4 ms·

Mr. Shapiro is completely right. Nothing good ever came of government programs. Take DARPA for example. We pour billions into that program, but what has DARPA e

by blueben 17y ago

Mr. Shapiro is completely right. Nothing good ever came of government programs. Take DARPA for example. We pour billions into that program, but what has DARPA ever done to spur technological innovation? Created a few infrastructure projects like "ARPANet" and "GPS". A few high performance computing projects, some robotics and automation projects, space projects, and intelligence systems. Aside from spawning dozens of billion dollar industries without which CES wouldn't even exist, they've done practically nothing at all! Seriously though, Shapiro represents a number of industries who owe their entire existence to government programs and initiative. His audacity in claiming that government doesn't spur innovation and entrepreneurship is either astoundingly short-sighted or simply maliciously misleading. Given that Shapiro is a technology industry representative whining about interventions in the financial and automotive industries, I have to assume that he's simply abusing his exposure to wax political about his own personal opinions.

Semiapies 17y ago
You're trying to make an argument against his throw-away rhetoric. He doesn't care about innovation - he's got trade policy on his mind. It's not a great argument, either. If so many billions had been spent at DARPA without creating anything, that would be truly astonishing. However, compare that with what's accomplished with rather less money in the private sector - which developed crucial things, like the transistor and integrated circuit, that made GPS and ARPANet possible in the first place. Sure, if we frame the tossed-off line as an absolutist point, it's wrong - decades after their development, a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful to the private sector and consumers. However, it's hard to argue that those huge resources (both monetary and human - a lot of great engineers and scientists were recruited into DARPA during the Cold War) would have accomplished any less outside of the military. Would the Internet have been an academic curiosity for as long as it was if it hadn't started out as a government project? Mind you, Shapiro doesn't care. He's simply complaining about government money he's not getting.
- blueben 17y ago
  "However, compare that with what's accomplished with rather less money in the private sector" You got a little confirmation bias on your shirt there. It's easy to look around and find successful private-industry projects that had limited budgets. It's also easy to forget about massive corporate boondoggles that sank millions or billions of dollars and were then shuttered for lack of practical use, lack of profitability, or because of project mismanagement. Generally, nobody notices or cares because the taxpayer didn't lose out. Though we can never show it, I doubt we would have an internet or GPS satellite system today if that same time and money were spent by private industry rather than DARPA. Private industry is notoriously short-sighted, and have absolutely no interest in the kinds of projects that DARPA (and government in general) can afford to focus on. No "responsible" corporation will drop tens of billions of dollars on R&D for projects like "an open spec global precision navigation system" or "a network where any node can communicate with any other node using standardized open protocols". There isn't any profit motive. BTW, "a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful" is a gigantic understatement. These technologies spawned billion dollar industries, enabled the creation of thousands of companies and millions of jobs, revolutionized our economy and our information infrastructure, and ignited a cultural revolution. That's more than just "really useful". As I said, either Shapiro is either short-sighted or maliciously misleading. I'm personally going for maliciously misleading to further his agenda.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "massive corporate boondoggles that sank millions or billions of dollars" In the billions? Those are very rare in the private sector and quite common in government. "Though we can never show it" No, you really can't, especially in light of how many private online services existed before the Intranet was fully opened up. "Private industry is notoriously short-sighted, and have absolutely no interest in the kinds of projects that DARPA (and government in general) can afford to focus on." Oddly enough, they manage to accomplish quite a bit of long-term work without throwing tens of billions at any given blue-sky project by one company. "BTW, 'a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful' is a gigantic understatement." No, it is not. Most of DARPA's work has had no civilian application at all. That decades of work after DARPA made the Internet useful and that GPS was opened to civilian use doesn't change that simple fact. "As I said" As I said, myself.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
anamax 17y ago
> Nothing good ever came of government programs. DARPA is a rounding error on the defense budget. It isn't an "innovation program", like synfuels and the other debacles that got, and continue to get, real money.

by blueben 17y ago

Semiapies 17y ago

You're trying to make an argument against his throw-away rhetoric. He doesn't care about innovation - he's got trade policy on his mind. It's not a great argument, either. If so many billions had been spent at DARPA without creating anything, that would be truly astonishing. However, compare that with what's accomplished with rather less money in the private sector - which developed crucial things, like the transistor and integrated circuit, that made GPS and ARPANet possible in the first place. Sure, if we frame the tossed-off line as an absolutist point, it's wrong - decades after their development, a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful to the private sector and consumers. However, it's hard to argue that those huge resources (both monetary and human - a lot of great engineers and scientists were recruited into DARPA during the Cold War) would have accomplished any less outside of the military. Would the Internet have been an academic curiosity for as long as it was if it hadn't started out as a government project? Mind you, Shapiro doesn't care. He's simply complaining about government money he's not getting.

blueben 17y ago
"However, compare that with what's accomplished with rather less money in the private sector" You got a little confirmation bias on your shirt there. It's easy to look around and find successful private-industry projects that had limited budgets. It's also easy to forget about massive corporate boondoggles that sank millions or billions of dollars and were then shuttered for lack of practical use, lack of profitability, or because of project mismanagement. Generally, nobody notices or cares because the taxpayer didn't lose out. Though we can never show it, I doubt we would have an internet or GPS satellite system today if that same time and money were spent by private industry rather than DARPA. Private industry is notoriously short-sighted, and have absolutely no interest in the kinds of projects that DARPA (and government in general) can afford to focus on. No "responsible" corporation will drop tens of billions of dollars on R&D for projects like "an open spec global precision navigation system" or "a network where any node can communicate with any other node using standardized open protocols". There isn't any profit motive. BTW, "a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful" is a gigantic understatement. These technologies spawned billion dollar industries, enabled the creation of thousands of companies and millions of jobs, revolutionized our economy and our information infrastructure, and ignited a cultural revolution. That's more than just "really useful". As I said, either Shapiro is either short-sighted or maliciously misleading. I'm personally going for maliciously misleading to further his agenda.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "massive corporate boondoggles that sank millions or billions of dollars" In the billions? Those are very rare in the private sector and quite common in government. "Though we can never show it" No, you really can't, especially in light of how many private online services existed before the Intranet was fully opened up. "Private industry is notoriously short-sighted, and have absolutely no interest in the kinds of projects that DARPA (and government in general) can afford to focus on." Oddly enough, they manage to accomplish quite a bit of long-term work without throwing tens of billions at any given blue-sky project by one company. "BTW, 'a relative few of these military technologies turned out to be really useful' is a gigantic understatement." No, it is not. Most of DARPA's work has had no civilian application at all. That decades of work after DARPA made the Internet useful and that GPS was opened to civilian use doesn't change that simple fact. "As I said" As I said, myself.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

anamax 17y ago

> Nothing good ever came of government programs. DARPA is a rounding error on the defense budget. It isn't an "innovation program", like synfuels and the other debacles that got, and continue to get, real money.