|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: State or private? Who's the better inventor?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Over in the Jeremy Corbyn thread, there's been various opining on the merits of public vs private research when it comes to inventing things of use.
mdijon (here) suggests that public money is critical for breakthrough technologies as they require more altruism than shareholders will allow.
I think that he's mostly or partly right, but the bringing of innovative goods to market is still primarily the domain of the private limited company, the market being well-regulated by the state.
But just how private companies pay for the intellectual properties of both state-sponsored research and other private researchers is contentious. To my mind, the copyright wars between tech companies are all about rent-seeking rather than actual innovation, and stifle future research.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...but the bringing of innovative goods to market is still primarily the domain of the private limited company, the market being well-regulated by the state.
I agree with that. That was part of what I was trying to say, and both are necessary to bring innovative goods to market. Public and charitable systems lack the mechanisms to make people accountable for the decisions to back certain product development strategies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and lack the regulatory expertise to cope with regulatory requirements and marketing.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But just how private companies pay for the intellectual properties of both state-sponsored research and other private researchers is contentious. To my mind, the copyright wars between tech companies are all about rent-seeking rather than actual innovation, and stifle future research.
Except that if there is no intellectual property then there is no incentive for a drug company to invest in a product. Doing away with intellectual property is fine in a socialist paradise with no property and equality for all under a benevolent totalitarian state, but without it I don't see how companies could function and drum up capital to support development.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In answer to the OP. Scotland.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Doing away with intellectual property is fine in a socialist paradise with no property and equality for all under a benevolent totalitarian state, but without it I don't see how companies could function and drum up capital to support development.
Which is why I didn't suggest it.
But copyrighting, for example, a line of code that does something critical in a programme you don't own, is (a) beyond ludicrous and (b) rent-seeking as well as (c) anticompetitive and (d) anticapitalist.
Which is why the Welcome Foundation busted their arses to decode the human genome, before a private company could copyright the lot.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In answer to the OP. Scotland.
The lightbulb is forever Tyneside's.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Swan, aye. And radio is Liverpool's of course.
[ 23. August 2016, 13:14: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But copyrighting, for example, a line of code that does something critical in a programme you don't own, is (a) beyond ludicrous and (b) rent-seeking as well as (c) anticompetitive and (d) anticapitalist.
Well I guess there are use and abuses of the copyright protection. But I would like to think that the ludicrous uses of copyright could be challenged in court.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why the Welcome Foundation busted their arses to decode the human genome, before a private company could copyright the lot.
Or to be precise, why they funded other people to do it. (In association with the US NIH and other funders).
But I'm not sure that copyright is possible of human genes. I know this was a big fear at the start (although I don't think it was the main motivator of the human genome project) but while I've read of many patents not being upheld, I don't think I've read of any that have. In theory simply sequencing the whole genome doesn't entitle one to copyright all the genes, as it is the identification of specific sequences within that information that leads to the identification of a gene.
However you need an application and novelty for a copyright. You can't just copyright a natural finding or a natural process, and I don't think identifying a human gene is generally held to meet the test for application or novelty.
But there may be cases I'm not aware of, although I suspect they would be just waiting to be struck down as soon as someone cares enough to try.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
I think this article or something similar may be what hatless was thinking of in the conversation on the Corbyn thread that gave birth to this one. It's a list of key components from a smart phone which derive from publicly funded research.
It's telling though, I think, that a majority of the public investment sources listed here are military. Not all public investment is pure altruism.
And none of these ideas would have gone beyond that limited use to become commonplace in everyday life if they had not been developed, marketed and distributed by far greater sums of private capital.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I guess one could argue that those processes are development rather than invention. I woudn't say that development was worthless, simply that it isn't the same thing as invention.
I agree though that a lot of very good science is done with varyingly convincing justifications of a potential military use.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Copyright of naturally occurring genetic material was ruled out-of-bounds, but only after it was taken to the Supreme Court.
There are some projects which are simply beyond capital: CERN being the current flag-waver. At the time, transoceanic telegraph cables, and spaceflight, and GPS, are also examples - the private sector only come in afterwards.
I'm peering into the future for the next big thing, and I'd put a wager on a massive geo-engineering project to lower the Earth's temperature.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I think this article or something similar may be what hatless was thinking of in the conversation on the Corbyn thread that gave birth to this one. It's a list of key components from a smart phone which derive from publicly funded research.
It's telling though, I think, that a majority of the public investment sources listed here are military. Not all public investment is pure altruism.
And none of these ideas would have gone beyond that limited use to become commonplace in everyday life if they had not been developed, marketed and distributed by far greater sums of private capital.
Capitalism and socialism are economic systems concerning the ownership and funding of the economy. Those things listed are all publically funded projects undertaken in mixed economies.
I understand why they get listed as "socialist", but that's a legacy of American rhetoric of the more extreme conservative kind, that describes a publically funded healthcare system as socialism. I don't think those projects would be classified as socialist elsewhere. The danger of doing so is that it buys into the worldview of these minarchist types.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
For a good chunk of the middle of the 20th century, the chief innovators in the US were the military, NASA, and Bell Labs, the latter being a government-protected monopoly. Set against that (during the same time period) is 3M, and no doubt others I'm not thinking of this morning before the caffeine kicks in. During this time period, IBM was happy to sit on its computing near-monopoly, and it would take a couple of scrappy start-ups in the 70s to get that moving again.
One thing I believe public money needs to be used for is basic science research. Its findings need to be available for all, and the commercial payoff, if any, is so far downstream (more than one quarter), in the range that private capital is loath to fund.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Private industry in the USA has been heavily dominated by public money funnelled through what we once called "the military industrial complex". I think the distinction between public and private is mostly whether governments can actually keep the money and innovation public and accessible, or whether the private interests get hold of it.
But here's an example of the public sector doing things without the private and keeping it that way, and doing it better. In the province of Saskatchewan, the publicly owned telephone company SaskTel invented a repeater for coaxial cable that required one every 50 km instead of every 3, put in the first video on demand system, the first HD over IP, and invented fiber optic-coaxial hybrid. All of these are used around the world today. The company continues to be a Crown (publicly owned company). It also offers monthly cellular telephone rates 20-40% cheaper than anywhere else in Canada for data and voice because its business model is not only for profit. Link to some info.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But copyrighting, for example, a line of code that does something critical in a programme you don't own, is (a) beyond ludicrous and (b) rent-seeking as well as (c) anticompetitive and (d) anticapitalist.
Well I guess there are use and abuses of the copyright protection. But I would like to think that the ludicrous uses of copyright could be challenged in court.
Yes, it would be wonderful to live in a world where that wasn't so, but the reality is that attempting to fix this kind of issue via the courts is usually more expensive than paying the shake down fee, and there are sufficient numbers of large actors that this situation won't change any time soon.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Public and private often have a different definition of necessity.
For the private sector, necessity is to be profitable. That means that innovation is focussed on making widgets for a profit, and ultimately making better or cheaper widgets, or simply in greater quantities, than competitors. And, it doesn't generally help if innovation will lead to profit in 10 years time if they're not currently competing in the market place.
For the public sector, necessity is a more complex concept. There are combinations of long term research needs to address social needs with limited short-term profit options, or where the government needs are opposed to some commercial sectors (an example might be to develop inexpensive preventative methods to reduce the need for expensive treatments for disease). Government funding is often directed towards improving the competitiveness of a sector of the national economy. Public sector would include the charitable sector, as well as governments.
The public and private sector are not entirely separate. A lot of private money passes through universities, and other public research institutes, simply because it's cheaper to outsource some research needs than for every business to have their own research department (and, you're not going to outsource to a competitor). There are also private research consultancies. And, from the other side a lot of public money gets channelled through private consultancies and business - usually at the end where the public priorities are to develop a product.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Some, but probably not all, private organisations are certainly more innovative than the state. 3M in particular stands out as the most innovative organisation in the world. I guess companies like 3M, Apple, Hewlett Packard and Vertex have led me to theorise that private companies are more innovative for the following reasons:
1. The state is more likely to be dominated by people with the same views, experiences and opinions. As such it is less likely to have the degree of diversity required for innovation.
2. Once the state has begun to provide a service it is less likely to have an incentive to innovate because it holds a monopoly. As such it is more likely to want to preserve the status quo because the people in charge of the service have a vested interest in its continuity and have no profit incentive to change. Of course large corporations can experience the same inertia for the same reason and this is the reason for point 3-
3. Not only is there less diversity within the state; a state run servce reduces diversity within the market. Some of the most innovative organisations start as small, experimental, close knit organisations (a sort of skunk works). If the state dominates a service there is no scope for small, experimental organisations to enter the market. Large corporations have always got to watch their backs for small, innovative competitors but the state can simply outlaw competitors.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Some, but probably not all, private organisations are certainly more innovative than the state. 3M in particular stands out as the most innovative organisation in the world. I guess companies like 3M, Apple, Hewlett Packard and Vertex have led me to theorise that private companies are more innovative for the following reasons:
And most of those organisations are innovative for short periods of time (3M, and also HP). Similarly, a lot of the ostensibly private organisations that were responsible for innovation benefited from state funding or subsidy (AT&T's Bell Labs).
Apple borrowed a large amount of their innovation from other organisations which benefited from state subsidy, or directly from the state. The iPhone is packed with stuff that was developed by the state (GPS, Internet, Touch screens). Even Siri was from the acquisition of a company funded by DARPA.
The entire semiconductor industry was kickstarted by massive amounts of basic research and funding from the US Government in the 60s/70s.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Having worked in academic research, it's a relatively simple equation. Researcher + colleagues + money + equipment + freedom = results.
Each one of those is important - for many researchers, the actual money is... not an afterthought, but if it's enough to put a roof over your head and food on the table, it's not really an issue. What is important is the freedom to make mistakes and chase up blind alleys, and the hardware to allow that to happen conclusively, along with colleagues to discuss results and approaches with.
UK universities certainly used to provide an environment like that. Whether they still do is a matter of argument. While the research may be expensive, the actual researchers are relatively cheap: it is a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.
In industry, the pressure is always to bring on usable products. Which is why agglomerations of existing tech comes out of private companies, but the tech itself tends to come from non-commercial labs.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Some, but probably not all, private organisations are certainly more innovative than the state. 3M in particular stands out as the most innovative organisation in the world. I guess companies like 3M, Apple, Hewlett Packard and Vertex have led me to theorise that private companies are more innovative for the following reasons:
1. The state is more likely to be dominated by people with the same views, experiences and opinions. As such it is less likely to have the degree of diversity required for innovation.
2. Once the state has begun to provide a service it is less likely to have an incentive to innovate because it holds a monopoly. As such it is more likely to want to preserve the status quo because the people in charge of the service have a vested interest in its continuity and have no profit incentive to change. Of course large corporations can experience the same inertia for the same reason and this is the reason for point 3-
3. Not only is there less diversity within the state; a state run servce reduces diversity within the market. Some of the most innovative organisations start as small, experimental, close knit organisations (a sort of skunk works). If the state dominates a service there is no scope for small, experimental organisations to enter the market. Large corporations have always got to watch their backs for small, innovative competitors but the state can simply outlaw competitors.
It seems unlikely that you have worked for/with either the government or large companies or have any idea who sponsors anti-competitive legislation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I worked on a university collaboration with 3M once. They told us at the start they intended to be #1 globally in that field within x years. (Which field? Can't say. They're so paranoid, it made me paranoid, and I'm sure they'd send Mossad round to kill me). I thought 'OK' and continued porting sensible basic science / engineering / measurement capability into one of their UK labs, since they didn't know much in that area.
Then someone in St Paul decided that they really did mean it - so they bought the global #1 manufacturer in that field! And told us 'carry on, carry on'...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The state is more likely to be dominated by people with the same views, experiences and opinions. As such it is less likely to have the degree of diversity required for innovation.
The private sector is given to follow the leader too. In particular, in order to get anywhere in the private sector you have to convince a bank to loan you money.
No doubt there is some groupthink in research councils. But I don't see any reason to think it's worse than in the private sector.
quote:
Once the state has begun to provide a service it is less likely to have an incentive to innovate because it holds a monopoly.
This assumes that the state is the exclusive provider. That's not the usual case. You're also confusing public services with 'the state': universities are public services but they don't hold a monopoly and are not part of what people immediately think of as the state.
quote:
Not only is there less diversity within the state; a state run servce reduces diversity within the market.
Is this true?
Does the BBC reduce diversity within the television or media markets? Does Arts Council funding reduce diversity within the performing arts?
quote:
If the state dominates a service there is no scope for small, experimental organisations to enter the market. Large corporations have always got to watch their backs for small, innovative competitors but the state can simply outlaw competitors.
You're assuming that state invention takes place in exactly the same way as private invention, only done by the state. That is, you're assuming that the state invents and innovates as part of a project to make profits in a process directly in competition for those profits with private bodies.
It's nothing of the kind. State-financed invention is usually done with a view to making it publically available.
Secondly, it just doesn't seem true that the State usually outlaws competitors. The BBC hasn't outlawed ITV. The NHS hasn't outlawed private medicine (even though private medicine leeches off the NHS).
Microsoft and Apple on the other hand have been cheerfully buying up small competitors since they were able.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'd like to hear of some examples where the state has outlawed competition.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm struggling, too. The CAA get a bit twitchy regarding rocket launches and drone flying, and IIRC, there's some issues around cryptography, bioscience and explosives, that you might consider to be 'banning the competition'.
But then again, I don't want some kid with a home-brew virus to weaponise it with aerial delivery, so that's probably a reasonable prohibition.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Under the Canada Health Act, it is illegal for insured services to be privately offered. You cannot buy, say, surgery to replace your hip or treatment for your cancer, notwithstanding several court cases, and a few rare deals gov'ts have made for specific services. No private doctor care nor hospitals.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, routine medical care is inherently conservative. It's a very unusual occurrence for a hospital to be innovative in treating a patient, for very good reasons.
Is there a similar restriction on medical research? Can research in Canada only take place in hospitals, or does it also happen in universities and laboratories supported by charities and drug companies?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Most takes place via universities who often use hospitals, clinics and community generally. Some of it is sponsored by drug companies, but most funding goes through federal and provincial organizations which distribute gov't money, via review and ranking of proposals. Most medical specialists (called consultants in some places) are cross appointed to university departments. Much medical research is nondrug.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Canadian ban on private medical care is directed at the practice of "extra billing", whereby doctors billed both the patient and the province for the same service.
In reality, as 90% of Canadians live within two hours drive of the USA, private medical care is freely available, it's just outsourced.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd like to hear of some examples where the state has outlawed competition.
If the state taxes the people to subsidize (either wholly or in part) its own thing, then it may not matter very much whether or not it outlaws the competition.
Consider education, for example. The state's education system is funded through compulsory taxation. Nobody else offers education that's similar to the state's offering, because you can't compete with free. Private education does exist, of course, but is a minority pursuit, and only occupies the niches that the state has chosen not to fill (church schools in the US, expensive private schools that protect rich kids from having to associate with poor people, and so on.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd like to hear of some examples where the state has outlawed competition.
We are talking about the same 'state' aren't we i.e. the abstact concept of an authority recognised as supreme by a nation of people? There are so many examples that I wouldn't know where to start. Initially however I would refer you to 20th century Russian history.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Initially however I would refer you to 20th century Russian history.
You mean the organisation that invented the satellite?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Initially however I would refer you to 20th century Russian history.
You mean the organisation that invented the satellite?
And the first dog in space. And the first man in space. And the first woman in space.
Not to mention the air ioniser, the theremin, the flying wing, the LED, the remote controlled robot, the electric rocket motor, single rotor helicopters, rocket fuel, a detector for Cherenkov radiation, the artificial heart, multi-stage rockets, reactive armour, head transplants (!), the EMP bomb, carbon nanotubes, the ekranoplan, 3D holography, the plasma engine, the space toilet, the quantum dot, and Tetris. Amongst others.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
I didn't say that the state wasn't at all innovative, I just said that I thought the private sphere was relatively more innovative. I believe that the private sphere in the USA, or Japan, produced more innovations in C20 than the state, all by itself, in Soviet Russia. I also believe that Soviet Russia's innovations were more focussed on increasing the power of the state whereas the USA's private innovations were of benefit to a broader range of people throughout society but that is a tangent- Whether the state or the private sphere produces more useful innovations.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
There are so many contingent factors to this question that I find it really hard to answer. For example, the state will go through periods of funding private research/development because it's convinced that the private sector has a magical capacity to work more efficiently. If that is done in private labs by people employed by private firms but funded from the public purse, is that public or private? Does it matter that, whichever it is, it relies on a significant infrastructure of work done in state labs funded by the state, and by people employed by the state?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
There's also the problem for the private sector that most (not all in this country, but true for most other European countries) researchers are educated in state schools.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I didn't say that the state wasn't at all innovative, I just said that I thought the private sphere was relatively more innovative. I believe that the private sphere in the USA, or Japan, produced more innovations in C20 than the state, all by itself, in Soviet Russia.
You're not comparing the state all by itself with the private sphere all by itself.
You're comparing the state all by itself in an authoritarian and repressive regime with the private sphere given substantial support by the state in a relatively liberal regime.
For practical purposes if we want to compare the efficiency of the state with the efficiency of the private sector, we are doing so with a view to working out which one should be responsible for what within a liberal democratic society. Going outside a liberal democratic society isn't a valid comparison.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
