5 ms·

run amazing free services (search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Finance, Google News, Google Voice, Google Reader, Feedburner, many many others). Al

run amazing free services (search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Finance, Google News, Google Voice, Google Reader, Feedburner, many many others). Also, they're internally investing in energy and robotics like the auto-driven cars thing None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc).

hugh3 16y ago
Personally, I think that if infrastructure (rather than wealth redistribution) were really the main business of government then I wouldn't have any objection to paying taxes. I'm sure that GOOG pays enough taxes in one way or another to pay for its fair share of the world's roads. This is more than I can say for the bum sitting on the street corner.
ataggart 16y ago
>None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money... This is sloppy reasoning. Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs. Further, absent a parallel world in which such different choices were made, one could just as easily argue on economic grounds that the resources confiscated would have been otherwise put to more effective, productive use in satisfying the wants of the common man.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs. I'm not saying that at all. Google can offer the services that it does because it can ride on the back of the infrastructure developed beforehand and the taxes we pay now will enable future entrepreneurs to provide services utilizing potentially different infrastructure.
- notahacker 16y ago
  Although Sebastian's original post stopped just short of doing so, it would be equally sloppy to suggest that Google's ability to come up with amazing free (but profitable) services was a consequence of their tax avoidance.
  - chc 16y ago
    Only because calling it "tax avoidance" is overspecifying. Google's ability to come up with amazing free services without immediate profitability is a consequence of their considerable post-tax revenue.
adbge 16y ago
> None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc). I'd argue that the infrastructure would have been built regardless.
- Travis 16y ago
  Perhaps the infrastructure would have been built, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount of basic fundamental research the government does that enables the infrastructure. Most corporations don't do what the US Feds call "R06" research, meaning there is no current application for the results. Pure research, others might call it. My current field, public health, is an example. The US Gov't spends billions into research that doesn't lead to tangible products or services. But without it, we wouldn't know that cigarettes are bad, or that heart disease is correlated with red meat consumption. There are lots of non-infrastructure advantages that exist only because the government has tax money.
  - WalterBright 16y ago
    Anybody who dissected a smoker knew it was bad for you (ever seen a smoker's lung? I have. Horrific). Even in the 20's cigarettes were called "coffin nails", and doctors routinely advised their patients to quit smoking. Epidemiological studies have been carried out since the early 1800's.
    - Travis 16y ago
      Counterpoint: well into the 1950s, doctors would routinely endorse cigarettes with menthol because they "cleared up your lungs." Even R.A. Fischer, the man who started modern applied statistics, died in 1962 believing that the conclusions drawn from cig studies were at best inconclusive and bad science. And I'm curious if you could give me examples of a few epi studies that were done before Fisher's time. I was under the impression that he started everything to do with statistics (and that the field didn't really blossom until we could compute the coefficients digitally. Read "The lady tasting tea" for more background on the origins of this stuff).
dennisgorelik 16y ago
Judging from this downvoted comment -- this discussion is overtaken by libertarian crowd (which I'm part of). Still it's not a good idea to down-vote comments that you do not agree with. Down-voting is intended for boring/offensive comments which you do not want to see in further discussions.
- gruseom 16y ago
  Downvoting is a legitimate way to disagree when you don't have time or anything useful to say. It's not true that it was intended only for the cases you describe. This is one of those debates (like the decline of HN relative to Reddit) that will never go away despite the fact that it is settled. That said, I think it's pretty foolish to downvote Anechoic's argument, which is cogent and grounded in historical fact. I don't see how anyone can argue against the role of the public sector in creating major technological infrastructure on a bloody internet forum.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  I feel fine downvoting comments with high scores that I disagree with, especially if there is no particularly strong argument in them. If they have low score then I leave them alone.

hugh3 16y ago

Personally, I think that if infrastructure (rather than wealth redistribution) were really the main business of government then I wouldn't have any objection to paying taxes. I'm sure that GOOG pays enough taxes in one way or another to pay for its fair share of the world's roads. This is more than I can say for the bum sitting on the street corner.

ataggart 16y ago

>None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money... This is sloppy reasoning. Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs. Further, absent a parallel world in which such different choices were made, one could just as easily argue on economic grounds that the resources confiscated would have been otherwise put to more effective, productive use in satisfying the wants of the common man.

Anechoic 16y ago
Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs. I'm not saying that at all. Google can offer the services that it does because it can ride on the back of the infrastructure developed beforehand and the taxes we pay now will enable future entrepreneurs to provide services utilizing potentially different infrastructure.
notahacker 16y ago
Although Sebastian's original post stopped just short of doing so, it would be equally sloppy to suggest that Google's ability to come up with amazing free (but profitable) services was a consequence of their tax avoidance.
- chc 16y ago
  Only because calling it "tax avoidance" is overspecifying. Google's ability to come up with amazing free services without immediate profitability is a consequence of their considerable post-tax revenue.

adbge 16y ago

> None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc). I'd argue that the infrastructure would have been built regardless.

Travis 16y ago
Perhaps the infrastructure would have been built, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount of basic fundamental research the government does that enables the infrastructure. Most corporations don't do what the US Feds call "R06" research, meaning there is no current application for the results. Pure research, others might call it. My current field, public health, is an example. The US Gov't spends billions into research that doesn't lead to tangible products or services. But without it, we wouldn't know that cigarettes are bad, or that heart disease is correlated with red meat consumption. There are lots of non-infrastructure advantages that exist only because the government has tax money.
- WalterBright 16y ago
  Anybody who dissected a smoker knew it was bad for you (ever seen a smoker's lung? I have. Horrific). Even in the 20's cigarettes were called "coffin nails", and doctors routinely advised their patients to quit smoking. Epidemiological studies have been carried out since the early 1800's.
  - Travis 16y ago
    Counterpoint: well into the 1950s, doctors would routinely endorse cigarettes with menthol because they "cleared up your lungs." Even R.A. Fischer, the man who started modern applied statistics, died in 1962 believing that the conclusions drawn from cig studies were at best inconclusive and bad science. And I'm curious if you could give me examples of a few epi studies that were done before Fisher's time. I was under the impression that he started everything to do with statistics (and that the field didn't really blossom until we could compute the coefficients digitally. Read "The lady tasting tea" for more background on the origins of this stuff).

dennisgorelik 16y ago

Judging from this downvoted comment -- this discussion is overtaken by libertarian crowd (which I'm part of). Still it's not a good idea to down-vote comments that you do not agree with. Down-voting is intended for boring/offensive comments which you do not want to see in further discussions.

gruseom 16y ago
Downvoting is a legitimate way to disagree when you don't have time or anything useful to say. It's not true that it was intended only for the cases you describe. This is one of those debates (like the decline of HN relative to Reddit) that will never go away despite the fact that it is settled. That said, I think it's pretty foolish to downvote Anechoic's argument, which is cogent and grounded in historical fact. I don't see how anyone can argue against the role of the public sector in creating major technological infrastructure on a bloody internet forum.
jacoblyles 16y ago
I feel fine downvoting comments with high scores that I disagree with, especially if there is no particularly strong argument in them. If they have low score then I leave them alone.