On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 08:59 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Yes, but more and more people are now sliding back into a "Democrat" frame of mind...I see this on several lists I'm on. (I am working on a theory about this, having to do with a) aging of these groups, b) the Republicans being in power. To wit, when Clinton was in power for 8 years, the Democrats were sort of the "status quo," so they didn't push ideologically. Now they are out, and now they are caterwauling about the need for more welfare, more subsidies, and about how 'cruel" Bush is. Meanwhile, the right wing is now the status quo, so they are more interesting in defending instead of attacking.)On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Tim May wrote:Really, Eugene, you need to think deeply about this issue. Ask your lab
associate, "A. G.," about why learning and success/failure is so
important for so many industries. Read some Hayek, some von Mises, some
Milton Friedman. And even some David Friedman.
I'm with Tim on this (though I've always found Eugene to be one of the most interesting and valuable contributors to discussions here).
It's sad, to me, to see all of these folks arguing for the need for government spending, for interventions in the economy, for stopping Microsoft from deciding what it puts in its software, etc.
Otherwise bright people are drifting into statism.
Not the people I know (and not the people you have interviewed: I doubt very strongly that T.J. Rodgers is arguing for government funding of research).
The only thing I'd add is that many folks in the technology community
or computer industry who are otherwise libertarian have a bit of a blind
spot when it comes to government funding of "basic research": they like it.
Granted, very high tax rates and rigged "give-backs" have caused formerly more pure industrialists to accept government money. "We're taking 47% of your profits, and we're taxing the dividends and capital gains, thus taxing the total profits to the tune of 73%. But if you play ball, and join our Homeland Technology Joint Initiative, based in Martinsburg, WVA, we'll give you a 30% tax break."
I happened to be working on radiation effects in memory chips and microprocessors during a time when this was a "hot" topic, both in the industry (alpha particles, cosmic rays) and in the "MIL-SPEC" and "rad-hard" community (satellites, nukes, space probes, etc.). The government was trying to get Intel to "play ball," to develop special chips for the government. Intel refused, not joining in the "VHSIC" (Very High-Speed Integrated Circuit) program, despite the dangling of tax benefits of various kinds. They knew that whatever the supposed "free money" from DARPA and NSF would be, it wouldn't be worth it.
I could say more about this period, but this gets the point across. Intel took no money whatsoever from any government agency to develop all of the things it pioneered (MOS DRAMs, UV EPROMs, the microprocessor, the single board computer (long before Altair!), etc.).
Later, as the "entanglements" with local tax jurisdictions got out of hand, it began taking "tax kickbacks" ("Locate your plant in Rio Rancho and we will exempt you from our confiscatory taxes for a period of N years....of course, we'll make it back in taxes on your workers, on energy taxes, on special school assessments, etc. Take it or leave it.")
Intel also participated in the "Sematech" boondoggle, from which almost nothing came. (And Intel's key developments remained in-house.) I knew some of the engineers delegated to relocate to Austin to participate in this boondoggle. It was mainly a tax scam, as noted above.
In a free economy, which is sort of what we had in high tech prior to high tech coming onto the radar screens of politicians, there would be no such government research programs, and none would be needed.
Now that high tech is so trendy, it's like "free highway money": government takes the money and then doles it back based on political favoritism.
More than that, in fact, they'll argue that it's necessary. I suspect
much of this comes from the reward structure of grad programs in CS (and
I presume other disciplines), where you win if you get DARPA etc. grants.
The government is seen as a benign force at worst, a boon at best.
By now, everyone's used to it and find its difficult to imagine life
without the tax largesse.
Not a good thing, and I regret that AMD, Intel, IBM, etc. engage in this, but really not their fault. They face economic ruin if they don't cut their high tax rates in the ways the politicians are telling them to.
But as to Eugene's basic point about Federal money being useful, this is just not so. And, more to the point, it isn't constitutional. (Cf. Col. David Crockett's famous speech about how he came to realize that he had to vote against a special pension for a War of 1812 widow. Google it up.)
Yes, of course, and for the same reason they have struggled mightily for the past 20 years to become the Official Guild of Engineers, the ABA or AMA for technical people. A union by any other name. And with the same politics that all unions have, the same "rent-seeking" behavior.Also, professional associations like ACM and IEEE argue for more tax handouts...
--Tim May
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
