Joe Biden: Great ideas of the last 200 years needed government

Whovian said:

Why dont 'you' address your incorrect assertions about the list you provided, which has been counterpointed twice in this thread? Not willing to defend your own statements?

Click to expand...

Oh noes, you didn't get a response for 10 whole hours! Sorry I wasn't at your beck and call all night long. If you want that, you'll need to find yourself a hooker. Now then:

Whovian said:

You need to remove telephone from your list. The government had nothing to do with it's creation, nor with the telephone system itself (lines, switchers, etc...) That was all BELL
The Evolution of the Telephone System

Click to expand...

I'll give you that one. I was under the impression that most of the phone lines were mostly publicly owned, but apparently not. Nevertheless, government still plays an important role in the industry. The logistics of it made it such that the government needed to regulate it so that carriers are interconnected with one another. Otherwise there would be no incentive for carriers to want to link their networks and invite competition onto their turf.

Whovian said:

Airports needs to come off too. The first commercial airports were privately built, owned and operated.

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. I'm not talking about a couple of cleared fields used for rickety airplanes, I'm talking about the overall infrastructure. Airplanes could not have become as successful as they did without government investment in airports. Even today this would be implausible. Even the best airlines are just barely turning a profit (while most of them seem to perennially hover near bankruptcy). They would be totally incapable of profitably running airports. Not to mention all of the practical problems that would present, with airlines refusing each other access to their airports and whatnot.

Whovian said:

The electric 'grid' was private enterprise too...
History of electric power transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the absolute first movers. I'm referring more to the popularization of the technology. Without the government playing a regulatory role in the industry, it could not have flourished. The electric industry lends itself to natural monopolies, and so the government is necessary to step in and prevent corporate abuses. Furthermore, the government is necessary to coordinate the design of the power grid so that the entire country doesn't get hit by a blackout (which still happens more often than it should). Private industry does not have the incentive to do this; let some other sucker do it.

Whovian said:

Certainly, the government helped in some areas, some more than others,

Click to expand...

Most certainly. At least 8 of the 9 on my list, and really 8.5 because the government did play SOME role in telephony, albeit not as large as in all the other inventions I cited as the most important of the modern world.

Whovian said:

but to say 'EVERY' is simply incorrect. To defend the error out of partisanship, is immature.

Click to expand...

Except I haven't "defended the error" at all, because as I've repeatedly mentioned, I really don't give a damn because I'm not a partisan hack. I'm more interested in discussing the government's role in technology than I am in parsing Joe Biden's choice of words. Whether he misspoke or exaggerated or whatever is petty and stupid, and I really don't care. :roll:

Ockham said:

The other way to look at these items you posted are that they are some of the most highly regulated, taxed and skimmed money makers for government. These regulations have given the government the excuse to increase the size of the bureaucracy by leaps and bounds. For example, the FCC regulating access to the internet, as well as Television and Radio. Yet, the government did little to actually incentivize the CREATION of radio and television.

Click to expand...

No, but they did a lot to incentivize the POPULARIZATION of those technologies, which is what really matters. Creating an amazing new technology is meaningless if no one uses it. If the FCC didn't regulate television and radio, there would be nothing stopping people from broadcasting over top of one another. This would create a jumbled mess, make the experience worse for the audience, and ultimately make the technologies impractical.

As for the internet...that evolved out of ARPAnet, which was entirely a government project funded by the US military. Like many cool things the military does, it came out of DARPA.

Ockham said:

The only thing I can credit them with is identifying these things as money makers and then regulating them and increasing their power over them. Then we have airplanes --- TSA, FAA, and a few more alphabet soup organizations. Telephone? FCC again. Electricity - well the EPA is involved recently, and of course there's the Dept. of Energy. Antibiotics? There's tons of health organizations doing oversight and control over anything from asprin to drugs used for lethal injections.

Click to expand...

That's not simply a matter of the government increasing their power over them just because they can. There are practical reasons for all of those regulations. They may not always be handled in the ideal manner, but there is a reason those things are regulated. There are plenty of big money-making industries that are not regulated nearly as heavily.

Ockham said:

I'm not saying the FAA isn't needed, or that the Dept. of Energy is a waste ... certainly a portion of these regulations are for safety and there are positives that go along with them. The by product though, is a vast bureaucracy regulating every and all things. There is not, one thing in your or anyone's house in the United States that is not regulated. From stuffed animals, to the timber or wall board, light bulbs, computer, and paint --- ALL of it is regulated. I submit all of that power is not needed and to go full circle back to the original point --- those regulations are not incentives for the creation of the product or that government can take credit for invention or innovations that were put forth. Government simply stepped in and passed laws regulating these things primarily to make money on them, and secondarily to claim such regulations are required for "safety" reasons. Therefore government, according to Pete Stark, can do anything they want.

Click to expand...

This is getting a bit off track because we're now talking about whether or not government regulation of product quality is necessary to protect public safety, which is far different than whether or not government regulation of blockbuster inventions is necessary for them to become popular and improve overall well-being.

Kandahar said:

No, but they did a lot to incentivize the POPULARIZATION of those technologies, which is what really matters.

Click to expand...

You're actually trying to say that the inventions themselves did not matter, it was the government making them popular that mattered?

Seriously?

Any number of inventions from this gentleman.

George Washington Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whovian said:

You're actually trying to say that the inventions themselves did not matter, it was the government making them popular that mattered?
Seriously?

Click to expand...

We, the people, are OBVIOUSLY incapabe of doing anything for ourselves; we NEED government to take care of us.

I always thought this was just a line liberals fed to unthinking people just to get their political support -- reading this thread and a few others like it, it is depressingly apparent that some of those liberals actually believe it.

Ockham said:

His exact words were:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition' - March 9, 1999

Click to expand...

I don't view that statement the same way. His use of words were awkward, but he didn't say that he, specifically, designed the Internet. He is expressing his involvement in moving the Internet forward but not as a designer.

Al is not my fave, btw. However, I think the whole statement was twisted out of context. Notice Blitzer, who usually sits there with his thumb in his ear anyway, let it pass.

There is a difference between "creating initiatives to move the Internet forward" and "inventing the Internet". It was a clumsy way to get his pov across, nothing more. Taking initiative to move initiatives forward doesn't mean that the person is the creator, only a promoter.

I'm more taken aback by his global warming stance all the while living in a non-eco friendly house. Environmental issues are more of a concern to me than a misuse of words for something we all know didn't take place.

Dulcinea said:

I don't view that statement the same way. His use of words were awkward, but he didn't say that he, specifically, designed the Internet. He is expressing his involvement in moving the Internet forward but not as a designer.

Al is not my fave, btw. However, I think the whole statement was twisted out of context. Notice Blitzer, who usually sits there with his thumb in his ear anyway, let it pass.

There is a difference between "creating initiatives to move the Internet forward" and "inventing the Internet". It was a clumsy way to get his pov across, nothing more. Taking initiative to move initiatives forward doesn't mean that the person is the creator, only a promoter.

I'm more taken aback by his global warming stance all the while living in a non-eco friendly house. Environmental issues are more of a concern to me than a misuse of words for something we all know didn't take place.

Click to expand...

I agree I don't think he out and out said he invented it. I do think he takes credit for helping invent it though.

Kandahar said:

I posted what I considered the most important modern inventions, and highlighted the significant role government played in each of them. Since you must have missed them, here they are again:

1. Automobiles (interstate highway system)
2. Airplanes (airports)
3. The internet (DARPA)
4. Television (FCC assigning broadcast channels)
5. Telephone (phone lines infrastructure - joint public/private effort)
6. Electricity (power grid)
7. Plumbing (public sanitation/sewer systems)
8. Antibiotics (large public health campaigns)
9. High-yield crops (public R&D)

Click to expand...

All these things, more or less, existed without government.
What government did was accommodate most of them.

The internet already existed as an idea, before the government even started with it.

High yield crop breeding has been going on for centuries, being done by private individuals.

Ockham said:

I agree I don't think he out and out said he invented it. I do think he takes credit for helping invent it though.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure he's the only government official who does, too.

It's a hard question to answer. Sure, many inventions and ideas were created without direct government assistance. But what if, for example, we had no federal protection for intellectual property in the US? What if people who created novel inventions didn't get the incentive of a twenty-year monopoly over their inventions?

??? said:

It's a hard question to answer. Sure, many inventions and ideas were created without direct government assistance. But what if, for example, we had no federal protection for intellectual property in the US? What if people who created novel inventions didn't get the incentive of a twenty-year monopoly over their inventions?

Click to expand...

People would still invent stuff, but I really don't want to turn this into a an IP debate.

Harry Guerrilla said:

People would still invent stuff, but I really don't want to turn this into a an IP debate.

Click to expand...

It's possible. There are other incentives: reknown, private grants, etc. We don't have to get into an IP debate, but I do think IP incentives are a significant force in, if nothing else, the speed with which the public gains access to useful inventions. Which seems relevant to the initial question.

??? said:

It's possible. There are other incentives: reknown, private grants, etc. We don't have to get into an IP debate, but I do think IP incentives are a significant force in, if nothing else, the speed with which the public gains access to useful inventions. Which seems relevant to the initial question.

Click to expand...

I don't agree, even without IP people would still invent stuff because they would be first to the market and first to profit.
Not to mention that they would have more knowledge over the product to solve problems with it.

First to market and profit would last about 1 day and be worth about $1.50. Superior knowledge would last less than a day. Costs would not be returned; others would be reaping equal profits and pushing you out of the market by day 3. By day 5 you would be pushed out of the market by a large company and close business deeply in debt from R&D. On day 6, you would find no recourse. On day 7 the big sharks would rest and prepare to divide up the market next week.

Whovian said:

You're actually trying to say that the inventions themselves did not matter, it was the government making them popular that mattered?

Seriously?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the inventions didn't matter, but presumably we're talking about the actual impact they had on people's lives rather than just the fact that someone managed to produce a cool new shiny object. A television is useless if no one can watch it because people are constantly broadcasting over top of one another. The FCC coordinates efforts to prevent this, thus improving the experience for ALL users. If the government hadn't gotten involved to coordinate it, a television would probably be little more than a curiosity.

Goobieman said:

We, the people, are OBVIOUSLY incapabe of doing anything for ourselves; we NEED government to take care of us.

I always thought this was just a line liberals fed to unthinking people just to get their political support -- reading this thread and a few others like it, it is depressingly apparent that some of those liberals actually believe it.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could explain how automobiles would have become popular without roads. Perhaps you could explain how radio and television would have become popular without any coordination to prevent broadcasters from using the same channel. Thanks.

Ockham said:

How about asprin. Microsoft. The assembly line? The lightbulb?

Click to expand...

The lightbulb was massively incentivized by the government. That doesn't mean the government invented it, but they have paid for a huge percentage of the creation of the power grid and power production which was until fairly recently almost exclusively used for lighting. The lightbulb was basically useless until they rolled out the power grid.

The assembly line certainly the government has played a major role in. Arguably when it really evolved into modern form was during WWII when the government was driving the vast majority of the demand.

Asprin... Long ugly history between Asprin and the government. The US seized Bayer's assets in WWI which is when asprin started to really be mass marketted, but then IG Farben bought it and it got nationalized by the nazis... So I don't know if I'd say exactly that the government "helped" Asprin, but definitely heavy government involvement...

(I actually assume there are some great inventions that government hasn't been involved with, just think it's a fun game to try to disprove the examples)

ecofarm said:

First to market and profit would last about 1 day and be worth about $1.50. Superior knowledge would last less than a day. Costs would not be returned; others would be reaping equal profits and pushing you out of the market by day 3. By day 5 you would be pushed out of the market by a large company and close business deeply in debt from R&D. On day 6, you would find no recourse. On day 7 the big sharks would rest and prepare to divide up the market next week.

Click to expand...

It takes more than one day to reverse engineer and retool a facility to produce a new item.
That doesn't work.

Kandahar said:

Then perhaps you could explain how automobiles would have become popular without roads. Perhaps you could explain how radio and television would have become popular without any coordination to prevent broadcasters from using the same channel. Thanks.

Click to expand...

bicycles were popular before roads. Horse Drawn Wagons were popular before roads. Why could it not be true for cars?

ARealConservative said:

bicycles were popular before roads. Horse Drawn Wagons were popular before roads. Why could it not be true for cars?

Click to expand...

Cars were popular, that's why we now have roads. :mrgreen:

Harry Guerrilla said:

Cars were popular, that's why we now have roads. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

historically, the popularity of the bicyle and the wagon commisisioned the Office of Road Inquiry. So government roads were being built before Henry Ford started mass producing cars.

ARealConservative said:

historically, the popularity of the bicyle and the wagon commisisioned the Office of Road Inquiry. So government roads were being built before Henry Ford started mass producing cars.

Click to expand...

True, roads existed even before the U.S. government, so I think that government inducing cars to be built is bunk.

The interstate system was built because of so many vehicles.

Harry Guerrilla said:

True, roads existed even before the U.S. government, so I think that government inducing cars to be built is bunk.

The interstate system was built because of so many vehicles.

Click to expand...

I'm in total agreement. Kandahar is just reading from his playbook.

bicycles were popular without roads and cars would be too. In fact cars were incredibly popular with no real road infrastructure. The rally cry to build roads was ""Get the farmers out of the mud!" because cars were already getting very popular.

Harry Guerrilla said:

It takes more than one day to reverse engineer and retool a facility to produce a new item.
That doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does work because if it is a day or a year doesn't matter (notice the biblical reference?). You must recoup costs of R&D, and you will not before you are pushed out of the market. Developing a new product or process would always be a loss without IP except when the biggest distributor innovates.

Without IP, private innovation or invention ceases for all practical purpose. End of story.