12 ms·

This article is an example of the worst political commentary. It presents the context for this "observation" as being a decrease in both public debt and the siz

This article is an example of the worst political commentary. It presents the context for this "observation" as being a decrease in both public debt and the size of the government. No such thing has happened or is likely to happen any time soon. The US federal government is the largest and most powerful state in the history of the world. There is no "cut" that could make that less true coming in the next few years at least. The core issue is that while it may be true that the state does have initiatives to fund business innovation there is a false choice being presented. The example of Apple suggests that if the government didn't give them a grant they wouldn't exist. The problem is that we can't say that for certain at all. We don't know the outcomes in a world where the taxes or loans taken to pay for those grants didn't happen. It's not possible to say if the outcomes would be better or worse (for the cause of Apple Computer at least) had that grant not existed. The state is a mixed bag. They currently take 15% of my income to pay for my "retirement" when if I had been able to save that I'd end up far more secure in my retirement than I will with social security. But that said they are using that money to pay for the life support that a lot of people need. Mix that with the constant wars and you can understand why crediting the state for its' light in a world of darkness is misguided. There are a lot of other odd statements in here too such as describing the state as a risk taker as if the state is ever punished for its' failures. People don't even remember most of the CIA's failures as they line up for war behind its' current allegations in Syria.

calibraxis 13y ago
Well, if you'd like the anti-statist take on state innovation, how about this? "The economy relies very heavily on the state sector. There is a lot of agony now about socialization of the economy, but that is a bad joke. The advanced economy, high technology and so forth, has always relied extensively on the dynamic state sector of the economy. "That's true of computers, the internet, aircraft, biotechnology, just about everywhere you look. MIT, where I am speaking to you, is a kind of funnel into which the public pours money and out of it comes the technology of the future which will be handed over to private power for profit. So what you have is a system of socialization of cost and risk and privatization of profit. And that's not just in the financial system. It is the whole advanced economy." (http://www.stwr.org/global-financial-crisis/the-financial-crisis-of-2008-interview-with-noam-chomsky.html http://www.stwr.org/global-financial-crisis/the-financial-cr...) That's from Noam Chomsky, an anti-capitalist who favors forms of anarcho-syndicalism. Obviously, it's hard to bring up such opinions in polite company. Much easier to quote Mazzucato, who'll present the truth in a more politically correct way... :)
confluence 13y ago
This comment is an example of the worst political commentary. It doesn't even try to make sense, and is more a form of paranoid, libertarian verbal diarrhoea than an actual reasoned argument. Libertarians would have a much easier time living with the government if they just thought of it as a corporation, upon whose land they work, live and play. The 15% income fee is merely the cost of doing business. Welcome to Disneyland, ahem, I mean, America.
- Radim 13y ago
  Oh, but the issue is not whether we think of something as a "corporation" or not. After all, that's just playing with words. The issue is, what happens if you decide you don't want to do business with that entity anymore? In case of state, the punishment is prison and, resisting that, death. That is the part that libertarians object to, and it doesn't matter whether that entity calls itself "corporation", "mafia" or "government".
  - 15charusername 13y ago
    And if it wasn't a government but instead a corporation, the only thing that would change is that you don't even get to vote!
    - notdrunkatall 13y ago
      Incorrect. The libertarian government ideal is that the government's main purpose (and some would say sole purpose) should be to protect people against such occurrences. So there is most definitely a mechanism to protect people against aggression from those with more power; in fact, libertarianism is built on the principle which underlies it.
    - SiVal 13y ago
      What nonsense. In a free market economy, you vote every time you voluntarily accept an offer. Not voting for a corporation, a vote that costs you your own money, is a vote against it, because corporations die by default. If ever people stop accepting new offers, the corporation will die. They can't force you to accept an offer or to pay for an offer accepted by someone else. With a government -- or a corporation supported by crony capitalism, which is just more government -- a program doesn't have to convince the payers that it's worth paying for. It just has to convince those with the power to take money from others by force to do so and give them some of it.
mtts 13y ago
> The state is a mixed bag. No argument there :-) > They currently take 15% of my income to pay for my "retirement" when if I had been able to save that I'd end up far more secure in my retirement than I will with social security. You would, but many others wouldn't. The point of collective plans like this is that it spreads the wealth around to people who otherwise wouldn't have any. Whether you think this is fair is another discussion entirely, but that's what it's meant to do and it does it reasonably well. > Mix that with the constant wars This is a problem, yes. The state has little incentive not to be wasteful and the US state has been particularly wasteful in this regard. > There are a lot of other odd statements in here too such as describing the state as a risk taker as if the state is ever punished for its' failures. Which is the point, I think. The state can afford to take risks precisely because it won't ever be punished for failures. This leads to waste, but it also allows for investments to be made in endeavors that would be far too risky for a party subject to market forces to take on.

calibraxis 13y ago

Well, if you'd like the anti-statist take on state innovation, how about this? "The economy relies very heavily on the state sector. There is a lot of agony now about socialization of the economy, but that is a bad joke. The advanced economy, high technology and so forth, has always relied extensively on the dynamic state sector of the economy. "That's true of computers, the internet, aircraft, biotechnology, just about everywhere you look. MIT, where I am speaking to you, is a kind of funnel into which the public pours money and out of it comes the technology of the future which will be handed over to private power for profit. So what you have is a system of socialization of cost and risk and privatization of profit. And that's not just in the financial system. It is the whole advanced economy." (http://www.stwr.org/global-financial-crisis/the-financial-crisis-of-2008-interview-with-noam-chomsky.html http://www.stwr.org/global-financial-crisis/the-financial-cr...) That's from Noam Chomsky, an anti-capitalist who favors forms of anarcho-syndicalism. Obviously, it's hard to bring up such opinions in polite company. Much easier to quote Mazzucato, who'll present the truth in a more politically correct way... :)

confluence 13y ago

This comment is an example of the worst political commentary. It doesn't even try to make sense, and is more a form of paranoid, libertarian verbal diarrhoea than an actual reasoned argument. Libertarians would have a much easier time living with the government if they just thought of it as a corporation, upon whose land they work, live and play. The 15% income fee is merely the cost of doing business. Welcome to Disneyland, ahem, I mean, America.

Radim 13y ago
Oh, but the issue is not whether we think of something as a "corporation" or not. After all, that's just playing with words. The issue is, what happens if you decide you don't want to do business with that entity anymore? In case of state, the punishment is prison and, resisting that, death. That is the part that libertarians object to, and it doesn't matter whether that entity calls itself "corporation", "mafia" or "government".
- 15charusername 13y ago
  And if it wasn't a government but instead a corporation, the only thing that would change is that you don't even get to vote!
  - notdrunkatall 13y ago
    Incorrect. The libertarian government ideal is that the government's main purpose (and some would say sole purpose) should be to protect people against such occurrences. So there is most definitely a mechanism to protect people against aggression from those with more power; in fact, libertarianism is built on the principle which underlies it.
  - SiVal 13y ago
    What nonsense. In a free market economy, you vote every time you voluntarily accept an offer. Not voting for a corporation, a vote that costs you your own money, is a vote against it, because corporations die by default. If ever people stop accepting new offers, the corporation will die. They can't force you to accept an offer or to pay for an offer accepted by someone else. With a government -- or a corporation supported by crony capitalism, which is just more government -- a program doesn't have to convince the payers that it's worth paying for. It just has to convince those with the power to take money from others by force to do so and give them some of it.

mtts 13y ago

> The state is a mixed bag. No argument there :-) > They currently take 15% of my income to pay for my "retirement" when if I had been able to save that I'd end up far more secure in my retirement than I will with social security. You would, but many others wouldn't. The point of collective plans like this is that it spreads the wealth around to people who otherwise wouldn't have any. Whether you think this is fair is another discussion entirely, but that's what it's meant to do and it does it reasonably well. > Mix that with the constant wars This is a problem, yes. The state has little incentive not to be wasteful and the US state has been particularly wasteful in this regard. > There are a lot of other odd statements in here too such as describing the state as a risk taker as if the state is ever punished for its' failures. Which is the point, I think. The state can afford to take risks precisely because it won't ever be punished for failures. This leads to waste, but it also allows for investments to be made in endeavors that would be far too risky for a party subject to market forces to take on.