3 ms·

this has always puzzled me. Companies gets millions from the taxpayers to certain projects to develop their (something) Then another company get another millio

this has always puzzled me. Companies gets millions from the taxpayers to certain projects to develop their (something) Then another company get another million to develop same or similiar thing. Why it is not a required that if you get taxpayers' money, the results should be available for free to everyone, let's say after 12 months of grace perioid ??

anonymous344 3y ago
and the worst: taxpayers' 99% funded organizations for example for traveling or some other area make the same sh*t as another orgs already did 3 times, yet they do not share any of the information.
bombolo 3y ago
The extra money is needed to corrupt the people doing procurement…
JellyBeanThief 3y ago
Because that would be bad for society. It's important that money moves around as much as possible--every time it does, value is created. Think of it like the water cycle. By increasing the output of the sun (enacting laws to keep publicly-funded code private), we cause lots more money to evaporate from the taxpayer oceans (by solving the same problem repeatedly), and that in turn creates lots more fiscalonimbus clouds in the upper ten percentosphere (where you can find, e.g., large consulting businesses and shareholders). Before long, all that evaporated money (it's actually stock now, the most interesting property of which is that its value expands and contracts to fit whatever everyone thinks it should be worth) will start to precipitate when it's liquidated again, see? From there it rains on unspecified economic mountains and valleys, and eventually trickles back down into the ocean again. You might point out that increasing the output of the sun in the real world actually result in a scorched, uninhabitable earth, and that also that's not how any of this works but hey, no analogy is perfect. And this one is plenty good enough to convince voters.
- 76SlashDolphin 3y ago
  But the issue here is that taxpayer's money is never sufficient. If not used on software projects it could always be used to speed up public infrastructure building, increase salaries in important public jobs like healthcare or teaching, or any one of a billion things that would be far less wasteful and still put that money back into the economy.
- yarg 3y ago
  What? That money isn't disappearing, it goes to the company but also to its employees. They then return it to the economy. What you're suggesting is that the tax payers spend their money and get nothing in return - it's corporate socialism.
- JellyBeanThief 3y ago
  I kinda hoped that by the time people got as far as "fiscalonimbus" they would have caught on that this is a send up of economic conversations in internet comment threads.
ketzu 3y ago
> Why it is not a required that if you get taxpayers' money, the results should be available for free to everyone, let's say after 12 months of grace perioid ?? Probably depends on the development in question, but in general the ability to resell something to someone else changes the calculations for contract work. If you want me to develop something and then own it is not the same deal as me developing something that I get to sell to someone else, too. Some might also consider it undermining their own industry. Instead of building up software companies, it is essentially the government building a huge software department.
- bregma 3y ago
  > Some might also consider it undermining their own industry Especially if that industry has evolved into suckling at the government's teat. Taxpayer milk is the sweetest milk.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  It also depends on the nature of the software. Administrative software can usually be exported without issue because it doesn't threaten the administrative service. But certain technology is a strategic investment to create a domestic industry that can self-fund expensive R&D, so you may need a moat if it's inexpensive to copy the result.

anonymous344 3y ago

and the worst: taxpayers' 99% funded organizations for example for traveling or some other area make the same sh*t as another orgs already did 3 times, yet they do not share any of the information.

bombolo 3y ago

The extra money is needed to corrupt the people doing procurement…

JellyBeanThief 3y ago

Because that would be bad for society. It's important that money moves around as much as possible--every time it does, value is created. Think of it like the water cycle. By increasing the output of the sun (enacting laws to keep publicly-funded code private), we cause lots more money to evaporate from the taxpayer oceans (by solving the same problem repeatedly), and that in turn creates lots more fiscalonimbus clouds in the upper ten percentosphere (where you can find, e.g., large consulting businesses and shareholders). Before long, all that evaporated money (it's actually stock now, the most interesting property of which is that its value expands and contracts to fit whatever everyone thinks it should be worth) will start to precipitate when it's liquidated again, see? From there it rains on unspecified economic mountains and valleys, and eventually trickles back down into the ocean again. You might point out that increasing the output of the sun in the real world actually result in a scorched, uninhabitable earth, and that also that's not how any of this works but hey, no analogy is perfect. And this one is plenty good enough to convince voters.

76SlashDolphin 3y ago
But the issue here is that taxpayer's money is never sufficient. If not used on software projects it could always be used to speed up public infrastructure building, increase salaries in important public jobs like healthcare or teaching, or any one of a billion things that would be far less wasteful and still put that money back into the economy.
yarg 3y ago
What? That money isn't disappearing, it goes to the company but also to its employees. They then return it to the economy. What you're suggesting is that the tax payers spend their money and get nothing in return - it's corporate socialism.
JellyBeanThief 3y ago
I kinda hoped that by the time people got as far as "fiscalonimbus" they would have caught on that this is a send up of economic conversations in internet comment threads.

ketzu 3y ago

> Why it is not a required that if you get taxpayers' money, the results should be available for free to everyone, let's say after 12 months of grace perioid ?? Probably depends on the development in question, but in general the ability to resell something to someone else changes the calculations for contract work. If you want me to develop something and then own it is not the same deal as me developing something that I get to sell to someone else, too. Some might also consider it undermining their own industry. Instead of building up software companies, it is essentially the government building a huge software department.

bregma 3y ago
> Some might also consider it undermining their own industry Especially if that industry has evolved into suckling at the government's teat. Taxpayer milk is the sweetest milk.
nunuvit 3y ago
It also depends on the nature of the software. Administrative software can usually be exported without issue because it doesn't threaten the administrative service. But certain technology is a strategic investment to create a domestic industry that can self-fund expensive R&D, so you may need a moat if it's inexpensive to copy the result.