developed transportation grid, which includes roads, trains, airports and air traffic controllers. All of these are present and work because of government investment in infrastructure which makes it possible for people like Freddy Laker to take advantage of an innovative idea.

Did you maybe quote the wrong thing because I'm not sure how that applies. The postal system without competition said that they couldn't deliver next day. Competition found a way. It's the argument used against monopolies. Our education system is faltering because we haven't experimented with different systems.

You may have a legitimate grievance against the education system.

Government spending is the foundation of our economy. A business such as Federal Express and all it's imitator's (including the USPS), could not exist if not for the two centuries of government involvement in the economy. If you ever study history if the US, turn to the index and search for the word "panic". Look at me, talking about reading history in a book. Google "panic of" and you'll see, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893. Those were the years with financial crashes big enough to get a name. There were plenty more smaller ones. The cycle of boom and expanding credit, followed by a panicked crash plagued the country for the 19th century. It was not until the crash of 1929 that people were finally resigned to the fact the only institution that could moderate the growth of the country was the Federal government. Without government regulation, we would be little better off than Mexico.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The crash of 1929 occurred AFTER the founding of an institution designed to prevent such a crash. The same can be said of the crash of 1920.

 

[Bronzeage]

The crash of 1929 occurred AFTER the founding of an institution designed to prevent such a crash. The same can be said of the crash of 1920.

The learning curve is long, with a low slope.