Yer right, hard work is supposed t opay off. In the form of promotion to supervisor or manager etc....but please do not try and tell me that a ditch digger who will not better himself, is worth more for his efforts than the owner of the damn company.jord wrote:
Not everyone has the intelligence and capacity to learn that you do. Some people don't have a great education and have to make do with hard work to pay their way. These are normal people that make up the majority...lowing wrote:
You are not supposed t olive yuor life as an underachiever, you are supposed to improve yourself through education and experience. If you are 40 years old and all you know how to do is dig a ditch, the nyou pretty much are worth not much more than a ditch digger makes.jord wrote:
I'm just wondering who you would consider an underachiever. Seeing as how Flaming Maniac was talking about "poor Pete's paycheck". Is it people with manual labour jobs that don't earn a lot that are the underachievers?
They're not underachievers. If you ask me, someone who does hard graft from 9 to 5 deserves a lot more respect than someone who sits in an office bashing out emails.
This is true Braddock, life is not fair, so why fuck the rich? They are the ones who does most in a society to give us all that "fair" shake you are dreaming ofBraddock wrote:
Joe did well for himself against the odds. But getting back to Kevin for a while, do you seriously have no sympathy for someone who made bad decisions as an abused child? These kind of people exist and most people look at them in the street as though they are the scum of the earth. Life is not fair lowing, you are right...and some people never even a chance of succeeding.lowing wrote:
So who are you blaming Kevin's problems on? Kevin could have chosen any number of paths that lead to help instead he decided to the path that lead him to jail. The key point being. HE DECIDED.Braddock wrote:
Hypothetical Scenario Number 2: meet Kevin...
Kevin grew up in rough neighbourhoods with parents who could at best be described as dysfunctional. Kevin's mum got pregnant young and his father never stuck around to face the responsibilities, as a result Kevin lived a life of moderate poverty with his Mum frequently moving between low paying jobs. Kevin's mum continued to live her life without much responsibility, she would drink and indulge in soft drugs - sometimes even when Kevin was around. She would also have relationships with questionable men who would have no qualms verbally abusing and sometimes even striking out at Kevin.
When Kevin was 15 his mum started going out with a very violent man that Kevin did not like at all, however, Kevin's mum was smitten with him and wouldn't hear a bad word against him. After a few months, much to the dismay of Kevin, his mum married her new man. It was then that Kevin's new stepfather began coming into his room at night. Kevin was angry, upset and embarrassed about what was going on and at first hoped it would all stop after a while. Kevin starts acting up at school and getting into trouble more and more often. Two years later and Kevin finally snaps, he tries to stand up to his stepfather but is beaten and threatened if he tries to say anything to his mother. Kevin decides to tell all to his mother who, to his horror, thinks it is just more of Kevin's troublemaking and accuses him of having it in for his stepfather from day one. She says Kevin has alway tried to stop her from finding happiness by continually finding fault in her partners. Kevin's stepfather denies everything. Kevin decides to pack his bag and leave his troubled home once and for all.
Now barely 18 Kevin sets out for the big city with no proper education, only a few dollars in his pocket and no family or friends that he can call on. Kevin can't afford an apartment and barely has enough to stay in a hostel for the night, he ends up resorting to 'hustling' on the street on the advice of another young runaway. Fast forward a few years and Kevin has found himself in trouble with the law on account of his many shady street 'transactions'. Now with a criminal record and not a true friend in the world Kevin accepts money on the street from anyone who will give it.
According to some people Kevin is only in the position he is in because he never applied himself in life and never stood up and took responsibility for himself. Some people also think Kevin doesn't deserve the right to vote.
You can throw any hard luck story you want Braddock. even flaming-manica said "life isn't fair" or is that only supposed t oapply to rich peaople and the taking of it, while life is supposed to fair for everyone else at their expense.
Meet Joe, a guy who never knew his biological father and was born unto a teenage mother. Joes mother married a shithead for pretty much no other reason than to put a roof over her and her kids heads. this shithead was abusive physically and mentally s omuch so that Joes mother finally had to leave him. Alone again Joe found himself living in a run down trailerpark staying by himself while his mother worked to make ends meet at McDonalds and at a furniture store. Finally, Joes mother met and married another guy, who joined the military, Joe and his family still had nothing since 1n 1974 an enlisted man with a wife and 2 kids didn't make much, but at least Joe had a roof over his head. Joes new step dad was a strict disciplinarian with not much love or emotion for his adopted kids, Joe spent his life not really talking much with his adopted father and pretty much had to figure shit out for himself.
Finally, Joe graduated HS. Since Joes family was poor, he decided he could not afford college and did not want to go into debt with student loans, so he made the decision NOT to hit the streets and wander but to make a move that could and should better his situation. Jow joined the USAF and made damn sure he picked a job that offered training that he could use as a civilian in the future. Since Joe loved airplanes he chose aviation and went into the AF and learned to be an aircraft mechanic. It paid off. When Joe got out, he instantly went the airline industry where he did great. Even after a few lay-offs he always managed to find another job because JOE refused to be kept down and had made sure he was marketable.
Joes decisions with no money
1. Hit the streets or find a way to make a living
2. Make sure his chosen career would be valuable or don't give a shit hell he got a paycheck for now
3. Quit trying when he got laid off or go out and not come home until he has another job.
4. Take responsibility for his choices, or sit around and wait until a liberal is voted into office and hope that he will steal from someone else to give to him
I never said that a worker is more important to a company than the owner or manager. Where did you get that one from? I said I respect hard workers more.lowing wrote:
Yer right, hard work is supposed t opay off. In the form of promotion to supervisor or manager etc....but please do not try and tell me that a ditch digger who will not better himself, is worth more for his efforts than the owner of the damn company.jord wrote:
Not everyone has the intelligence and capacity to learn that you do. Some people don't have a great education and have to make do with hard work to pay their way. These are normal people that make up the majority...lowing wrote:
You are not supposed t olive yuor life as an underachiever, you are supposed to improve yourself through education and experience. If you are 40 years old and all you know how to do is dig a ditch, the nyou pretty much are worth not much more than a ditch digger makes.
They're not underachievers. If you ask me, someone who does hard graft from 9 to 5 deserves a lot more respect than someone who sits in an office bashing out emails.
Not everyone has the ability to get promoted to manager positions. Just because someone has worked 5 years cleaning doesn't mean that experiance suddenly translates to a position of responsibility and that they gain managerial skills.
Hard work doesn't pay off in the real world all the time. As an old man, I thought you might know that one...
Ultimately as an "old man" I do know that, which is why I took the responsibility to make sure I got the experience and education I needed to advance and improve myself.....Or did you have some one else in mind to handle that for each of us?jord wrote:
I never said that a worker is more important to a company than the owner or manager. Where did you get that one from? I said I respect hard workers more.lowing wrote:
Yer right, hard work is supposed t opay off. In the form of promotion to supervisor or manager etc....but please do not try and tell me that a ditch digger who will not better himself, is worth more for his efforts than the owner of the damn company.jord wrote:
Not everyone has the intelligence and capacity to learn that you do. Some people don't have a great education and have to make do with hard work to pay their way. These are normal people that make up the majority...
They're not underachievers. If you ask me, someone who does hard graft from 9 to 5 deserves a lot more respect than someone who sits in an office bashing out emails.
Not everyone has the ability to get promoted to manager positions. Just because someone has worked 5 years cleaning doesn't mean that experiance suddenly translates to a position of responsibility and that they gain managerial skills.
Hard work doesn't pay off in the real world all the time. As an old man, I thought you might know that one...
Braddock:
You hit me with the "Bob" scenerio yet whe nI respond to it, you do not comment. What gives?
You hit me with the "Bob" scenerio yet whe nI respond to it, you do not comment. What gives?
In that case, I fully agree <3lowing wrote:
food ia not taxed. As forthe rest, yer right as again, the rich will pay more taxes because the will spend more, but it will be their choice wouldn't it? They would not be held up at gun point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you tax everything, you prevent people from being able to pull themselves up out of poverty. If you can barely pay for food, how can you expect to put money away as a successful person would? If you don't tax necessities, like food and certain medicine, then the only ones who will be taxed on the other items are the rich, so they are still paying more in taxes.lowing wrote:
Yer right, so tax people on what they spend, not what they make....
Anything that has enough centralized services to be called a civilization will always be mostly paid for by the rich. There's just no getting around it.
You took the opportunity to advance and improve yourself because it was there. Shit, the best thing people round here can look forward to is getting out of here. The schools here are failing.lowing wrote:
Ultimately as an "old man" I do know that, which is why I took the responsibility to make sure I got the experience and education I needed to advance and improve myself.....Or did you have some one else in mind to handle that for each of us?jord wrote:
I never said that a worker is more important to a company than the owner or manager. Where did you get that one from? I said I respect hard workers more.lowing wrote:
Yer right, hard work is supposed t opay off. In the form of promotion to supervisor or manager etc....but please do not try and tell me that a ditch digger who will not better himself, is worth more for his efforts than the owner of the damn company.
Not everyone has the ability to get promoted to manager positions. Just because someone has worked 5 years cleaning doesn't mean that experiance suddenly translates to a position of responsibility and that they gain managerial skills.
Hard work doesn't pay off in the real world all the time. As an old man, I thought you might know that one...
Anyway, without getting into a big debate about it, I just wanted to know who you were referring to as under achievers. Up to that point I would've gone with the homeless, but now I know you consider the manual labour job workers as underachievers. That's all I wanted to know.
lowing you would like this book: The Forgotten Man. It's a book about the dangers of governmental economic intervention, the war on the successful, and the repercussions of forced wealth redistribution.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Did you even read my post?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ha! You really think that?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The drugs make them feel good, so they do it. Once the drug starts taking effect it is not the human making the decisions, it is the drugs.DBBrinson1 wrote:
HAHA.... Tell that to a crack or heroine addict.
Or tell that to the family of a MOH recipient.
The soldier cares more about the life of his comrades than of his own, so he selfishly dives on the grenade.
So then how is taking illicit harmful drugs 100% best for them?
The so by diving on the grenade to save OTHER PEOPLE, then the person is doing 100% what is best for HIM?
Please, you're wrong. Just admit it. I hear of dumbasses doing shit that isn't 100% best for themselves every day (I have inlaws).
People do what they think is best for them at the time. People are often very wrong. Why does someone smoke cigarettes? Maybe they were pressured a bit into the first one, maybe they just wanted to try it, but once they have one there is a mixture of the chemical dependence at work, forcing a psychological need. That person thinks another smoke is the best thing for them. When they finally truly decide it would be better for them to quit, they will, putting long term rationale over immediate satisfaction in their self-interest priorities.
I don't even think you read my response to the second one. If the soldier cares more about his comrades than himself, saving his comrades is better than saving himself in his mind. It's a common theme in love expressed all the time. You can still be very selfish in wanting someone else to live over yourself, and of course the recipient(s) of that feeling will have admiration in return for that act seeing as they value their own life above the person who sacrificed theirs. At least so long as the feeling isn't mutual.
I see, so I was merely "lucky". I have nothing to do with my successes or failures. It is good luck and bad luck. Any chance you would believe that I actually WORKED for what I have and what I have accomplished?jord wrote:
You took the opportunity to advance and improve yourself because it was there. Shit, the best thing people round here can look forward to is getting out of here. The schools here are failing.lowing wrote:
Ultimately as an "old man" I do know that, which is why I took the responsibility to make sure I got the experience and education I needed to advance and improve myself.....Or did you have some one else in mind to handle that for each of us?jord wrote:
I never said that a worker is more important to a company than the owner or manager. Where did you get that one from? I said I respect hard workers more.
Not everyone has the ability to get promoted to manager positions. Just because someone has worked 5 years cleaning doesn't mean that experiance suddenly translates to a position of responsibility and that they gain managerial skills.
Hard work doesn't pay off in the real world all the time. As an old man, I thought you might know that one...
Anyway, without getting into a big debate about it, I just wanted to know who you were referring to as under achievers. Up to that point I would've gone with the homeless, but now I know you consider the manual labour job workers as underachievers. That's all I wanted to know.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a 40 year old ditch digger and never improved yourself, you are an under achiever. It matters not if you like it or not.
You don't think the country or area your were born in has any bearing on your success at life? Yeah, I do think luck has a lot to do with how successful you are in life... Obviously work and other things matter too, but yet, luck is there.lowing wrote:
I see, so I was merely "lucky". I have nothing to do with my successes or failures. It is good luck and bad luck. Any chance you would believe that I actually WORKED for what I have and what I have accomplished?jord wrote:
You took the opportunity to advance and improve yourself because it was there. Shit, the best thing people round here can look forward to is getting out of here. The schools here are failing.lowing wrote:
Ultimately as an "old man" I do know that, which is why I took the responsibility to make sure I got the experience and education I needed to advance and improve myself.....Or did you have some one else in mind to handle that for each of us?
Anyway, without getting into a big debate about it, I just wanted to know who you were referring to as under achievers. Up to that point I would've gone with the homeless, but now I know you consider the manual labour job workers as underachievers. That's all I wanted to know.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a 40 year old ditch digger and never improved yourself, you are an under achiever. It matters not if you like it or not.
You're not bursting my bubble. Things happen to people that they can't control and they have to take up shit dead end jobs to support their family at age 45. An under achiever is someone who has it and throws it away and ends up jobless and homeless. Or never takes up an oppurtunity that goes there way. Some people just don't get the opportunity. People that work just as hard as you if not harder, but just aren't as successful as you because of reasons above.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So you honestly do believe that huh? Well tell ya what, you just sit around the house and never apply yourself and wait and see which kinda "luck" you are afforded. do you wanna make any bets on which it will be? Perhaps you do not believe in luck as much as you want if you are not willing to test it in this way.jord wrote:
You don't think the country or area your were born in has any bearing on your success at life? Yeah, I do think luck has a lot to do with how successful you are in life... Obviously work and other things matter too, but yet, luck is there.lowing wrote:
I see, so I was merely "lucky". I have nothing to do with my successes or failures. It is good luck and bad luck. Any chance you would believe that I actually WORKED for what I have and what I have accomplished?jord wrote:
You took the opportunity to advance and improve yourself because it was there. Shit, the best thing people round here can look forward to is getting out of here. The schools here are failing.
Anyway, without getting into a big debate about it, I just wanted to know who you were referring to as under achievers. Up to that point I would've gone with the homeless, but now I know you consider the manual labour job workers as underachievers. That's all I wanted to know.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a 40 year old ditch digger and never improved yourself, you are an under achiever. It matters not if you like it or not.
You're not bursting my bubble. Things happen to people that they can't control and they have to take up shit dead end jobs to support their family at age 45. An under achiever is someone who has it and throws it away and ends up jobless and homeless. Or never takes up an oppurtunity that goes there way. Some people just don't get the opportunity. People that work just as hard as you if not harder, but just aren't as successful as you because of reasons above.
No, a ditch digger who has an ambition to be a ditch digger is not an under achiever, he has achieved his goal in life, so be it, as long as he does not bitch about all he doesn't have and how the govt. should provide more to him he has my respect.
I am an under-achiever, my dream was to be professional pilot, but, due to the choices I made in life and the lack of ambition to go to college while trying to raise a family, basically laziness, I did not achieve my goal. I am however a private pilot. The difference here is, I know the only reason I did not achieve my goal is due to my own decisions, and lack of motivation. I do not blame anyone for my failure to accomplish my goal other than myself. The govt. , the tax payer nor society owes me shit for my failures. I wasn't "unlucky" I was unmotivated.
I would love for you to try and tell a brain surgeon he was just "lucky".
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-21 21:03:50)
I don't think you understand, lowing: it's not one or the other. Some people get thrown in a hole which is very hard to climb out of - granted, some can, but some can't. And you suggest because of that we strip their right to vote?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I have been responding in so far as I've been online. Regarding poor old 'Bob' you admitted that you would recognise him as a guy with real difficulties, and even disabilities, that deserves the help of the state, which is good because that means you at least recognise the plight of hundreds of thousands of homeless Americans that fit Bob's scenario.lowing wrote:
Braddock:
You hit me with the "Bob" scenerio yet whe nI respond to it, you do not comment. What gives?
No one is talking about "fucking" the rich lowing, in Europe we have tax systems where rich people have higher tax brackets but they can write off charitable donations against this and big property deals (which are realistically only an option for wealthier businessmen) often come with tax breaks and incentives so it's a two way street. Your attitude seems to advocate unchecked greed; it reminds me of Bono (one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet) who goes on and on about the importance of charity in tackling the world's problem while he himself doesn't pay a red cent in tax unlike the rest of us mere mortals...in fact when Ireland adjusted the tax status of artists he and the other U2 lads moved all their business interests to Holland.lowing wrote:
This is true Braddock, life is not fair, so why fuck the rich? They are the ones who does most in a society to give us all that "fair" shake you are dreaming of
That guy makes some valid points but he doesn't seem to acknowledge the moderate socialist approach where there is room for both individual achievement and collective effort.Kmarion wrote:
Try the long version Mr.Do gooder..lol
You'll want to skip 30 seconds in.
You'll want to skip 30 seconds in.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I couldn't get past the scary music at the start! Only joking, he's a very clear and lucid speaker who can see a lot of the truths of this world but he only appears to deal in extremes. We've done quite well with moderation here in Europe despite what this geezer says.Kmarion wrote:
Try the long version Mr.Do gooder..lol
You'll want to skip 30 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE
You've got better controls. How do you think you would do if the whole of Europe was under a single plan? That's the comparison you need to make.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's why I'm wary of "the United States Of Europe"!Kmarion wrote:
You've got better controls. How do you think you would do if the whole of Europe was under a single plan? That's the comparison you need to make.
Are you suggesting that the payoff for all of the governments risks and investments should be given to someone else?lowing wrote:
I see, so the tax payers did get rewarded, you are typing on it right now. Or are you honestly suggesting that the payoff for all of Bill Gate risks and investment into Microsoft should have gone to you?? Get realPureFodder wrote:
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
I guess you think socialism is just fine then as long as its welfare for the rich, welfare for anyone else is bad though?
I'm actually not advocating stopping the practice at all. I'm advocating accepting the notion that massive amounts of government money are spent on R&D and then handed over private industry which is as socialist as you can get, so stop bitching about giving a far smaller amount of government money to poor people so that they can not die. The idea that rich people are the victims of socialism is so utterly laughable. They are the direct beneficiaries of socialism. We just pretend that the government paying huge amounts of their R&D isn't socializing the costs of high-tech industry. Read anything about why countries spend money on R&D any you'll see the same thing. It's the basis of the high tech industry and without it high tech industry would wither and die. Innovations typically cost vast amounts of money, take years to research and have absolutely no guarentee of either working or leading to a profitable product to sell. It's simply not a sane business strategy. In reality all of the risk research is paid for using social funding. Once it gets to the stage at which applications are possible private industry steps in and doesn't pay for any of the research that lead up to that point.Imortal wrote:
No, actually I don't. I think private businesses. Okay, I will grant you that DARPA hands out big money to places to develop some technologies, but innovation can come from anywhere. But you have some strange notions of intellectual property rights and profit distribution. By your logic, the heirs to the Wright brothers deserve the profit from any and all airplane sales and airlines.
The problem is that the government does not have any ability to make use of all of this. Yes, the US military developed some of the very first computers, but they were not built by the US Army. The specifications were given to a private company to build. That company needs to stay in business. That means they have to charge the government for it. Are you suggesting that they make no profit from it? What you seem to really be suggesting is that the government be the only place where they can now sell that product. Are they just a subcontractor fort the government then? Should all computers be bought from the government, so they can reap the profits? That effectively makes the companies that make the computer governement employees. Especially since they are working for nothing but salery. Congratulations. In this world of yours, 2/3 of the population of the US will become governement employees. And let us not forget that since those companies cannot make money off those products anywhere but the government, ALL of their pay comes from the government. How high will our taxes become then?
Remember that the amount of money spent by the US government on R&D is well over the hundred billion dollars per year mark, probably around $200 billion. This equates to about $600 per person in the US per year in tax funding.
I never said anyone should be stripped of their right to vote. I am recognizing who will vote for a LIBERAL, the ones who NEED and WANT the govt. to assume command of their lives because they don't want the job.Spark wrote:
I don't think you understand, lowing: it's not one or the other. Some people get thrown in a hole which is very hard to climb out of - granted, some can, but some can't. And you suggest because of that we strip their right to vote?
what if youre trying to get employed by the governmen
1. I always have recognized and supported those that truely are not capable of doing so. It is just by acknowledging that, your argument for taking care of everyone and sharing the wealth with those that do not contribute falls flat on its ass. You also didn't respond to "Jack", I assume for the same reasonBraddock wrote:
I have been responding in so far as I've been online. Regarding poor old 'Bob' you admitted that you would recognise him as a guy with real difficulties, and even disabilities, that deserves the help of the state, which is good because that means you at least recognise the plight of hundreds of thousands of homeless Americans that fit Bob's scenario.lowing wrote:
Braddock:
You hit me with the "Bob" scenerio yet whe nI respond to it, you do not comment. What gives?No one is talking about "fucking" the rich lowing, in Europe we have tax systems where rich people have higher tax brackets but they can write off charitable donations against this and big property deals (which are realistically only an option for wealthier businessmen) often come with tax breaks and incentives so it's a two way street. Your attitude seems to advocate unchecked greed; it reminds me of Bono (one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet) who goes on and on about the importance of charity in tackling the world's problem while he himself doesn't pay a red cent in tax unlike the rest of us mere mortals...in fact when Ireland adjusted the tax status of artists he and the other U2 lads moved all their business interests to Holland.lowing wrote:
This is true Braddock, life is not fair, so why fuck the rich? They are the ones who does most in a society to give us all that "fair" shake you are dreaming of
2. you think it is just Bono? Try ALL celebrities, in Hollywood they are all liberals who champion for the common folk, ya know liberals, yet are completely out of touch with real society. They live in a fantasy land and tell the rest of us how we should get along and how we should be spending OUR money. Just like a true liberal.
Last edited by lowing (2008-08-22 06:39:46)
1. Bill Gates is not the govt.PureFodder wrote:
Are you suggesting that the payoff for all of the governments risks and investments should be given to someone else?lowing wrote:
I see, so the tax payers did get rewarded, you are typing on it right now. Or are you honestly suggesting that the payoff for all of Bill Gate risks and investment into Microsoft should have gone to you?? Get realPureFodder wrote:
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
I guess you think socialism is just fine then as long as its welfare for the rich, welfare for anyone else is bad though?I'm actually not advocating stopping the practice at all. I'm advocating accepting the notion that massive amounts of government money are spent on R&D and then handed over private industry which is as socialist as you can get, so stop bitching about giving a far smaller amount of government money to poor people so that they can not die. The idea that rich people are the victims of socialism is so utterly laughable. They are the direct beneficiaries of socialism. We just pretend that the government paying huge amounts of their R&D isn't socializing the costs of high-tech industry. Read anything about why countries spend money on R&D any you'll see the same thing. It's the basis of the high tech industry and without it high tech industry would wither and die. Innovations typically cost vast amounts of money, take years to research and have absolutely no guarentee of either working or leading to a profitable product to sell. It's simply not a sane business strategy. In reality all of the risk research is paid for using social funding. Once it gets to the stage at which applications are possible private industry steps in and doesn't pay for any of the research that lead up to that point.Imortal wrote:
No, actually I don't. I think private businesses. Okay, I will grant you that DARPA hands out big money to places to develop some technologies, but innovation can come from anywhere. But you have some strange notions of intellectual property rights and profit distribution. By your logic, the heirs to the Wright brothers deserve the profit from any and all airplane sales and airlines.
The problem is that the government does not have any ability to make use of all of this. Yes, the US military developed some of the very first computers, but they were not built by the US Army. The specifications were given to a private company to build. That company needs to stay in business. That means they have to charge the government for it. Are you suggesting that they make no profit from it? What you seem to really be suggesting is that the government be the only place where they can now sell that product. Are they just a subcontractor fort the government then? Should all computers be bought from the government, so they can reap the profits? That effectively makes the companies that make the computer governement employees. Especially since they are working for nothing but salery. Congratulations. In this world of yours, 2/3 of the population of the US will become governement employees. And let us not forget that since those companies cannot make money off those products anywhere but the government, ALL of their pay comes from the government. How high will our taxes become then?
Remember that the amount of money spent by the US government on R&D is well over the hundred billion dollars per year mark, probably around $200 billion. This equates to about $600 per person in the US per year in tax funding.
2. The tax payer gets rewarded when the govt. does R&D, like I said, YOU ARE TYPING ON IT RIGHT NOW. The PC, the internet all govt. prjects that you now enjoy. I guess you wanna get paid by Bill Gates now, to sit on your ass while he does all the leg work.