4 ms·

... now they want to run some fascist incubator ... Are you seriously calling this fascism?

by _pius 16y ago

watchandwait 16y ago
From Wikipedia: "An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state."
- silverbax88 16y ago
  Not to be flippant, but 'strong directive influence' and 'contingent upon service to the state' for the entire economy is a far cry from a tiny fund of money.
  - nika 16y ago
    The fund only backs businesses "contingent upon service to the state". Literally it is in the fact sheet that his money will go to "disadvantaged" (eg: politically connected businesses that can be counted on for electioneering) and to "clean energy", which is a category of businesses serving the political agenda. At the next election, Obama can talk about how he gave $2B to politically correct businesses (though he won't use that term) and he'll have lots of "high tech" plants to tour where he can say "they said we couldn't, but I say we can, and we did, build this company! Making clean energy solar cells for the future!" That's "contingent upon service to the state". He didn't say the "entire economy" was fascist, just that the fund was.
yoyar 16y ago
Let's call if corporatism. It means the same thing but people will whine less about the semantics.
- watchandwait 16y ago
  Fair enough, fascism also has non-economic context and that's not the point I was making.
- jbooth 16y ago
  But it's not corporatism or fascism, or socialism, it's a frickin seed program that may be a small waste of money. The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Maybe, but this isn't basic research. > Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks. This is saying "we'll fund {you} to make {whatever}" when folks spending their own money don't believe in the combination of {you} and {whatever}. Synfuels anyone? Which reminds me, what fraction of the US govt-seeded/assisted solar biz haven't moved much of their operations to China? The decision will be made on a political basis. That's how govt always works.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Good god, man, you can't be defending this tripe. Fascism has a definition, and it involves getting all of the biggest corporations on the same page with the government to create a totalitarian state. (Communism differs in that the government is the whole deal). We've been funding energy research for decades, and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. This is an experiment with the funding mechanism, people complain about the grant system all the time, silicon valley works, so someone said hey let's give this a shot. It's not fucking fascism. If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it?
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Fascism has a definition, Yes, but I didn't mention fascism. I merely described what the program in question is actually doing. > We've been funding energy research for decades, Yes we have. Is it unreasonable to ask whether said funding has been worth what it cost? Is it unreasonable to ask whether proposed funding will be worth what it costs? Or, are you claiming that the decision to fund synfuels obligates us to fund every alt energy proposal? > and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. Unless you think that said reasons justify any and all things that one can call "kickstart green energy", that statement isn't all that useful. You don't get to assume "we're going to have good results" in the abstract. You need to show that the specific proposal is likely to work. Surely experience is relevant - if something has failed before, why will this time be different? > silicon valley works Actually, silicon valley doesn't work in the sense that is required by your argument. The part of silicon valley that works is folks risking their own money and they don't agree on winners before the race. Govt programs lack both of those features. Also, VC model actually doesn't work that well. The average is fairly low which means that the standout funds mask a lot of horrible performance by the vast majority. What are the odds that govt will be like Kleiner and not the typical fund? > If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it? No, but it's nice of you to try the ad hominem slam. I'm happy to concede that I'm a bad person and you're a good person. However, that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of programs have been a disaster. I suspect that you place a lot of weight on "good intentions". Are those intentions really all that good when they consistently have bad results?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

... now they want to run some fascist incubator ... Are you seriously calling this fascism?

by _pius 16y ago

... now they want to run some fascist incubator ... Are you seriously calling this fascism?

From Wikipedia: "An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state."

silverbax88 16y ago
Not to be flippant, but 'strong directive influence' and 'contingent upon service to the state' for the entire economy is a far cry from a tiny fund of money.
- nika 16y ago
  The fund only backs businesses "contingent upon service to the state". Literally it is in the fact sheet that his money will go to "disadvantaged" (eg: politically connected businesses that can be counted on for electioneering) and to "clean energy", which is a category of businesses serving the political agenda. At the next election, Obama can talk about how he gave $2B to politically correct businesses (though he won't use that term) and he'll have lots of "high tech" plants to tour where he can say "they said we couldn't, but I say we can, and we did, build this company! Making clean energy solar cells for the future!" That's "contingent upon service to the state". He didn't say the "entire economy" was fascist, just that the fund was.

yoyar 16y ago

Let's call if corporatism. It means the same thing but people will whine less about the semantics.

watchandwait 16y ago
Fair enough, fascism also has non-economic context and that's not the point I was making.
jbooth 16y ago
But it's not corporatism or fascism, or socialism, it's a frickin seed program that may be a small waste of money. The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks.
- anamax 16y ago
  > The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Maybe, but this isn't basic research. > Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks. This is saying "we'll fund {you} to make {whatever}" when folks spending their own money don't believe in the combination of {you} and {whatever}. Synfuels anyone? Which reminds me, what fraction of the US govt-seeded/assisted solar biz haven't moved much of their operations to China? The decision will be made on a political basis. That's how govt always works.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Good god, man, you can't be defending this tripe. Fascism has a definition, and it involves getting all of the biggest corporations on the same page with the government to create a totalitarian state. (Communism differs in that the government is the whole deal). We've been funding energy research for decades, and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. This is an experiment with the funding mechanism, people complain about the grant system all the time, silicon valley works, so someone said hey let's give this a shot. It's not fucking fascism. If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it?
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Fascism has a definition, Yes, but I didn't mention fascism. I merely described what the program in question is actually doing. > We've been funding energy research for decades, Yes we have. Is it unreasonable to ask whether said funding has been worth what it cost? Is it unreasonable to ask whether proposed funding will be worth what it costs? Or, are you claiming that the decision to fund synfuels obligates us to fund every alt energy proposal? > and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. Unless you think that said reasons justify any and all things that one can call "kickstart green energy", that statement isn't all that useful. You don't get to assume "we're going to have good results" in the abstract. You need to show that the specific proposal is likely to work. Surely experience is relevant - if something has failed before, why will this time be different? > silicon valley works Actually, silicon valley doesn't work in the sense that is required by your argument. The part of silicon valley that works is folks risking their own money and they don't agree on winners before the race. Govt programs lack both of those features. Also, VC model actually doesn't work that well. The average is fairly low which means that the standout funds mask a lot of horrible performance by the vast majority. What are the odds that govt will be like Kleiner and not the typical fund? > If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it? No, but it's nice of you to try the ad hominem slam. I'm happy to concede that I'm a bad person and you're a good person. However, that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of programs have been a disaster. I suspect that you place a lot of weight on "good intentions". Are those intentions really all that good when they consistently have bad results?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]