Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (14357)	3/11/2010 7:00:07 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Which isn't to say that government investment in research in this area or any other is necessarily a bad idea. Only that if the possibility of it working productively its a very long term bet. And it won't be a driver of growth until its profitable without needing subsidies. We've subsidized cars by building roads for a very long time.

To: TimF who wrote (14357)	3/11/2010 11:09:05 AM
From: RetiredNow	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Well, Tim, I disagree. I've read alot of case studies on successful businesses in my lifetime, as part of my life's work to help companies become more profitable. Some of the most successful companies of all time include GE, 3M, and Cisco have set up business incubators that target strategic industries and products. Then they pour resources into those targets until they become profitable and self-sustaining. These companies eventually became large groupings of multiple individual products and services, but their intense focus of those smaller parts allows them to stay entrepreneurial within the context of a larger organization. Our economy is this concept, but writ large. A smart country will target specific, strategic industries for incubation. This needs to be done in partnership with academia and private industry, but the government plays a role, because in the incubation stage, the government needs to set rules that allow for experimentation, market competition, and heavy subsidies and investment to get the industry off the ground. Then once it is competitive with the rest of the world and self-sustaining, the government can tighten the rules to curb any abuses that have sprung up and cut back on any incentives that were in place during incubation. A perfect, recent example of this was our government's involvement in the Internet. Our government funded its invention, subsequent marketization, and through the FCC, created rules that allowed for fast, massive growth in Internet technologies. It created massive wealth and continues to do so. Arugably, our government's deep pockets enabled it to overcome barriers to entry for the Internet until it came to market and private enterprises did the rest to increase their own profitability and productivity. But had our government not made the initial and ongoing investments in it for a long period of time, it would have never come to be, or would have been invented elsewhere. The government, in partnership with private enterprise and academia, absolutely should target potential massive new growth industries and figure out how best to incubate them. It's either that or just hope that miraculously new industries will create themselves. I'd much rather that our government create business forums in which our private enterprises tell us where they'd like government help to overcome barriers to entry in promising areas and that could be a great starting point. Here's one last point. Individual US companies are simply no match for the wealth and power of foreign governments like China. Therefore, if our companies are to compete effectively, they will need the full wealth and power of the US government on their side to negotiate fair trade deals and set global rules of the road that gives our companies a level playing field. Our government has a role to play and that should not be downplayed.