3 ms·

"new technology tends to be developed by people trying to make their fortunes" How about the internet? The web? Nuclear energy? All of this has been payed for

by why-el 13y ago

"new technology tends to be developed by people trying to make their fortunes" How about the internet? The web? Nuclear energy? All of this has been payed for by taxpayers. EDIT: I am getting a couple of down votes, so I am assuming people are asking for some sources. Most of the research, for internet at least, was actually funded by the department of defense [1] [1] http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/histor...

mseebach 13y ago
No, some/most of the research underpinning the first iteration of these cherry picked technologies was paid for by the government, but the development of them into the ubiquitous form in which you and I are benefiting from them on a daily basis was purely private capitalist endeavour. Surely there's a role for government in all this, but it doesn't follow that socialism (never mind all the random crazy ideas people call socialism) is a good idea. It's funny how the idea the fact that government provided some early foundations for the Internet somehow awards them full credit for it, doesn't apply to the private inventions such as electricity and the telephone without which the government couldn't have invented the Internet.
- why-el 13y ago
  > Surely there's a role for government in all this, but it doesn't follow that socialism (never mind all the random crazy ideas people call socialism) is a good idea. Who said this? I was merely pointing out that "new" technology, as appeared in the quote I responded to, it actually usually kickstarted by taxpayer money. I am not interested in where it went from there.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    > Who said this? Said what exactly? The comment you were responding to is titled "How can you dismiss socialism so casually?" > I am not interested in where it went from there. Well, that's awfully convenient, isn't it? If we only consider technology that's developed by the government it's much easier to reach the desired conclusion.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > No, some/most of the research underpinning the first iteration of these cherry picked technologies was paid for by the government, but the development of them into the ubiquitous form in which you and I are benefiting from them on a daily basis was purely private capitalist endeavour. First, you're understating the government contribution. DARPA didn't just research network theory. They built a network. TCP/IP was designed under contract. Also, that point undermines the original argument, which is that entrepreneurs are necessary for innovation. Once the technology exists, development is something that can be done with a rate-regulated monopoly. AT&T wired up every person in America under such a regime. I'm not saying that this would be my preferred model, but its one that works just fine.
  - hollerith 13y ago
    This is important to understand: the internet was already the largest computer network in the world -- and very engaging and worthwhile for a smart person -- before the private sector of the economy started to influence it significantly. For at least a year after I started on the internet in Dec 1991, any use of the internet for "commercial activity" was disallowed (and did not happen enough for a person to notice it). Spam had not been invented yet; the entire marketing profession seemed unaware of the existence of the internet; the main form of promotion I can remember is announcements of academic and technical conferences; it was OK to make a "work wanted" post on Usenet only if you wanted to become an employee ("W-2") -- contractors ("1099") and one-man consulting shops were prohibited from using the internet to look for clients. Although a few private-sector companies (UUNET for example although started as a non-profit in 1987 became a for-profit in 1989) were influencing the internet at this time, the influence was minor compared to the influence of governments, governmental contractors (notably BBN and Mitre) and universities. And again, the internet was already very valuable and very able to enrich people's lives -- provided that those people were willing to use command-line interfaces.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    SpaceX is being funded with government money, yet it's very much a capitalist enterprise. Just because government money was involved doesn't mean the government developed the technologies, nor that profit wasn't a prime motive.
akgerber 13y ago
Spending your enormous profits on tax-deductible R&D in the name of empire-building sounds a lot more appealing when most of your obscene executive salary or dividend payout would go to the IRS. That was pretty good incentive to pipeline money to Bell Labs or the PARC: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_and_bell_labs_brought_to_you_by_high_taxes.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an... And look where that got us.

by why-el 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

No, some/most of the research underpinning the first iteration of these cherry picked technologies was paid for by the government, but the development of them into the ubiquitous form in which you and I are benefiting from them on a daily basis was purely private capitalist endeavour. Surely there's a role for government in all this, but it doesn't follow that socialism (never mind all the random crazy ideas people call socialism) is a good idea. It's funny how the idea the fact that government provided some early foundations for the Internet somehow awards them full credit for it, doesn't apply to the private inventions such as electricity and the telephone without which the government couldn't have invented the Internet.

why-el 13y ago
> Surely there's a role for government in all this, but it doesn't follow that socialism (never mind all the random crazy ideas people call socialism) is a good idea. Who said this? I was merely pointing out that "new" technology, as appeared in the quote I responded to, it actually usually kickstarted by taxpayer money. I am not interested in where it went from there.
- mseebach 13y ago
  > Who said this? Said what exactly? The comment you were responding to is titled "How can you dismiss socialism so casually?" > I am not interested in where it went from there. Well, that's awfully convenient, isn't it? If we only consider technology that's developed by the government it's much easier to reach the desired conclusion.
rayiner 13y ago
> No, some/most of the research underpinning the first iteration of these cherry picked technologies was paid for by the government, but the development of them into the ubiquitous form in which you and I are benefiting from them on a daily basis was purely private capitalist endeavour. First, you're understating the government contribution. DARPA didn't just research network theory. They built a network. TCP/IP was designed under contract. Also, that point undermines the original argument, which is that entrepreneurs are necessary for innovation. Once the technology exists, development is something that can be done with a rate-regulated monopoly. AT&T wired up every person in America under such a regime. I'm not saying that this would be my preferred model, but its one that works just fine.
- hollerith 13y ago
  This is important to understand: the internet was already the largest computer network in the world -- and very engaging and worthwhile for a smart person -- before the private sector of the economy started to influence it significantly. For at least a year after I started on the internet in Dec 1991, any use of the internet for "commercial activity" was disallowed (and did not happen enough for a person to notice it). Spam had not been invented yet; the entire marketing profession seemed unaware of the existence of the internet; the main form of promotion I can remember is announcements of academic and technical conferences; it was OK to make a "work wanted" post on Usenet only if you wanted to become an employee ("W-2") -- contractors ("1099") and one-man consulting shops were prohibited from using the internet to look for clients. Although a few private-sector companies (UUNET for example although started as a non-profit in 1987 became a for-profit in 1989) were influencing the internet at this time, the influence was minor compared to the influence of governments, governmental contractors (notably BBN and Mitre) and universities. And again, the internet was already very valuable and very able to enrich people's lives -- provided that those people were willing to use command-line interfaces.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  SpaceX is being funded with government money, yet it's very much a capitalist enterprise. Just because government money was involved doesn't mean the government developed the technologies, nor that profit wasn't a prime motive.

akgerber 13y ago

Spending your enormous profits on tax-deductible R&D in the name of empire-building sounds a lot more appealing when most of your obscene executive salary or dividend payout would go to the IRS. That was pretty good incentive to pipeline money to Bell Labs or the PARC: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_and_bell_labs_brought_to_you_by_high_taxes.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an... And look where that got us.