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: RetiredNow who wrote (14375)	3/11/2010 2:34:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

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. Many of the projects that companies start don't turn out to be profitable at all. Of those that do turn profits, many are not positives when you consider the opportunity costs of what else could have been done with those resources. And that's in companies that are primarily driven by trying to make profits, and who primarily invest in things where there is a reasonably foreseeable path to profits. With political decision making there is less reason to think that you will have a net positive. Companies overall are profitable, not because they are so good at long term predictions of what the economy will demand, but because they usually respond to current demand or relatively easily forseeable near term demand. Investments for the long term, for demand that doesn't yet exist, or can't profitably be met by the proposed methods for decades, are less likely to be made by the private sector. When they are made they often don't work out so well. Which doesn't mean they are not on the net profitable, its just that they are profitable because the successes are allowed to run, while the failures are eliminated or at least cut back. When a government effort is a net negative, that often results in people successfully arguing (meaning their argument wins the day and the money is spent) that that the failure is a reason why the effort needs even more money. This can happen in business as well but is much less likely to happen, esp. on a very large scale over a long time frame. Which doesn't mean I think governments shouldn't make any efforts along these lines. The type of basic research which the private sector is unlikely to fund, or perhaps even more applied use of funds when the issue is a public good, could reasonably be justified. Its just that such basic research, or selective applied funds for public goods, are unlikely to drive the economy forward. And public or private long term answers for the future, that won't return profits for a long time, will not, by definition, drive the economy in the short and medium term. They will not life us out of the recession, even if they do provide answers to problems several decades down the line.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14375)	3/11/2010 2:38:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OT 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. That point isn't really relevant to the rest of the conversation we've been having so I'll reply in this seperate post. American companies benefit from the government working to increase their access to foreign markets sure, but having such access doesn't require extensive government intervention, and extensive government intervention is unlikely to make them more competitive. (It can allow rent seeking from one company to make it far more profitable, but that's only at the expense of other American companies, and/or consumers, and/or taxpayers).