Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by snerd, Apr 16, 2012.
I'm sorry, I thought Google and Facebook were funded by "private" enterprise?
What's theirs is his .......
The Internet was born from government funding, so every Internet company wouldn't exist without government funding. Google and Facebook are just examples everybody can relate to.
I believe Al Gore may have something to say about this...
The Internet was founded to facilitate communication between researchers and colleges. I'm comfortable in the knowledge someone smart enough to come up with any number of advancements could have managed the interwebs too - without the federal teat.
You'd be surprised at how little of their own money companies throw at research without government "incentives" (a.k.a. subsidies).
I will like to see Google and Facebook's response to his comment...
They probably won't say anything because they understand the point he was making. They probably realize that nit-picking statements, even when the point of the statement is obvious to all, makes one look stupid, and they don't want to look stupid.
Barack Obama would not exist without government funding.
One more great argument against government.
I wish I had thought of that one! Tru Dat!!
...The best possible argument against government funding!
Actually, I believe it is you who would be surprised. My last company, we spent wheelbarrows of money on R and D and developed several unique items that made the principals wheelbarrows more.
Contrary to what you may read on the interwebs, the entrepreneurial spirit doesn't begin or end with government cash.
best example yet
Never said it did. Just said the Internet got developed with government cash until it reached the point where companies could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Google and Facebook wouldn't exist today without the foundations of the Internet already in place when they started.
Well, on behalf of Q -- that's not what you said the first time:
This is the statist's ancient myth that science wouldn't get done without the government. Actually, the reverse is true -- government funding of science saps the initiative for private funding of science, and the net effect of government funding is negative for science as a whole. However, the usual dynamic is at work where the average person gets to see what government paid for, but you don't get to see the vastly larger amount of research that would have been done in the government's absence.
The whole story is spelled out in great detail in "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research."
National defense was the original reason (Gov.funding). In the days of the old Soviet Union due to the fear of atomic attack the system was build so that if one city or area was knocked out the sytem would still work for communication between military bases. The colleges and researchers got involved later about the same time UNIX was developed by Kenneth Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs in 1969. Since then it has made history.
I was pointing out the current state of affairs at most companies, which have little incentive to sink a lot of money into ideas that could take three decades to pan out, as the Internet did. That's a far cry from stating there would be no research without the government.
Taking government money for research is not the same as being unwilling/unable to spend money if the federal largesse was not forthcoming. For instance, G.E. received billions of dollars from Obama's FedGov for Smart Grid research -- research that the company would have had to spend anyway in order to stay competitive with the rest of the industry.
But here's where the crony capitalism comes in -- the G.E./Jeff Immelt/President of the Obama "Jobs" commission/NBC-MSNBC Pro-Democrat propaganda circle jerk takes over. Everyone's aware of that incestuous connection, and it doesn't need to be dealt in detail here.
The question isn't whether a company had to take federal money in order to succeed. It's a case of who took the money in order to get an advantage in the market place -- and what part of its soul that company had to sell to get the bucks.