3 ms·

Actually this was the one statement that was correct in the entire article. I don't deny that the government plays an important role in funding science and tec

Actually this was the one statement that was correct in the entire article. I don't deny that the government plays an important role in funding science and tech, which in turn is essential for silicon valley. But it is still completely wrong to characterize Silicon Valley as "state-sponsored investment". Take Google. The original algorithm was developed at Stanford, but it didn't involve any fancy math that required a DARPA grant. The founders came up with the idea of using commodity hardware for servers. All the other technologies they later built (MapReduce, BigTable, etc.) were the company's own inventions, involving no help from outside sources. Similar things can be said for Apple, Microsoft and also much of the Open Source movement. The fact that the government played some role does not mean all the value generated really belongs to the government. And in case anyone was tempted to make some false assumptions about my viewpoint, I'm not arguing that there should be no redistribution of wealth. I'm just arguing that claiming that we don't live in a market economy is wrong, and a poor basis for arguing for redistribution of wealth.

hrkristian 13y ago
Your parent made the point that without the government Google and others may not have launched in the first place. This modern world has already invented the cheesegrater, what remains to be invented really is -for most part- too complex to be conceived from thin air with a stroke of inspiration. I would have to study for a decade to have a chance at success in quantum physics, and I'd be relying on an enormous amount of gathered knowledge in doing so, much of it coming from state-sponsored work. That would be a tremendous effort on my part, but it pales to the effort of the society as a whole in making my future available to me. In such a light I have a hard time seeing how wealth distribution currently is "fair".
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I think silicon valley is much closer to the cheesegrater than to quantum physics. Just because the industry is characterized as high tech, doesn't mean that the actual content requires a huge amount of scientific or mathematical knowledge. As a philosophical point, I agree that the fact that all of society is needed in order to produce our wealth, is a good argument for redistribution. But imagine that somehow this wasn't the case. I think the redistribution would still be justified on the grounds that the imposition on people's rights (paying taxes) is very small compared with the benefits. In fact, forcing people paying taxes is the least restrictive way for the government to implement any policy.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Silicon Valley started in the 1950s when there was a lot of government involvement. It didn't become the private sector's innovation center until the 1980s or so, and even then, government played a massive but unaccredited role. Defense contractors rarely innovate-- at least, not intentionally-- but the competition against them for top talent requires startups to compete on interesting work, autonomy, et cetera, which makes better startups. Silicon Valley's era of innovation (ca. 1957-2001) existed in a time (now sadly ended) during which labor had unprecedented leverage. To support Simon's thesis, you don't get innovation if labor or capital has all the cards; you need a balance between the two.

hrkristian 13y ago

Your parent made the point that without the government Google and others may not have launched in the first place. This modern world has already invented the cheesegrater, what remains to be invented really is -for most part- too complex to be conceived from thin air with a stroke of inspiration. I would have to study for a decade to have a chance at success in quantum physics, and I'd be relying on an enormous amount of gathered knowledge in doing so, much of it coming from state-sponsored work. That would be a tremendous effort on my part, but it pales to the effort of the society as a whole in making my future available to me. In such a light I have a hard time seeing how wealth distribution currently is "fair".

yetanotherphd 13y ago
I think silicon valley is much closer to the cheesegrater than to quantum physics. Just because the industry is characterized as high tech, doesn't mean that the actual content requires a huge amount of scientific or mathematical knowledge. As a philosophical point, I agree that the fact that all of society is needed in order to produce our wealth, is a good argument for redistribution. But imagine that somehow this wasn't the case. I think the redistribution would still be justified on the grounds that the imposition on people's rights (paying taxes) is very small compared with the benefits. In fact, forcing people paying taxes is the least restrictive way for the government to implement any policy.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Silicon Valley started in the 1950s when there was a lot of government involvement. It didn't become the private sector's innovation center until the 1980s or so, and even then, government played a massive but unaccredited role. Defense contractors rarely innovate-- at least, not intentionally-- but the competition against them for top talent requires startups to compete on interesting work, autonomy, et cetera, which makes better startups. Silicon Valley's era of innovation (ca. 1957-2001) existed in a time (now sadly ended) during which labor had unprecedented leverage. To support Simon's thesis, you don't get innovation if labor or capital has all the cards; you need a balance between the two.