Obviously the Internet would have been created by someone without government assistance, it's time had come. All the pieces where there, you just needed a demand and an engineer to put the pieces together. After all, the automobile was created without government assistance, washing machines were created without government assistance there are untold examples of mainstream product that didn't need the government to come into existence.
Yes the Internet is an example of a success, the space program used to generate many successes. But, how many other projects spent the money taken from me to fund something that didn't pan out or could never pan out? Everybody is aware of the government successes almost nobody seems to be aware of the perhaps tenfold number of failures.
Look at what's going on today in the government funded renewable energy industry. Hundreds of millions of my money has been given to renewable energy start-ups that have failed in a year or two. I have to ask, how does a small company spend hundreds of millions of dollars and still fail in a year or two? Is it the executives’ salaries? Is it the fact the technology couldn't ever work out? Look at the money spent on George Bush’s Hydrogen Economy when all along everybody knows we have no way of creating the hydrogen – incredibly stupid waste of resources and money, look what we have to show for that today, nothing!
What bothers me the most is the contrast between the private and public sectors. In private industry, if you spend too much money or have a product that is not viable, the management of that company loses their bonuses and probably their job after they squander the investor funds that were given to them voluntarily by investors that know, going in, that there is financial risk. In the public sector, the stolen money (I say stolen because I believe few tax payers want to invest in private firms with no hope of direct financial return and statistically little hope of financial success) is simply given away with little apparent oversight. When this venture fails, I don't get my money back, the politicians that selected the company for funding don't lose their job and I suspect the CEO and his buddies enjoyed generous salaries during the company's slow demise.
I believe the private sector is far more capable of picking winners than the public sector is. The government has a role to play but it clearly should not be gambling with my money the way they are today.
"There are many who believe wholeheartedly that governments don't create jobs -- the private sector does" - The very fact that this keeps getting tossed out into the MARS HILL forum of ideas reminds me of the disservice that ivory tower philosophers provide for the confusion of public discourse, or dare I say propaganda.
"the government does have a positive role to play in fostering economic growth and job creation" - of course, that's true! No one is arguing against that, but some present both concepts as if they're synoymous, which they clearly are not. By doing so, it's easier for some to defend statist, even fascist leaning trends in policy (read: taxes and metastasizing regs), by accusing those who argue for the proper role of Gov't, which MUST BE limited, of being anti-Progressive neanderthals, hostile to gov't.
Almost comically, to allude to the "recent auto bailouts" as being a testament to the " positive role"...that Gov't might "play in fostering economic growth and job creation" is truly twisted logic. The gov't, through collusion with the mob force of unions, drove our auto industry into bankruptcy, forced Bondholders out of their legal, rightful queue, to the benefit of the unions, so that the Gov't, as faux savior, could "bail out" (read: take control of) the industry, just like what happened in Germany in the 1930's. almost like out of a playbook!
So, in between gladhanding each other about the glory of Gov't interference, perhaps you techies, whom I sincerely love and appreciate, could bone up on some history and political philosophy, before you venture too far out from your base of knowledge, pontificating about those who happen to withhold their slavish affections from the State. Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Every week technology companies announce a new product that either runs on or supports Internet activities.With all this coverage, one might be tempted to believe that some entity other than government created the Internet.Indeed, with the recent charges that government doesn’t create jobs, we may well come to the conclusion that many people don’t remember the government’s role in creating the Internet, because if they knew how the Internet was created they would know that the government can indeed create jobs. If people can’t remember what the government has done in the past, they may not know how the government can help the country in the future, and that has serious implications for the high tech industry.
Thanks to all those who read the article and posted a comment.
Yes, the evolution of internet is happened from one of the research labs in USA. They had created the data transfer packet models and defined other layers of communication. After that I think all the developments are happened in application sides and still the developments are happening. But from the initial form of internet communication, the underneath technology didn’t change still. All the developments are happened in application levels and how to access it
I am with you on the govet-based incentives idea but the 'cost' factor is still the most important component. Even if companies would like to stay here and don't get overwhelmed when it comes to taxt time, they still need to operate and stay in the black. With costs for most supplies and resources (including personnel) being significantly more expensive in the U.S., it will be hard to entice those that have off-shored to come back. Unless there is a more feasible, short-term solution for more budget-friendly resource expenditures.
I agree with you. The government involvement can be crucial to providing tax credits and relief to entice companies to do business in the US, for example. We are always pondering the "not made in the USA" issue and I have consistently opined that if the government offered the right incentives, we can claim our technology and products back. Right now with manufacturing still cheaper elsewhere and other companies offering better tax incentives than the US, we will continue to see products move overseas. To say that we want the government to stay out of our "business" is indeed short sighted.
Thanks for reading my post and for pointing out other examples of the government’s contribution to the U.S. high tech industry. If we were to measure in dollar terms how much the government has given the high tech industry do you think that the high tech industry has returned that investment in equal measure?I guess that’s quite a question.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.