Public Investment -> Private Profit

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Chomsky: Go back to the '50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there's a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That's after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

 

[22*43*51]

"The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector."


WTF?

 

[unIowa]

Ahhhhhhh WWJD the govt is basically getting a royalty fee (called taxes) perpetually off of that investment. You can discuss the merits of what that royalty should be and if "we" are getting a high enough return or not but to say the taxpayer gets "nothing", well that is a little no no that is a HUGE leap.

 

[22*43*51]

 

[thewop]

Chomsky: Go back to the '50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there's a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That's after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

I agree, I can't think of any benefit taxpayers have received from the invention of the computer. I'm sure the tax dollar amount put into researching computer technology far exceeds the amount in taxes collected from employees who make their living because of that technology...

Wait, no, that's insane.

Here's a scary thought: Imagine if the government had created it and never turned it over to the private sector to optimize it and sell it?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ahhhhhhh WWJD the govt is basically getting a royalty fee (called taxes) perpetually off of that investment. You can discuss the merits of what that royalty should be and if "we" are getting a high enough return or not but to say the taxpayer gets "nothing", well that is a little no no that is a HUGE leap.

While that sounds reasonable on the surface, does it really hold up?

Let's say you invent something. I make it and sell it. You and others buy it. From my profits, a small amount is taken and a very small amount is given to you.

Alternatively.... You invent something. I lease the rights, make it and sell it. Or maybe we become partners and we split the profits. A small amount is taken from our profits and a very small amount of that small amount is given back to you.

You will have noticed that the inventor/developer does a lot better in the second case. In the first case you get to buy a product you designed at what amounts to a trivial discount. In the second case, you get a significant chunk of the profits.

Moreover, the current way there's no difference between the product that I invented and the product invented by the manufacturer. Profits for both get taxed the same.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I agree, I can't think of any benefit taxpayers have received from the invention of the computer. I'm sure the tax dollar amount put into researching computer technology far exceeds the amount in taxes collected from employees who make their living because of that technology...

Wait, no, that's insane.

Here's a scary thought: Imagine if the government had created it and never turned it over to the private sector to optimize it and sell it?

The problem with high volume sarcasm is that you look rather foolish if you aren't entirely correct.

This isn't an argument that private enterprise hasn't added value. Sure they have. It's only an argument that the public has been denied its legit return on investment.

If you invented the first computer and I stole your design and became Gates or Jobs and made wonderful computers that benefited you and millions of others, would that change the fact that I stole your design?

When the judge in your lawsuit tells you to shut up because you have benefited from the development of your idea by Steve Jobs, will his sarcasm seem just as obviously true as when you posted that?

 

[DrVenkman]

Chomsky: Go back to the '50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there's a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That's after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

Do you agree with this or just thrwoing it out there for another economic/ political debate? I think that in some cases the above commentary is true but not in the case of Gates and Jobs.
Whatever public funding that occurred was done so to take ideas where they could. It took and most often takes other people with private funding to then take the technology where it ultimately can go. I would argue the same is true in medical research where the line is even morre blurred and the outcomes even more debatable. Many times public funding is working right along side private funding. Is the outcome always on the up and up? However the premise is to work for cures for things. Something that the public should benefit from.

Now I know the medical application is horrible to bring up on this board. How drugs are priced and the overall costs of medication is atrocious. However, the success the US has had in developing breakthrough cures and medicines is relatively top notch.

 

[thewop]

If you invented the first computer and I stole your design and became Gates or Jobs and made wonderful computers that benefited you and millions of others, would that change the fact that I stole your design?

In this scenario, you'd be a jerk, but I'd only have myself to blame for not protecting it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Do you agree with this or just thrwoing it out there for another economic/ political debate? I think that in some cases the above commentary is true but not in the case of Gates and Jobs.
Whatever public funding that occurred was done so to take ideas where they could. It took and most often takes other people with private funding to then take the technology where it ultimately can go. I would argue the same is true in medical research where the line is even morre blurred and the outcomes even more debatable. Many times public funding is working right along side private funding. Is the outcome always on the up and up? However the premise is to work for cures for things. Something that the public should benefit from.

Now I know the medical application is horrible to bring up on this board. How drugs are priced and the overall costs of medication is atrocious. However, the success the US has had in developing breakthrough cures and medicines is relatively top notch.

I agree that it is sometimes true. I usually think of Big Pharma in these terms. Obviously it isn't true of everything. Plenty of good ideas come from the private sector, too.

I don't really mind if private enterprise does well from developing things begun with public sector seed money. Often that's an excellent way to get the benefits to a lot of people. But I do think the public is often entitled to a much higher return on investment than we get under current policy. The public is basically doing a lot of free or nearly free R&D.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In this scenario, you'd be a jerk, but I'd only have myself to blame for not protecting it.

And yet this is what's happening - except that "you" in the example is us - the public - who invent and then hand over the invention for exploitation by the private sector.

If you agree that you would be a chump and I would be a jerk in my example, why would you think it's OK for the public to be the chump in the real world of tech, pharma and other things where the inventions are taken by and profited from by someone else?

 

[thewop]

And yet this is what's happening - except that "you" in the example is us - the public - who invent and then hand over the invention for exploitation by the private sector.

If you agree that you would be a chump and I would be a jerk in my example, why would you think it's OK for the public to be the chump in the real world of tech, pharma and other things where the inventions are taken by and profited from by someone else?

I admire your ability to defend a ridiculous viewpoint until the other person wears out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I admire your ability to defend a ridiculous viewpoint until the other person wears out.

I was just repeating your last point back to you and showing you that it actually agrees with my original position.

An odd definition of wearing you down, but I'm glad if your are worn down and have come around to the correct viewpoint.

 

[The_Joker13]

WWJD, you are one crazy bastard.

 

[unIowa]

While that sounds reasonable on the surface, does it really hold up?

Yes it does.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes it does.

Ignoring the discussion and sticking to your guns without any justification. Good job.

 

[unIowa]

In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

This seems like a very adversarial point of view; govt vs private enterprise, tax payers v people who became rich, etc.

TEAMWORK WWJD, think of it as teamwork.

 

[unIowa]

Ignoring the discussion and sticking to your guns without any justification. Good job.

Sorry I will change up my argument.

Where did the money come from to do the initial work/research for this technological advancement? To me it seems like the private market (taxpayers) provided the seed money which allowed the govt to do this research.

I guess you could claim that money came from govt borrowing (which would be partially true) but without the tax base which provides an ability to repay debt the govt would have no lenders.

Again...teamwork.

Now, as I stated earlier, you may not thing that tax royalty is enough or the current rules for getting said royalty are effed up (see our current tax system), to which I would agree, but this is basically how it should work.

 

[unIowa]

While that sounds reasonable on the surface, does it really hold up?

Let's say you invent something. I make it and sell it. You and others buy it. From my profits, a small amount is taken and a very small amount is given to you.

Alternatively.... You invent something. I lease the rights, make it and sell it. Or maybe we become partners and we split the profits. A small amount is taken from our profits and a very small amount of that small amount is given back to you.

You will have noticed that the inventor/developer does a lot better in the second case. In the first case you get to buy a product you designed at what amounts to a trivial discount. In the second case, you get a significant chunk of the profits.

Moreover, the current way there's no difference between the product that I invented and the product invented by the manufacturer. Profits for both get taxed the same.

Would you be more happy with a system that collected more for govt inventions but things created outside the govt gets taxed at 0%?

The current set up (minus our effed up tax code) is the most equitable and efficient way of doing things. I don't see any reason for changing it.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Chomsky: Go back to the '50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there's a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That's after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

as a college student in the 80's I was able buy my own PC. Perhaps there were tech breakthroughs in silicon chips and die manufacturing that benefited from government research. But I could never have bought that PC at that time unless guys like Jobs and Gates had done what they did on their own. I don't begrudge them of anything they have.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Chomsky: Go back to the '50s when I got here. I was in a research lab. In fact, right down below this, there's a research lab for electronics. It was 100 percent funded by the Pentagon. What it was doing was creating the modern IT technology culture in a high-tech economy on public funds: the internet, computers, microelectronics. It was all coming out of public funds. Thirty years later, it began to be profitable. Then it was handed over to private enterprise.

The first marketable small computer was Apple in 1977. That's after about 30 years of research and development mainly in the state sector, places like this, of public expense. In a capitalist system, there's a principle that if you invest, especially in a long-term risky investment, if something comes out of it, you're supposed to get the profit. It doesn't happen in our system. The taxpayer paid for it and gets nothing - assumes all of the risk, gets zero. The money goes into the pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, who are ripping off decades of work in the public sector.

http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-theres-overt-corporate-effort-indoctrinate-american-children?sc=fb

IF WW II had not occurred, how much of this 30 years of state sector research would have occurred? It wasn't done by a benevolent state overseeing our future, but a government trying to beat the bad guys to the punch.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Would you be more happy with a system that collected more for govt inventions but things created outside the govt gets taxed at 0%?

The current set up (minus our effed up tax code) is the most equitable and efficient way of doing things. I don't see any reason for changing it.

Not if you are aiming at "revenue neutrality" but some mix of licensing fees and reduced taxes might be acceptable.

Not sure why you are even raising this if you reject my assertion that the public hasn't gotten a proper ROI.

 

[unIowa]

Not if you are aiming at "revenue neutrality" but some mix of licensing fees and reduced taxes might be acceptable.

Not sure why you are even raising this if you reject my assertion that the public hasn't gotten a proper ROI.

What I am saying is the current structure is the correct one (govt receives a perpetual royalty in the form of tax payments) but the execution (our current tax code) to receive said royalty could be tweaked if deemed necessary (of which I think it is necessary).

You also stated: While that sounds reasonable on the surface, does it really hold up?

To which I said, yeah it is perfectly reasonable and holds up.

Sometimes you can out think yourself and the cleanest/"most reasonable" approach is the proper one.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Ahhhhhhh WWJD the govt is basically getting a royalty fee (called taxes) perpetually off of that investment. You can discuss the merits of what that royalty should be and if "we" are getting a high enough return or not but to say the taxpayer gets "nothing", well that is a little no no that is a HUGE leap.

Well, when am I going to get my profit.

 

[unIowa]

Well, when am I going to get my profit.

You already have, it is just an indirect payout through better infrastructure and more economic opportunity.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I agree, I can't think of any benefit taxpayers have received from the invention of the computer. I'm sure the tax dollar amount put into researching computer technology far exceeds the amount in taxes collected from employees who make their living because of that technology...

Wait, no, that's insane.

I agree. And what's REALLY insane is that cons are opposed to this kind of basic govt research that has eventually enriched the pockets, lives, and/or minds of literally (used in the old style) billions of people. Nutso.