Do businesses actually innovate new technologies?

[Loren Pechtel]

Guts are wrong all the time.

What's actually going on is there are two types of research:

Basic research (a quest to understand how reality works) and applied research (an attempt to take a basic idea and turn it into something useful.)

Basic research is pretty much government funded. Places like Bell Labs did some but private industry has pretty much gotten out of this.

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product. Sometimes this is government (think military research), usually this is private industry.

 

[untermensche]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

 

[untermensche]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

It is universally true.

There has never been a successful modern industrial economy without massive government involvement in basic research.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

They have to have money to do research, that doesn't mean it has to come from previous research.

Look at SpaceX--their money didn't come from research, it came from a wealthy guy who thought it was something worth doing and that he could make money at it. NASA laid the groundwork, he's going farther. (Think of the Grasshopper--I don't think anyone's built a rocket of that size that lands that way. That's planned to be extended to the Falcon's first stage to recover the whole booster. Think of how much cheaper it would be not to throw away your rocket.)

 

[ksen]

Look at SpaceX--their money didn't come from research, it came from a wealthy guy who thought it was something worth doing and that he could make money at it.

Actually, at least half the money SpaceX has used has come from government sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding

As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, ...).[26] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.

NASA laid the groundwork, he's going farther. (Think of the Grasshopper--I don't think anyone's built a rocket of that size that lands that way. That's planned to be extended to the Falcon's first stage to recover the whole booster. Think of how much cheaper it would be not to throw away your rocket.)

You mean like the shuttle program?

 

[untermensche]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

They have to have money to do research, that doesn't mean it has to come from previous research.

Look at SpaceX--their money didn't come from research, it came from a wealthy guy who thought it was something worth doing and that he could make money at it. NASA laid the groundwork, he's going farther. (Think of the Grasshopper--I don't think anyone's built a rocket of that size that lands that way. That's planned to be extended to the Falcon's first stage to recover the whole booster. Think of how much cheaper it would be not to throw away your rocket.)

Nothing you say changes the fact that the greatest amount of innovation comes from social spending (government spending). Yet of course, society as a whole benefits very little from the profits that come from the selling of government funded innovation. The costs are socialized and the profits are privatized. A horribly immoral and inefficient system.

So-called "free enterprise" provides very little innovation and if an economy were to depend solely on private enterprise that economy would fail miserably.

All successful modern economies rely on massive government funded innovation and other protections from the ravages and destruction of markets.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually, at least half the money SpaceX has used has come from government sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding

As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, ...).[26] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.

NASA laid the groundwork, he's going farther. (Think of the Grasshopper--I don't think anyone's built a rocket of that size that lands that way. That's planned to be extended to the Falcon's first stage to recover the whole booster. Think of how much cheaper it would be not to throw away your rocket.)

You mean like the shuttle program?

No Ksen, he built it all. He did it without any help.

Romney '16!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

It is universally true.

That's the Is/Ought fallacy.

 

[ksen]

So-called "free enterprise" provides very little innovation and if an economy were to depend solely on private enterprise that economy would fail miserably.

All successful modern economies rely on massive government funded innovation and other protections from the ravages and destruction of markets.

Exactly, because the more competition a firm has the less it will spend on research and innovation, see the Bell Labs example. Does this mean that no innovation will come from the free market? Of course not. However the types of innovation that will come from the private sector will be more along the line of cosmetic changes or tweaks to functionality in order to differentiate your product from your competitor's product.

Real game changing innovation comes from government spending. It can be government spending within government labs or government spending on projects undertaken by private entities. The bottom line is that only government has the resources to put into these kinds of projects. And they don't have shareholders, investors, or market considerations to worry about.

 

[untermensche]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

It is universally true.

That's the Is/Ought fallacy.

Just show me the successful modern economy that doesn't rely on massive government spending on research.

You can't, because it can't be done.

It is a myth that private enterprise alone can produce a vibrant economy.

It's never happened, and to think it can is simply a children's dream.

Or something politicians say to get elected.

 

[ksen]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

It is universally true.

That's the Is/Ought fallacy.

How so?

 

[untermensche]

So-called "free enterprise" provides very little innovation and if an economy were to depend solely on private enterprise that economy would fail miserably.

All successful modern economies rely on massive government funded innovation and other protections from the ravages and destruction of markets.

Exactly, because the more competition a firm has the less it will spend on research and innovation, see the Bell Labs example. Does this mean that no innovation will come from the free market? Of course not. However the types of innovation that will come from the private sector will be more along the line of cosmetic changes or tweaks to functionality in order to differentiate your product from your competitor's product.

Real game changing innovation comes from government spending. It can be government spending within government labs or government spending on projects undertaken by private entities. The bottom line is that only government has the resources to put into these kinds of projects. And they don't have shareholders, investors, or market considerations to worry about.

The way the US government mainly does it is through the defense department.

If you tell people you are spending money on basic research some will try to stop it.

But if you tell them it is money spent for defense those same people will applaud.

 

[untermensche]

How so?

Because the way it ought to be, in fantasy land, is that the magic of markets can do everything.

In fantasy land, the scapegoat is always government. Every economic crash is the fault of government, not the fault of a very unstable system.

When of course that is childish nonsense.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Applied research is generally funded by whoever wants to turn it into a product.

In terms of private industry, applied research can only be done after a lot of money is made from research already done. Usually this is research already done by the government.

And government does a lot of applied research. It doesn't just do basic research, although it does almost all the basic research.

Yes, that's currently true.

It is universally true.

That's the Is/Ought fallacy.

Just show me the successful modern economy that doesn't rely on massive government spending on research.

You can't, because it can't be done.

It is a myth that private enterprise alone can produce a vibrant economy.

It's never happened, and to think it can is simply a children's dream.

Or something politicians say to get elected.

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

 

[ksen]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

How many times have we been told that corporations don't pay taxes?

Oh, and the "corporation" is also a government innovation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

How many times have we been told that corporations don't pay taxes?

Oh, and the "corporation" is also a government innovation.

They pay taxes and they employ people who pay the taxes, along with a laundry list of other things. And for the innovation, it was a combination of both. But a corporation should go down as one of the top 5 or top 10 innovations of the history of mankind.

 

[untermensche]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

There was a great deal of innovation under feudalism and slavery.

And that innovation eventually led to the industrial revolution.

And because of the industrial revolution, not capitalism, which is simply a system of legally exploiting and profiting off the labor of others, without caring about the basic needs of those you exploit, further innovation was made possible.

And since the industrial revolution economies have mainly relied on government directed funding, not the private sector, for innovation.

If we were to eliminate government funded innovation the US economy would stagnate, despite the wealth in private hands. The driving force of the US economy is government involvement. Only fools would talk of lessening it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

There was a great deal of innovation under feudalism and slavery.

And that innovation eventually led to the industrial revolution.

And because of the industrial revolution, not capitalism, which is simply a system of legally exploiting and profiting off the labor of others, without caring about the basic needs of those you exploit, further innovation was made possible.

And since the industrial revolution economies have mainly relied on government directed funding, not the private sector, for innovation.

If we were to eliminate government funded innovation the US economy would stagnate, despite the wealth in private hands. The driving force of the US economy is government involvement. Only fools would talk of lessening it.

You talk about the industrial revolution and ust say it happened. It happened because of the formation of corporations. They grew hand in hand and the government grew off the backs of industry and corporations.

You are placing too much importance on what you think government is innovating. It's not innovating much, it provides some funding for health care and it spends a lot of money to get some innovation from the military stuff, but it's more of a drain than a help. We could spend 90% less on military and we would be fine.

 

[untermensche]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

There was a great deal of innovation under feudalism and slavery.

And that innovation eventually led to the industrial revolution.

And because of the industrial revolution, not capitalism, which is simply a system of legally exploiting and profiting off the labor of others, without caring about the basic needs of those you exploit, further innovation was made possible.

And since the industrial revolution economies have mainly relied on government directed funding, not the private sector, for innovation.

If we were to eliminate government funded innovation the US economy would stagnate, despite the wealth in private hands. The driving force of the US economy is government involvement. Only fools would talk of lessening it.

You talk about the industrial revolution and ust say it happened. It happened because of the formation of corporations. They grew hand in hand and the government grew off the backs of industry and corporations.

You are placing too much importance on what you think government is innovating. It's not innovating much, it provides some funding for health care and it spends a lot of money to get some innovation from the military stuff, but it's more of a drain than a help. We could spend 90% less on military and we would be fine.

The industrial revolution was the result of the accumulation of knowledge that occurred under feudalism and slavery.

It had very little to do with capitalism, or these legal entities called corporations.

Although corporations did exploit this knowledge, just as they exploit everything.

But all you have to do is show me the vibrant modern economy that exists without massive government directed innovation to prove me wrong.