The debate "Private sector just now launching satellites. without taxes/gov our tech world wouldn't exist today" was started by
April 27, 2018, 9:22 am.
By the way, Nemiroff is disagreeing with this statement.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 38 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Matthew354 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
LiberalsAversion, Keto, historybuff, Against_eu and 23 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Matthew354, greencat, Andrewchaney69420 and 34 visitors disagree.
"I agree with the elaboration that goverent programs have finished certain projects before the public sector, but overall the tech statement is misleading. The government is a catalyst, as is the time period that someone is born in. The government may have provided the conditions, but is not entitled to the credit of labor in many breakthroughs in my opinion."
how is the gov not entitled to the credit of the labor of the railroad expansion, the highway system, or the advances of the space race?
also its not that the gov finished them first. they finished them before the private sector even started dreaming of them. it wasnt a race, without the gov these projects wouldnt have been done for decades if ever. (space eventually, but comprehensive road system likely never, no point for private companies to connect previously dead end towns)
"Government projects have several layers of administrators and overhead, and also fragments so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand does. Forget agreeing, we don't even know the other hand has what we need research wise or why each other disagrees many times."
that's the claim, but it didnt hinder the effectiveness of the mentioned projects. I dont see what unrelated hands (like the IRS or FDA) have to do with space race and highway construction. these hands can function just fine independent of each other.
in fact the independence of our government hands is the genius of the founding fathers would you prefer a United government with all power centralized in a few hands? I understand your concern, I just dont think it is a concern. anything can be abused but with proper oversight this will be a powerful tool instead of a dangerous liability. it's all about how we use it.
as far as my fact, my complaint wasnt completely aimed at you. you disagree with nuance or the spirit of the question, at last check you didnt disagee with a factually accurate statement. you simply abstained from voting instead of denying a basic fact.
Of course it is about adding nuance, I agree with the elaboration that goverent programs have finished certain projects before the public sector, but overall the tech statement is misleading. The government is a catalyst, as is the time period that someone is born in. The government may have provided the conditions, but is not entitled to the credit of labor in many breakthroughs in my opinion.
The government compiles, but because there is more than one leader there is more than one direction, most not fully flushed out. For example imagine if everyone on this app could get funding for one project, if we could agree. That includes you, me, historybuff, proud American, Matthew, and Najam. Though some of us are politically different and have places we could agree, at least one of us would prevent a unified vote.
Government projects have several layers of administrators and overhead, and also fragments so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand does. Forget agreeing, we don't even know the other hand has what we need research wise or why each other disagrees many times. It's a hot button in law enforcement, for public safety and foreign security we have these fragments.
Which is why I am criticising the topic on the efficient or inefficient manner of success, technological advances must be measured in success. But if the government's rate of success is merely 'money gathered, research tried', even meager success will always overshadow many failures without criticism.
To conclude, you did state a fact... but it is a fact that focuses on the collection of money itself as research success and implements, unless it is a criticism of anarchy (which in that case I also agree, but it is a roundabout way of saying it.) I doubt this is a criticism of lacking government, but tell me if it is then I will switch my vote.
it is literally a fact that we launched sattelites over half a century ago.
it is literally a fact that the private sector just started doing it successfully a few years back (with much of the tech already existing).
I'm certain people want to add in nuance, and I've repeatedly said the private sector is awesome and necessary.
but it's amazing how some people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge a truth because of blind ideology. SAD!!!!
I wonder if those who disagree could actually explain how it isnt historic fact.
is ideology really stronger then reality?
the private sector is great, but something it simply wont do. massive profitless ventures that the private sector then refines and propel our society forward.
as my opening statement said, the government did over a half century ago what the private sector is just doing now.
The state/government are only a small fraction of what makes up the advances of technology, while the free market has done most of the priming and following through of it.
do you think it is either moral or wise for us to depend on and wait for people willing to sacrifice their entire wealth in order to advance ourselves as a civilization?
I think the difference between the gov and the Wright brothers is that they created an innovative design, while no amount of genius could or would create massive transcontinental infrastructure.
what person would single handedly fund a single atomic collider?
a crazy super rich explorer is just now succeeding to do what the gov did over 50 years ago and that's with the ripple tech of what they developed back then. without the gov's efforts, musk would be another ~20 years behind.
the half statement was that morgan fixed the railroads while ignoring that nobody was in any rush to lay the mass scale infrastructure to begin with.
why is Mickey mouse not in public domain?
once again, I'm not saying the private sector doesnt do anything, so I would appreciate if these random and irrelevant examples of which I'm sure there are practically infinite would stop. no amount of private innovation will negate what the public sector has done. I do not know why you cant simply acknowledge that the government has done spectacular things that the private sector couldn't or wouldnt do. just like the private sector has done spectacular things the gov would never do, like play dough, and donuts. although the scale of what the government does can move us forward as a civilization like mass connectivity, or fundamentals behind our space age tech.
would you really trade all the microchips and satellites for your small share of the money? would you even have that money without the economy the highway system made possible? is your ideology really stronger than reality, math, communal and self interest, and common sense?
please dont transform this into an attack on the private sector and retort as such, I have repeatedly said why it is great and necessary. why can you not admit that the gov can do what the private sector simply wont.
*do you regret that the government took those actions?*
While I would say we should move away from the point, I didn't quite see the new information introduced on the half statements. I won't pursue it unless you want to.
Patents aren't held infinite, only 20 years. I believe in a lower post I typed over, which is my mistake. I think the patent argument holds fairly strong because 1. the technology is established as new territory, which may yield a profit or not depending on trends. It isn't a copyright, so the presentation isn't the only differences. National level issues also have restrictions, in case a monopoly was legal and I don't think anyone wants that. The accomplishments of each field that you cite are culminations of various others also.
The wright brothers for example were not the government interest that made flight possible. Without flight, which the government had failed to research at the time, Space Theory would come right after flight theory. At the time there was no market for it, though there could be, and that is a good reason to invest so long as it is done with a bit of wisdom.
Even if the government that inventors make it easier to work in it would not be to the credit of the government's work. So it is not the government's mold, it is a private inventor, and that patent no longer exists, naturally.
Non profit is slightly besides the point, but it does help with financial investments, which in turn makes research and critical thought a priority rather than throwing money away.
it really wasnt that much work. the first paragraph did it all followed by examining 1 simple example from the numerous ones I'm sure are equally leaving out substantial information.
your posts have many points and I cant chase them all. rather than the weakest, I went for the most obvious, or at least the one that jumped out at me (all blue and underlined likely lol), if you wish to focus it on what you feel is the strongest point, I would have no choice but to tackle it.
the article follows the same theme of many of your points, exalting the efforts of the private sector to mold that which they would not have created on their own, like space flight, or clearing mass wilderness. private investment usually seeks returns and philanthropic charities arent exactly at nation scale project level of funds. patents are great when they arent held indefinitely (as they are now). the only private venturist who doesnt care about cost or profit is Elon musk, but that is so rare I would say the one before him was faraday over 200 years ago. at is it so ok to let these men sacrifice so much when we could contribute to our own glorious future (it'll help maga a ton)
arguments for me, but my posts get too long.
App is officially bugging for me, sorry about the fragmented posts
half a statement (accidental post halfway, haha), but perhaps you would like to provide the context to the quote. Or perhaps engage in my other points instead of a minor disagreement made with a link.
If it really is the weakest part of my argument (and perhaps I shouldn't include it, the government's role is different, again we agree but somehow either you or I aim at a nuance) wouldn't it be better to tackle the stronger points instead of reducing my argument? I try not to link too much, since that is othersh making my
I figured to post something simple, just so that it could be considered. You put a lot of work to discredit the article alone when your point would have been that the government had to claim land before settlers could own the land... Kind of how the ownership works, and yeah, business would be bad if construction was made in an unreasonable place. Perhaps it is
that link is just plain dumb.
he starts off making a stupid, exaggerated claim about what obama says without any quote.
"Without big government, President Obama likes to suggest, we would all be poor, miserable creatures. For starters, he claims that business became possible only because government built roads and bridges."
it would take a complete idiot to believe obama or anyone with half a brain would think commerce didnt exist before highways. I'd love to hear that Obama's quote that this nonsense, half truth propaganda is referencing. Businesses would certainly exist without the highway system, but far from all of them, especially the ones in shit hole 5 person towns. those whole towns may have died without the roads. to exxagerate a logical statement into ludicrousity... how uncritically did you look at this document before posting?
oh? morgan improved the railroad the gov built? excellent! would he have built the infrastructure from scratch thru wilderness terrain and Indian attacks? No! he wouldnt have done any of that if the gov didn't lay the ground work prior. that's what's called half truth and complete nonsense. including this propaganda makes your entire argument weaker.
Not that it isn't an issue for the private sector, but the scope of mismanagement. The government handles everyone's money, so our best hope is that it is embezzlement while on the other hand stupidity is just as possible.
In a business, it is entirely possible to put money from non profitable ventures, and these are invested by wealthier individuals so the affected population is fewer. You cannot opt out of taxes, and as far as I can tell Bill Deblasio has not made a statement or fired anyone.
In the end it is a valid point that both sectors are affected by this, but it isn't an epidemic on the private sector. The public sector on the other hand is part of everyone, yet a serious lack of representation is shown. And the price goes higher with more people, naturally.
Inventions by private businesses and innovations where there is no path to profit actually exist too. While I could lean back on Bill Gates and his garage, I'll also use a number. 2.1 million patients in 2012 in the US alone. Patents get a bad reputation because free use and information is ideal, but so is paying the inventor of something that hasn't existed before and is a mechanical item in a new tool or competitive one. A patent lasts over 20 years, and though some may choose to not get a patent like Louise Pasteur this is a good way to establish new territory.Without new territory or a significant alternative to the current, no patent can be held.
Internet regulations did have restrictions to internet changes, and Google fiber or Spectrum aren't exactly a government agency. When an agency can provide more gigabyes, or a search engine changes how websites can be found, we do see the government gather general information to insert itself.
I wouldn't fight the need for roads, but nuance is lost here too. Instead of going into detail, I'll leave this here https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/07/29/no-president-obama-it-was-private-business-that-made-our-roads-and-bridges-possible/#21f72d1d38a1
the government department may not close down because of inefficency, but the person in charge may lose his job. the 2 million dollar toilet sounds like embezzlement, and a quick Google of "company embezzlement" under the news tabs shows example after example all in recent days of private sector embezzlement and corruption. your pointing out a valid issue for public programs while ignoring that the issue is just as valid for private companies.
but yes, the money embezzled by private companies isnt our problem. but private companies have other issues. like no motivation to seek ground breaking projects with massive public good potential (not so much space race, but highway system and internet) but have no clear path to profit. these are things our economy or society may need, but private sector lacks the incentive to do it. also lying, false advertising, and sneaking in cost effective carcinogens into our food, but that's a bit tangental.
inept or corrupt people are a problem in any venture public or private. if the problem is the people, then we should find better people. we are the ones who choose who goes into the government. we can demand answers, accountability, or a new person completely.
the government is there to do the things that we need that no private company is willing to do (no profit)
the private sector is there for literally everything else
if you've seen the latest 2 episodes of john oliver (rehab and gaurdianship) you can see how the private sectors prioritization of profit can lead to disastrous outcomes, and how some industries (like health) make very strong cases for keeping them out of the private sector or at least require MASSIVE regulation. these industries are currently unregulated, so see what the fruits of pure free market sow... an excellent case study
I understand the praise, it exists not because business do not fail, it is that businesses are willing to fail on their own dollar. When a business is not willing to give up despite costs it may run, at the very least people would want an analysis.
The nuance I am going for is that the statement is true, but it is not precise. For example, space was eventual and with an arms race with the USSR led to the use of satellites, when we only imagined travel and minor photographs. The scope was large without a goal towards calculated risk, pretty open ended in terms of success all things considered.
I understand you agreed with the private sector making feasible changes to change the economy, so perhaps Henry Ford's automobile industry is the best example. It set up an economic weekend, made cars affordable, and provided reasonable projects for a willing labor force. I would credit the private sector more than the public here, even if we must give some credit to free use of lisences (which in both our opinions shouldn't be a favor but standard).
Cellular devices, computers, even medical research have received 'generic' brands for use when previously minor improvements were made over a century ago. Not to bash WHO or CDC, but variety, quality, and affordability are outcomes that also could not have happened or mostly credited to government study. We can put a non government project to an inventory, specific to an innovation many times more than not.
On non-groundbreaking projects or regular construction, the government is willing to burn money, such as $2 million for a toilet in New York. Hardly a success or improvement, and the government has it's hands in more than necessary research, many more times than not.
So it isn't that I disagree with the fact, but the degree the fact stands and as a result the perception of blind worship in the market over government.
the government should continue pushing the envelope of technology and exploration, and the private sector should be there to turn those discoveries into the countless practical innovations that will drive our economy, our advancement, and our continued leadership.
otherwise china and India will rule the next century.
*public programs dont go out of buisness.
not company programs.
I'm not exactly sure what nuance you are highlighting in your point, but I am in no way promoting a government only economy. certainly the government would never innovate silliness like playdough or the thousands of candy variety.
what I'm trying say is that public and private ventures have completely different priorities, and that both can function parallel to each other. this is less an attack on the private sector as much as a defense of public programs in their own right. far too often I hear people on the right worshipping the private sector as if companies never fail, err, or commit crimes. and those same people often have the false belief that government is always inefficient and fails.
and yes I do know that company programs dont go out of business, however that is because public results are not measured in profit, but in overall effect. and the plug can be pulled just as easily by turning sentiment.
Credit where credit is due, the innovation itself is worth praise. The government didn't have to release the innovations for free, and some government's don't. I wouldn't put the full achievement in the governments hand because of this, and continued efforts on non-groundbreaking things either.
I know that nobody would argue about the market in an absence of government, so any design has a necessary government which meets demands by expanding. So the statement wouldn't be incorrect, by any means
the private sector certainly improved on what the gov released, just as all humanity always improves on past achievements. but the point is that the government, *released* them to the people for further innovation with no copyright fees or limits of reasonable use.
how many private power engines of our modern economy are based on the free usage of the internet the government developed? I can say the exact same statement with our highway system and the space race tech with 100% confidence.
These ventures define our economy, the world, and every aspect of humanity today BECAUSE they were released to the people with no strings. they were very much worth the "failures".
The results in new fields that were not expected to needed at the time will always yield a higher "result". I can't disagree with you in terms of breaking ground... but that's the limit. Because the point of the space race wasn't even for the public sector I can disagree on what the results entail. Without a market, 'products' don't evolve, and I say it in the scientific sense as well.
There was no vision of MnM's for example, but when the military funded chocolate rations they ended up on the market, best remembered and continued by private companies. MREs as well. Trial and error by backers, interests that are not the whole population with variations.
The government in this case was "breaking ground" and was able to pull the funding from the entire population. Conversely we can also say that the wealthy interests have just now received the "funds" and "market" for this case. Satellites were still a little thing, and GPS for very few. Remember when Rush Hour had the police track by a fictitious satellite program? So there was one go to really, and for a time fictional.
Therefore, cases that are not groundbreaking will not yield the same results because there is a measure that can be used against them -a market. I am certain for example, if you were to go to court you would not take the free public defender and hire your own lawyer. If you are in the military you would also more likely use your own insurance instead of the goverment provided coverages. More waiting, less cases won, the numbers are a part of it.
When decisions of "free" government services lose out, it's worth considering the results. The availability may begin to exist, but it is a natural result. Efficiency isn't just the cost to returns, though that certainly helps. Government contractors are also a part of groundbreaking, from airplanes to construction a personal business may work with the government, and oftentimes do.
All things considered, it would be unfair to think the government was the driving force, there are plenty of things that don't come off the ground after production in government alone, and few unexpected results that are desired.
potentially yeah, but the gov has other expenses like military and social programs. the entire budget of the apollo program was alittle over half of Apple's war chest so it would be a huge cost but they could do it if they wanted to. but they wont because the private sector isnt about mystery risks with unknown returns.
nobody knew the space program would give us GPS, cell phones, lasik, and revolutionize our lives on every level in every industry. but it did. the main difference is not in the size of the budget, but the priority of returns vs results. how much did the Gov make off the space program? in a way $0, in a way $ uncountable.
and they can have a potentially bigger pool for such research.
the private sector has done many amazing things, I am not trying to take that away from it. but many believe the propaganda that government is completely inefficient and worthless when in reality the government has pursued amazing projects that the private sector wouldn't touch, like building a comprehensive highway network, or heading into space.
the amazing innovations made by these government projects were then provided *for free* to the public and private sector for use and further innovation, with no copyright restrictions or demands for compensation, leading to numerous further innovations from the private sector that would never have happened otherwise.
rather then inefficient, the government simply has other priorities, namely not profit, but results.