Shanek on technology, innovation, and the free market.

[jj]

Sorry, dont' want to hijack the other thread at: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32275&pagenumber=3

in which Shanek says:


I don't know what market you're talking about, but in the free market in the US there is plenty of technology advancement going on...and it's in the mostly unregulated industries, like the computer industry. The more heavily regulated the industry, the fewer the technological advancements. Amazing how that works...


To which I offer the incontrovertable real-world counterexample:


Let's see how that corresponds to reality.

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things.

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone.

Sorry, the real world shows that you are dead, flat, competely wrong.



Sorry, that one just had to be preserved for posteriority.

[shanek]

My response from the other thread:

-----

Originally posted by jj
Let's see how that corresponds to reality.

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things.

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone.

Your denial is truly astounding...

Let's see...IBM, Wells Fargo, Westinghouse, etc., sure, they're not as popular as names go, but how can you say that Bell Labs contributed more than they did? And anyway, the only real point you have with Bell Labs was that it was a government-sponsored monopoly for the telephone system, but much of their innovations, such as in computers, happened in areas where there was a huge amount of competition (and very little regulation).

And your accusation that the free market killed them is just so blatantly dishonest, but still in keeping with what I've come to expect from you...

-----

And if he throws up yet another copy somewhere else, I'll paste this response there, too.

[Samus]

hmmm, methinks you might have a little bias towards Bell Labs, jj. ;)

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone. Didn't Bell Labs/Lucent collapse because it couldn't stay competitive amongst all the other entities doing similar business? Of course, if the Bell system is the only game in town, they will thrive. If Lucent is bankrupt now, is it not because they couldn't maintain their tradition of excellence, and got out-foxed by other companies?

I'm not defending shanek, I'm asking because I have a genuine curiosity. It is my understanding that Lucent just couldn't stay competitive, not that the computer industry became less innovative.

[T'ai Chi]

I think GE did a lot, or Boeing.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
My response from the other thread:

-----



Your denial is truly astounding...

Let's see...IBM, Wells Fargo, Westinghouse, etc., sure, they're not as popular as names go, but how can you say that Bell Labs contributed more than they did?

Denial? Yes, you ought to recognize de Nile, you're standing right in it.

WELLS FARGO?

Hellooo??????

I said that other places contributed, but then again IBM did a lot, but it didn't invent the transistor, it didn't DO THE BASIC STUFF. It was, furthermore, de-facto regulated for quite a while after an antitrust suit, so IBM is clearly in my court.

Westinghouse is gone, Shanek, and you know it, and it's GONE BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET. That's why it died, the FREE MARKET didn't support its forwardlooking work.

It's gone, just like Xerox Parc, most of IBM research, Bell Labs, ATT Research ... They're all gone, Shanek, and they're gone because the "free market" dictated that under a 3-month criterion, they were irrelevant.

THEY ARE ALL GONE BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET.

Them's the facts, Shanek.

You can deny them all you want, but you've been shown absolutely, with no POSSIBLE chance of escape, that the free market HAS DESTROYED THE RESEARCH LABS THAT MAKE TECHNICAL ADVANCES.

Facts, facts, and more facts. That's what I have.

You have to admit it now, you're wrong. The free market here, at least, DESTROYS TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS. The evidence IS CLEAR.

Bye.

I'm sure you'll come up with some other obviously wrong, total stumblebum excuse, but I don't think I'll bother. You're a quack, a plain, simple quack, and that's now quite evident.

And let's not talk about government-supported research, either, because that will make you look about 500% worse than you already do.

Sorry, you lose this one, completely, and so badly that if you have any decency you'll just apologize and slink away in shame.

[jj]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
hmmm, methinks you might have a little bias towards Bell Labs, jj. ;)

Didn't Bell Labs/Lucent collapse because it couldn't stay competitive amongst all the other entities doing similar business? Of course, if the Bell system is the only game in town, they will thrive. If Lucent is bankrupt now, is it not because they couldn't maintain their tradition of excellence, and got out-foxed by other companies?

I'm not defending shanek, I'm asking because I have a genuine curiosity. It is my understanding that Lucent just couldn't stay competitive, not that the computer industry became less innovative.

Well, actually, after the government manipulated the market so that it was "free" only for the local op co's, yes. Shanek could point out that misregulation was part of the problem, but instead he went into total denial, and quacked hideously at the whole idea.

Lest we not forget, at various times GE, Westinghouse, Xerox, IBM and most of the other previously strong competitors have been de-facto regulated by antitrust laws WHILE THEY WERE DOING THEIR BEST, and have failed AFTER the regulation was removed.

The evidence is pretty clear, it's not just AT&T that proves the point.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think GE did a lot, or Boeing.

I realize that you feel compelled to rush into any thread that I'm involved in and spout nonsense, so your "contribution" is acknowledged.

Now, are you ready to acknowledge that I already said that Bell Labs wasn't alone, despite your implication?

Oh, and Boeing? Regulated a great deal of the time by military contract regulatons. McDonnell, likewise. Douglas, likewise. Fairchild, TI, Intel, likewise. GE spent a lot of time dealing with environmental regulations, and was itself regulated for quite some time in regards to providing power equipment.

Sorry, a lack of regulation has not provided the success that Shanek claims, and the evidence is blindingly obvious to the barely familiar.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
And anyway, the only real point you have with Bell Labs was that it was a government-sponsored monopoly for the telephone system, but much of their innovations, such as in computers, happened in areas where there was a huge amount of competition (and very little regulation).

Yeah, and a whole lot of it was based on technology that Bell Labs had to give away for free, because the government said so.

So that regulated technology that was given away for free was the SEED for a lot of the stuff, COMING FROM THE REGULATED ENTITY.

Oops, you forget the facts again, didn't you?

And your accusation that the free market killed them is just so blatantly dishonest, but still in keeping with what I've come to expect from you...

-----

And if he throws up yet another copy somewhere else, I'll paste this response there, too.

"dishonest".

You have no truth or evidence to offer, and hence you, like some others here, simply vilify.

It is blatantly, conclusively, and absolutely clear that the free market is precisely what killed AT&T Labs, and Xerox Parc. There are a variety of complex issues involved, but the basics, especially for Xerox and Bell Labs (and AT&T Research) are plain as day.

If you don't know that, you are truly and appallingly ignorant on a subject in which you speak as an expert.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
hmmm, methinks you might have a little bias towards Bell Labs, jj. ;)

Didn't Bell Labs/Lucent collapse because it couldn't stay competitive amongst all the other entities doing similar business? Of course, if the Bell system is the only game in town, they will thrive. If Lucent is bankrupt now, is it not because they couldn't maintain their tradition of excellence, and got out-foxed by other companies?

I'm not defending shanek, I'm asking because I have a genuine curiosity. It is my understanding that Lucent just couldn't stay competitive, not that the computer industry became less innovative.

In my opinion Lucent is going bankrupt because they built huge, ugly buildings that were to be paid for with its stock. Its extremely over-inflated stock. Then the telephony market crashed. The P/E ratio for Lucent was over 200 at one point. That was due for a crash.

Every day I drive down Warrenville road in Naperville, Ill, past all of the empty Lucent buildings. What a waste.

[Samus]

jj: Well, actually, after the government manipulated the market so that it was "free" only for the local op co's, yes. Pardon my ignorance...op co's?

jj: Lest we not forget, at various times GE, Westinghouse, Xerox, IBM and most of the other previously strong competitors have been de-facto regulated by antitrust laws WHILE THEY WERE DOING THEIR BEST, and have failed AFTER the regulation was removed. But did they fail because of the regulation being removed? Or did they fail because others started doing things better?

I do concur that all the major research labs have been extinguished. IBM still has research facilities, but not nearly of the magnitude that they used to have. I'm just wondering why the "era" of research labs has seemed to pass. Was it because of government mis- or de-regulation, or other economic factors...

[jj]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


In my opinion Lucent is going bankrupt because they built huge, ugly buildings that were to be paid for with its stock. Its extremely over-inflated stock. Then the telephony market crashed. The P/E ratio for Lucent was over 200 at one point. That was due for a crash.

Every day I drive down Warrenville road in Naperville, Ill, past all of the empty Lucent buildings. What a waste.

Oh, on this we agree 100%. It was obvious, too, that the telephony market was going to tank, too. The whole thing was headed to commodity pricing.

And it was the FREE MARKET that stupidly bid that stock up.

Once again, the FREE MARKET strikes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Pardon my ignorance...op co's?

But did they fail because of the regulation being removed? Or did they fail because others started doing things better?


Op co's. The "bell" companies, formerly Ohio Bell, etc, the Local Exchange carriers.

The answer to your second question is quite complex. To some extent, removal of regulation encouraged a great deal of lack of self-control, to some extent, regulation was only pseudo-removed, etc.

Others eventually did start doing things better, indeed, the reasons being partially that the embedded base that the formerly regulated companies were OBLIGATED to carry drug them down, partially because they needed to move more quickly than they were allowed, and in great part because the 90's market required 3 month growth, every month, all the time, or else.

And that last FREE MARKET boom was what did in many. It is, of course, more complicated than just that.


I do concur that all the major research labs have been extinguished. IBM still has research facilities, but not nearly of the magnitude that they used to have. I'm just wondering why the "era" of research labs has seemed to pass. Was it because of government mis- or de-regulation, or other economic factors...

It's passed because the FREE, UNREGULATED MARKET requires a 3-month ROI, no if, no and, no but. Long-term investment is seen as a waste of time BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET.

Sorry, the caps are for our buddy Shanek, who just again accused me of professional misconduct because I showed his ridiculous rhetoric for the quacking it was.

[Samus]

jj: It's passed because the FREE, UNREGULATED MARKET requires a 3-month ROI, no if, no and, no but. Long-term investment is seen as a waste of time BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET. I agree that the free market (well, actually, the drive for instant gratification) has somewhat spoiled the desire to have long-term research labs. More internal R&D investing is going towards things with a more immediate payoff. But that's just the nature of us Americans -- we want everything, and we want it now.

Overall, I think I understand your point of view. I'm just curious as to what percentage of the research labs demise was due to government action (or inaction) versus the craziness of the '90s market. The need for rapid growth each quarter, or else.

IOW, regardless of what regulatory actions were taken, the labs were doomed to failure because of changing market trends.

Thoughts?

[BTox]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


In my opinion Lucent is going bankrupt because they built huge, ugly buildings that were to be paid for with its stock.

Hmm... maybe you have something here. Ugly-ass buildings in NJ, too. :D

[BTox]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I agree that the free market (well, actually, the drive for instant gratification) has somewhat spoiled the desire to have long-term research labs. More internal R&D investing is going towards things with a more immediate payoff. But that's just the nature of us Americans -- we want everything, and we want it now.


Short-term research has always been the focus at my company, and I assume the industry as well. Nature of the beast.

[jj]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Overall, I think I understand your point of view. I'm just curious as to what percentage of the research labs demise was due to government action (or inaction) versus the craziness of the '90s market. The need for rapid growth each quarter, or else.

IOW, regardless of what regulatory actions were taken, the labs were doomed to failure because of changing market trends.

Thoughts?

Well, the change in market trends, that desire for instant gratification, basically raiding 50 years of accumulated knowledge in the process, was due to the FREE MARKET and the greed aspect that has been shown time and again to be one of the significant factors in the market.

It is not, of course, entirely that simple. One of the other results of the FREE MARKET is that a company can't stumble without being in "big trouble" and having its boss fired, etc. The result of that is total paralysis when a market changes, instead of retrenchment and adaptation.

All from the 3-month nature of the FREE market.

(again caps for Mr. Killian's benefit)

[a_unique_person]

The US, prior to WWII, lagged in many areas of advanced research.

For example, weapons of war, nuclear research, electronics. It was reckoned that to kill one German Panther tank would require six American tanks. The German jet fighters were far advanced compared to the best American fighters.

It's solution was to do what it has been doing for many years now, import the best and brightest from other countries.

[Gem]

It was reckoned that to kill one German Panther tank would require six American tanks.

Never heard this one, I think what you meant was that to kill one German TIGER tank, it took TEN American sherman tanks. The germans called them "Tommy cookers" in Africa because the sherman had a detency to burn ablaze.

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


Hmm... maybe you have something here. Ugly-ass buildings in NJ, too. :D

Tell me about it, I worked in one for 20 years! :D

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US, prior to WWII, lagged in many areas of advanced research.

For example, weapons of war, nuclear research, electronics. It was reckoned that to kill one German Panther tank would require six American tanks. The German jet fighters were far advanced compared to the best American fighters.

It's solution was to do what it has been doing for many years now, import the best and brightest from other countries.

Err.

Whaaateeeveeeerr.....

It was lagging in military technology, yes. Is that the only kind?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


"dishonest".

You have no truth or evidence to offer, and hence you, like some others here, simply vilify.

It is blatantly, conclusively, and absolutely clear that the free market is precisely what killed AT&T Labs, and Xerox Parc. There are a variety of complex issues involved, but the basics, especially for Xerox and Bell Labs (and AT&T Research) are plain as day.

If you don't know that, you are truly and appallingly ignorant on a subject in which you speak as an expert.

Every time I hear of Steve Jobs acting like Apple is the inventor of the GUI, it only comfirms in my mind what a wanker he is. The G5 that he crows about so much is an IBM invention.

[Gem]

Weren't some of the first computers from the military? I recall hearing about American battleships using computers to calculate shell trajectories.

The British Radar?

Weren't some great progress of rocket technology from Nazi Germany? (And if we fallow the scientists trail, they were brought to the space program, which I doubt the free market would have done, since building a space shuttle is a bit different than building an airplane)

Would any of these 3 inventions exist today if the government wasn't funding it?

Gem

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Gem
Weren't some of the first computers from the military? I recall hearing about American battleships using computers to calculate shell trajectories.

The British Radar?

Weren't some great progress of rocket technology from Nazi Germany? (And if we fallow the scientists trail, they were brought to the space program, which I doubt the free market would have done, since building a space shuttle is a bit different than building an airplane)

Would any of these 3 inventions exist today if the government wasn't funding it?

Gem

Yes, but I doubt they would be advanced to this degree. Let’s face it, space was not at all profitable until Cell phones and GPS and other communication devices (all thanks to US military) started to become profitable. I doubt any company was willing to throw billions of dollars over few decades just to see what develops. I think in this instance government definitely propelled technology few decades (if not more).

[a_unique_person]

The computers of those days were not the digital type we refer to as computers these days. They were really more like specialised calculators.

Any way, I read that Medical companies spend more on marketing than on research.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The computers of those days were not the digital type we refer to as computers these days. They were really more like specialised calculators.

The word "calculator" used to refer to a person who used a large mechanical many-digit contraption.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

I realize that you feel compelled to rush into any thread that I'm involved in and spout nonsense, so your "contribution" is acknowledged.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't post simply because you were involved in the thread.


Now, are you ready to acknowledge that I already said that Bell Labs wasn't alone, despite your implication?

Oh, and Boeing? Regulated a great deal of the time by military contract regulatons. McDonnell, likewise. Douglas, likewise. Fairchild, TI, Intel, likewise. GE spent a lot of time dealing with environmental regulations, and was itself regulated for quite some time in regards to providing power equipment.

Sorry, a lack of regulation has not provided the success that Shanek claims, and the evidence is blindingly obvious to the barely familiar.

All I said was "I think GE did a lot, or Boeing." I wasn't denying or disagreeing with anything you said at all, merely saying companies that I also think contributed a lot in addition to the ones already mentioned.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

The word "calculator" used to refer to a person who used a large mechanical many-digit contraption.

I read in a history of Statistics book (One of Stiglers? Or maybe the book The Lady Tasting Tea? I forget where exactly.) that most of these calculators were women, employeed in large groups as essential personnell who crunched numbers for male statisticians.

[LW]

Originally posted by Gem

Never heard this one, I think what you meant was that to kill one German TIGER tank, it took TEN American sherman tanks.

No, it didn't . And the argument that "it took five Shermans to kill a Panther" is a rather common misconception.

The Panther claim comes from a misunderstood rule of thumb that states that in attack one should have a five-fold superiority to ensure success. It doesn't mean that on average each Panther knocked out five Shermans before being knocked out.

Sure, there are many examples of German heavy tanks knocking out numerous Allied tanks. But there are also examples where Allied tanks knocked out heavy German tanks without own losses.

[a_unique_person]

The German tanks, in sheer firepower and armour, were far superior.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1695/Text/sherman.html



The American main battle tank during World War Two was the Sherman. This was a medium tank weighing 35 tons and armed with a 75mm, 40 caliber cannon. This gun was capable of punching through 3.7 inches of armor at 500 yards. The Sherman had an effective armor thickness of 2.8 inches in the front, 1.6 inches in the sides, and 1.4 inches in the rear. It carried a crew of five and had three machine guns.

The Sherman was a poor match for any of the German tanks against which it fought. Even the Panzer IV, the weakest of its opponents, had a more powerful gun. Against the Panther and the Tiger, the Sherman was hopelessly outclassed. The Panther and the Tiger had frontal armors of 4.8 and 4.0 inches respectively; thus, the Sherman's gun could not kill either tank in a head-to-head encounter, even at close range. The German guns were more powerful than the Sherman's; they could easily penetrate the Sherman's frontal armor even at great ranges.
The only chance a Sherman had against a Panther or a Tiger was to shoot it in the side or rear, where the armor was thinner. This required that the Sherman lay in wait and shoot its victims from hiding.

[Samus]

a_unique_person: Every time I hear of Steve Jobs acting like Apple is the inventor of the GUI, it only comfirms in my mind what a wanker he is. The G5 that he crows about so much is an IBM invention. Steve Jobs was never the leading technical mind behind Apple or its products. Jobs is a marketeer, he can convince you that you want something you never knew you wanted. He captures the imagination, he thinks big, he's just insane enough to make it all work. But a good inventor he is not.

a_unique_person: Any way, I read that Medical companies spend more on marketing than on research. Which is a substantial reason for the out-of-control cost of healthcare.

[Samus]

jj: One of the other results of the FREE MARKET is that a company can't stumble without being in "big trouble" and having its boss fired, etc. The result of that is total paralysis when a market changes, instead of retrenchment and adaptation...All from the 3-month nature of the FREE market. Indeed. But I can't help but wonder, looking back at what came out of the 90s, if the market's shift to faster, better, cheaper has ultimately benefited us. Surely, the technological advances made (computing hardware, and the rise of the www) have had an overall positive impact on the nebulous "technology sector", even if the traditional research labs suffered in the wake.

You mentioned on several occasions that near-term thinking is a staple of the free market. Part of this, of course, is being the first to market and the pressure of outperforming the competition. This philosophy has hurt the long-term research that, in the past, has produced some of the greatest technological feats (Bell Labs comes to mind) that certainly laid the groundwork for what came in the 90s.

But I'm curious, what would you suggest as an alternative? With 20/20 hindsight, is there something that could have been done differently, by the government or otherwise, that would have maintained the strength and relevance of organizations such as Bell Labs, while still allowing for the significant growth and development we saw in the 90s?

Interesting stuff so far jj, you've given a lot of insight.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Denial? Yes, you ought to recognize de Nile, you're standing right in it.

WELLS FARGO?

Hellooo??????

Wells Fargo connected pretty much the entire east coast with telegraph lines, and was a pioneer in transcontinental telegraphs as well. Further, they also had the most efficient and widespread mail service, again transcontinental, and provided for much of the rail that was laid down as well. We owe our modern mass communication to Wells Fargo.

I said that other places contributed, but then again IBM did a lot, but it didn't invent the transistor,

But it did invent the integrated circuit.

it didn't DO THE BASIC STUFF.

Integrated circuits aren't basic?

It was, furthermore, de-facto regulated for quite a while after an antitrust suit, so IBM is clearly in my court.

No, it isn't; the antitrust suit wasn't until the 1980s.

Westinghouse is gone,

That is a complete lie.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse

Westinghouse provided pretty much all of the technology behind our home appliances. It also provided for a lot of our broadcast technology.

Shanek, and you know it, and it's GONE BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET. That's why it died, the FREE MARKET didn't support its forwardlooking work.

It's still there, liar.

It's gone,

No, it isn't.

Them's the facts, Shanek.

Them's the lies, jj. You slink away in shame, as you have proven time and time again that you have no honor, and no way to back up your insane rantings. So you have to make up LIES about Westinghouse not being there anymore, something a simple internet lookup will debunk.

[shanek]

I would love to see you people explain free market wine makers...You know, people who produce a product that won't be sold and consumed for decades if not centuries?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by shanek

But it did invent the integrated circuit.
http://www.coseti.org/kilby1.htm

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek
I would love to see you people explain free market wine makers...You know, people who produce a product that won't be sold and consumed for decades if not centuries?

So... You don't know anything about wine. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kullervo

http://www.coseti.org/kilby1.htm

You're right—that was TI, not IBM. Thanks for the correction!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So... You don't know anything about wine. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

So... You don't have an answer. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek
I would love to see you people explain free market wine makers...You know, people who produce a product that won't be sold and consumed for decades if not centuries?

Well, from the (few) winery tours I've taken, I can make some speculations:

- not all of the wine is set aside for decades, some is sold immediately or the next year.
- the winery isn't necessarily the entity storing the wine.
- when these winemakers start out, are they publically traded companies? Or are private investors making a long term speculation?
- Are they subject to the same profit/growth standards as a "high tech" company?

Most importantly,
- the wine market is a different market, where some products achieve maximum value a long time after production.

I'll build 2 computers tomorrow (DAVE!!! brand computing!) and store one in my house for 5 years, and sell the other straight away. Assuming my computer doesn't become a "collectable" item, which one will yield me more profit?

edited to add "profit/growth" to my standards bullet

[fishbob]

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things. You limited "technological advancement" to electronics/communications. The major oil companies (Shell, Mobil, Arco) used to support large research labs. These have mostly dried up and closed down (Mobil had big labs in Dallas TX and Princeton NJ). I don't think that the regulatory environment has changed much for the oil companies. I suspect that the cause is related to the boom/bust cycles of the economy. Why would this be any different for the electronics/com companies?

Also, the pharmacuetical industry labs are going like gangbusters these days. Big bucks in new drugs, I guess.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by fishbob
Also, the pharmacuetical industry labs are going like gangbusters these days. Big bucks in new drugs, I guess.

What is the Libertarian stance on patents? The drug companies probably wouldn't be so gangbusters if they couldn't rely on those patent-protected years...

Edited to answer my own question.... It seems that Libertarians are pro-patent....

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
- not all of the wine is set aside for decades, some is sold immediately or the next year.

But if what people are saying in this thread about the free market were true, then there wouldn't be any set aside for anywhere near that length of time.

- the winery isn't necessarily the entity storing the wine.

Somebody is; and that somebody is considering the wine a long-term investment, thinking the money they can make by eventually selling the wine is worth the money and resources required to store it in its proper environment. Again, if what people in this thread are saying were true, no free market company would undertake this because the money will not be there until the wine is eventually sold.

- when these winemakers start out, are they publically traded companies? Or are private investors making a long term speculation?

Why does it matter?

- Are they subject to the same profit/growth standards as a "high tech" company?

Irrelevant. We're talking about the propensity of the free market to undertake long-term endeavors that will not see a profit for a long period of time. Clearly, that propensity is there, no matter how much people here deny it.

- the wine market is a different market, where some products achieve maximum value a long time after production.

I'll build 2 computers tomorrow (DAVE!!! brand computing!) and store one in my house for 5 years, and sell the other straight away. Assuming my computer doesn't become a "collectable" item, which one will yield me more profit?

The difference is, your computer will lose value over that time while the wine will gain value. That isn't what people are talking about. People are talking about companies conducting research that will not see the improvement for more than ten years. The wine example is just one example of the free market undergoing endeavors that would not see any kind of profit for decades. HDTV has been another one; it's been more than ten years in the making, and still isn't really seeing profits because the forces of both the government, and the broadcasting cartel throwing their weight in the government around, have delayed it tremendously; but they still underwent the research and developing the technology to make it a reality. Pharmaceutical companies still research and develop drugs that they know will take at least ten years to come to market.

The idea that the free market only looks a few months or years ahead is completely ridiculous.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
What is the Libertarian stance on patents?

Divided. Most if not all libertarians agree that the patent system as it now stands is ridiculous, but many libertarians support a patent or patent-like system of some kind.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Wells Fargo connected pretty much the entire east coast with telegraph lines, and was a pioneer in transcontinental telegraphs as well. Further, they also had the most efficient and widespread mail service, again transcontinental, and provided for much of the rail that was laid down as well. We owe our modern mass communication to Wells Fargo.


Shanek, go read a bit more history.


But it did invent the integrated circuit.


WHO invented the integrated circuit? WHO?

That would be big news to Jack Kilby.


Integrated circuits aren't basic?



No, it isn't; the antitrust suit wasn't until the 1980s.



That is a complete lie.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse

Westinghouse provided pretty much all of the technology behind our home appliances. It also provided for a lot of our broadcast technology.


Once again, you present nonsense as fact. They certainly had a part. Now, was their power generation part ever regulated? Do tell, please!


Them's the lies, jj.

Once again, when shown that you have not a fact to present, you accuse others of professional misconduct, and vilify them when you haven't any other recourse.

Retract your lies.

You slink away in shame,

As I'm still here, refuting your ridiculous nonsense, or, rather, snickering at it and pointing out the omissions you include.

Since I'm still here, your claim that I "slink away in shame" is shown to be a transparent, obvious lie.

OOps, I caught you again.

So you have to make up LIES about Westinghouse not being there anymore, something a simple internet lookup will debunk.
Really? Show me where that research lab is still fully funded and functioning like it was in 1970. I'll grant you that I do believe that the BUILDING is still there, but again we have your direct, dishonest misquote to exhibit.

I said Westinghouse Research was gone, I didn't say Westinghouse was gone. You knew that, I knew that, everyone knew that. You selectively quoted me in order to vilify my name and in order to imply the existance of professional misconduct on my part when no such thing existed. Your obvious malice is once again demonstrated fully and incontrovertably.

Now, for homework (I already know approximately the answer, and you won't believe what I say since it further points out how tragically you are wrong on this point, so YOU DO THE WORK) tell me the population of Westinghouse RESEARCH in 1970 and 2000.

Until you can even demonstrate that you know the answer, not only do you have no business calling me a "liar", you have no business acting like you even know what you're talking about.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kullervo
IBM?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek

But it did invent the integrated circuit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.coseti.org/kilby1.htm

Pretty amazing, isn't it, for someone claiming expert status in knowing the accomplishments and fate of the significant research facilities in the USA?

[patnray]

The demise of Bell Labs is indeed a sad tale. There were other research institutions, including IBM, that made important discoveries, but Bell Labs was the giant among them all. The list of inventions is impressive, some of which have already been listed. I'll add that they made important contributions to maser and laser development, time share computing, and networking as well.

That ATT was a regulated monopoly allowed them to fund basic research at Bell Labs without a short term concern for ROI. As I recall, Bell Labs also faced regulations. Since they were funded by a regulated monopoly they had to share their discoveries (although I don't remember the details).

In its heyday Bell Labs Research Fellows were free to persue any project that struck their fancy with no pressure to produce profitable products. Nevertheless, many of their inventions were enormously beneficial to the telecom industry. It was, by all accounts, a wonderful environment in which to work.

Once the Bell system was broken up, the emphasis shifted. Without the guaranteed funding, Research Fellows were expected to persue projects that would benefit the company financially (not necessarily in 3 months, but foreseeably). The emphasis shifted from "pure" research to "applied" research.

Unfortunately, managers can not reliably predict what research will produce the big payoffs and tend to think very short term. So Bell Labs became a shadow of its former self.

I don't know if there will ever be another institution as productive as Bell Labs. All is not dark -- there are companies with vision funding pure research. But there are no more institutions probing so many different avenues under one roof...

[jj]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Well, from the (few) winery tours I've taken, I can make some speculations:

...
- when these winemakers start out, are they publically traded companies? Or are private investors making a long term speculation?
- Are they subject to the same profit/growth standards as a "high tech" company?

Most importantly,
- the wine market is a different market, where some products achieve maximum value a long time after production.

Whammo! You got it 3/3 on those,and I don't disagree with the others. What your points show is the difference between the wine market and other markets.

I'll build 2 computers tomorrow (DAVE!!! brand computing!) and store one in my house for 5 years, and sell the other straight away. Assuming my computer doesn't become a "collectable" item, which one will yield me more profit?

(chuckle)

edited to add "profit/growth" to my standards bullet
The difference, of course, is that in the wine industry value can arise from waiting. In the present FREE MARKET financial climate, anything that hasn't produced in 3 months is cut before it has a chance to produce, making it impossible to make many (if any) quantum leaps in basic technologies.

Yes, computers improve incrementally. Networks improve incrementally, but do we see any new improvements in switching like we saw for transmission in light fibers? Not yet. Who'se working on it? Well, not many people, even though that's the bottleneck, plain and simple.

That's just one element in a long, tragic list.

[shanek]

Originally posted by patnray
I don't know if there will ever be another institution as productive as Bell Labs. All is not dark -- there are companies with vision funding pure research. But there are no more institutions probing so many different avenues under one roof...

Is that really desirable anyway? The free market has discovered that it's much more efficient to do things as several different companies than as a single entity. If it were the choice between an amount of research being done in one place, and the same amount of research being done but in different places by different companies, the latter choice is more efficient.

For evidence, just take a look around Research Triangle Park in midstate NC.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I said Westinghouse Research was gone, I didn't say Westinghouse was gone. You knew that, I knew that, everyone knew that. You selectively quoted me in order to vilify my name and in order to imply the existance of professional misconduct on my part when no such thing existed. Your obvious malice is once again demonstrated fully and incontrovertably.

You are such a LIAR!!! Here is the ENTIRETY of what you said about Westinghouse in that post:

Westinghouse is gone, Shanek, and you know it, and it's GONE BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET. That's why it died, the FREE MARKET didn't support its forwardlooking work.

You said WESTINGHOUSE is gone. Plainly and distinctly. You are nothing more than a liar and an extremely dishonest debatant, and I'm done with you.

[jj]

Originally posted by fishbob
You limited "technological advancement" to electronics/communications.

No, actually, that's what came to mind first, I wasn't intending to limit it.

The major oil companies (Shell, Mobil, Arco) used to support large research labs. These have mostly dried up and closed down (Mobil had big labs in Dallas TX and Princeton NJ). I don't think that the regulatory environment has changed much for the oil companies. I suspect that the cause is related to the boom/bust cycles of the economy.

The regulatory environment for Exxon (I used to work at AT&T in the back of the Exxon Research Campus, btw) has indeed changed to be much more "competitive", the companies can merge again (witness Mobil/Exxon), etc. I'm afraid you want to do some examination of how the regulations HAVE changed in the direction of "free market" there, and what's happened as a result.

They are not completely deregulated, unlike the TelCo's, and their research isn't QUITE as completely gone, either. There still remains some Exxon/Mobil research out in Clinton, NJ.

Why would this be any different for the electronics/com companies?

It's not, of course, but perhaps not in the way you meant. :)

Also, the pharmacuetical industry labs are going like gangbusters these days. Big bucks in new drugs, I guess.
Yep, and they are regulated to the hilt by the FDA.

[jj]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


What is the Libertarian stance on patents? The drug companies probably wouldn't be so gangbusters if they couldn't rely on those patent-protected years...

Edited to answer my own question.... It seems that Libertarians are pro-patent....

Yeah, but have you ANY grasp of the regulatory load on the drug companies? It's stunning. Yet they continue to innovate and provide new things.

I have to admit I'm not entirely sure why that seems to be linked to innovation!?!?, but that's the facts, once again.

[jj]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek


But if what people are saying in this thread about the free market were true, then there wouldn't be any set aside for anywhere near that length of time.


Now you're simply using straw men. I guess you haven't anything more to offer?

Of course, in your world, a small boutique business with no investors other than the owner is subject to EXACTLY the same pressures that a fully public business owned by a dozen IRA fund companies (in practical terms) is?

I don't think so, and neither do you. Your claim above is a pure straw man, constructed by you, for your own purposes, and having nothing to do with the position it's replying to.

The small private owner (Dolby Labs comes to mind here as a good example) is the place that still can resist the 3-month window pressure. The places that can fund large-scale research (as opposed to focused research into a subject, like Dolby) are subject to that pressure.

That's the telling difference, and you simply can't afford to acknowledge that that's a result of your FREE MARKET and nothing else.
QUOTE]

At this time, the FREE MARKET clearly looks ahead at most 3 months. A simple glance at stock prices vs. reports makes it clear that 3 months may in fact be an over-estimate.

[jj]

Originally posted by patnray
The demise of Bell Labs is indeed a sad tale. There were other research institutions, including IBM, that made important discoveries, but Bell Labs was the giant among them all. The list of inventions is impressive, some of which have already been listed. I'll add that they made important contributions to maser and laser development, time share computing, and networking as well.

That ATT was a regulated monopoly allowed them to fund basic research at Bell Labs without a short term concern for ROI. As I recall, Bell Labs also faced regulations. Since they were funded by a regulated monopoly they had to share their discoveries (although I don't remember the details).

For quite some time, we had to license any patent to anyone who asked for one dollar. Yes. Really.

In its heyday Bell Labs Research Fellows were free to persue any project that struck their fancy with no pressure to produce profitable products.

Yes, you may be assured that I know that, too, as well as anyone. And it wasn't just "research fellows" it was a great deal of research, most people who were considered PI's were granted that freedom, at least to some degree. That's how the AT&T inventions related to MP3/ASPEC/PXMF/PAC/AAC came about in the first place, for instance. (I mention those only because I'm far too familiar with them.)

Nevertheless, many of their inventions were enormously beneficial to the telecom industry. It was, by all accounts, a wonderful environment in which to work.

Yes and no. There was a huge lag in getting anything out to market, because of the licensing things, we often saw our stuff done by somebody else before AT&T even noticed.

Once the Bell system was broken up, the emphasis shifted. Without the guaranteed funding, Research Fellows were expected to persue projects that would benefit the company financially (not necessarily in 3 months, but foreseeably). The emphasis shifted from "pure" research to "applied" research.

That's not quite how it happened, until very late in the process of demise, actually.

Unfortunately, managers can not reliably predict what research will produce the big payoffs and tend to think very short term. So Bell Labs became a shadow of its former self.

I don't know if there will ever be another institution as productive as Bell Labs. All is not dark -- there are companies with vision funding pure research. But there are no more institutions probing so many different avenues under one roof...
The very real problem was that the process of getting new things to market did not improve after regulation was "eliminated" (it was SOMEWHAT eliminated, and here Shanek should quite properly be shouting MISREGULATION, but now he'll have missed that hint twice in his rush to vilify me), and resistance to change in the MANUFACTURING SECTOR was, well, astonishing, right until the day that much of it went "thud".

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Is that really desirable anyway? The free market has discovered that it's much more efficient to do things as several different companies than as a single entity. If it were the choice between an amount of research being done in one place, and the same amount of research being done but in different places by different companies, the latter choice is more efficient.

For evidence, just take a look around Research Triangle Park in midstate NC.

You're still in denial. Yes, the folks in the Research Triangle are doing some good stuff, but you're missing the part where the fundamental physics, device, materials, etc work isn't being done any more, for instance, in any long-term fashion (except at universities funded mostly by the government, putting another nail into your free-market coffin).

As to your claim about diversity, it's easily shown to be wrong, just by looking at the results of spread-out research with competitive pressures between the organziations vs. the results of a strong organization like Bell, or Westinghouse, or Exxon, who had it all in-house.

You assert much, but it is entirely contrary to the evidence, and your assertions can, thanks to the reality of the situation, demonstrate no substance.

What diversity in competitive organizations is good for, unless they are very large, is dupilication of effort, secrecy that impedes scientific and technological progress, and lots of wasted time.

Shanek, how long have you spent in major research institutions? What's you're credentials here?

DO YOU HAVE ANY?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


You are such a LIAR!!! Here is the ENTIRETY of what you said about Westinghouse in that post:


And, as we both know, that was stated in a thread, IN THE CONTEXT OF RESEARCH.


You said WESTINGHOUSE is gone. Plainly and distinctly. You are nothing more than a liar and an extremely dishonest debatant, and I'm done with you.
You're simply extracting things from context, and trying to vilify me with your dishonest, fully and completely unethical extractions of text from context.

As every article of mine in this thread makes clear, AND AS YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED BY YOUR WORDS IN OTHER ARTICLES, this is a thread about RESEARCH ARMS OF COMPANIES.

None the less, you conveniently forget this when you think you can take something out of context, misrepresent it, and get points by lying, cheating, and making professional accusations.

Time after time you're caught doing this. Time after time, you seem to forget that we're all wise to your petty little stunts.

[specious_reasons]

A whole lot to respond to....

Obviously, if profit is maximized by holding on to the wine, and that business plan can be communicated to investors, then investors would be more willing to risk their money.

My question about being a large publically traded company versus have a small group of investors has something to do with to your question.

Imagine Nestle corp. decides to get into the boutique wine business. An executive tells the board that the costs for starting this business will be millions of dollars per year, but the ROI will be a thousand times the cost, the catch is: the sales won't start until 2103.

Think the corporate board will approve? What if this plan puts Nestle in debt for the near future? Will the general investing public approve?

Cutting research is one way companies have recently kept losses to a minimum. I'm not sure I agree with jj, but I'm not sure that the "free market" is the surest guarantor of innovation.

[patnray]

For what its worth, jj, it was clear to me that you were refering to the research arm of Westinghouse, and other companies, not the entire company.

While the breakup of the Bell System has been beneficial in many ways, the demise of Bell Labs is a huge negative result. THere may never be another...

[whitefork]

I don't know how good an example the wine industry is, given its highly-regulated nature in France and elsewhere, and the fact that the various terroirs are not readily substitutable.

Napa valley can turn out a fine bordeaux-style wine, but if you want Chateau Lafitte Rothschild, you'll be dealing with les grenouilles.

[jj]

Originally posted by patnray
For what its worth, jj, it was clear to me that you were refering to the research arm of Westinghouse, and other companies, not the entire company.

While the breakup of the Bell System has been beneficial in many ways, the demise of Bell Labs is a huge negative result. THere may never be another...

Thanks.

I think it's clear to everyone. If you go back and read, one of Shanek's common argument methods is to remove something from context, and then lie about that until (*(*& freezes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You're still in denial. Yes, the folks in the Research Triangle are doing some good stuff, but you're missing the part where the fundamental physics, device, materials, etc work isn't being done any more,

Just an example of each:

Physics: The Triangle Nuclear Laboratory is engaged in long-term research in, among other things, fundamental research in pusled neutron beams provided by low-energy neutrons. They also do fundamental research in stellar evolution.

Device: You don't say what kinds of devices, but a really good example in RTP is the SANS Research Institute.

Materials: Again, you don't say what kind, but the Bekaert Corporation, for example, is doing lots of fundamental research into materials for fiberoptic communications.

Methinks you are the one who is in denial. RTP was founded in 1959 by private interests trying to combat the "brain drain" out of NC, and was made specifically (although not wholly) to have a place in the state where fundamental research would be done.

You assert much, but it is entirely contrary to the evidence,

You lie much, and it is entirely contrary to reality.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Obviously, if profit is maximized by holding on to the wine, and that business plan can be communicated to investors, then investors would be more willing to risk their money.

Sure. And if profits can be maximized by conducting important research, and that business plan can be communicated to investors, then investors would be more willing to risk their money.

What about bonds that don't reach maturity for 20 or 50 or even 100 years? Doesn't it require a lot of forward thinking to invest in those?

My question about being a large publically traded company versus have a small group of investors has something to do with to your question.

But to your point, the "large corporation" gets a lot of its advantages because of its deal with the government. So that would run counter to jj's claim, which seems to be that any time the government gets into it it's not the free market anymore, so here we have examples of the non-public corporations being more innovative than the public corporations, exactly the opposite of what jj is asserting.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by jj


Thanks.

I think it's clear to everyone. If you go back and read, one of Shanek's common argument methods is to remove something from context, and then lie about that until (*(*& freezes.

It was quite clear to me as well. I hope you're not suprised at Shanek's attitude here. Hell, that's why I read the threads with him posting in them, it's damn funny stuff.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Physics: The Triangle Nuclear Laboratory is engaged in long-term research in, among other things, fundamental research in pusled neutron beams provided by low-energy neutrons. They also do fundamental research in stellar evolution.
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/
Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory is a Department of Energy-funded laboratory with research faculty from three major universities within the Research Triangle area: Duke University, North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Located on the campus of Duke University behind the Physics department, TUNL draws additional collaborators from many universities in the southeast, as well as from labs and universities across the country and all over the world. [my emphasis]
I'm glad to see you've become a supporter of government-funded research. :p

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Just an example of each:

Physics: The Triangle Nuclear Laboratory is engaged in long-term research in, among other things, fundamental research in pusled neutron beams provided by low-energy neutrons. They also do fundamental research in stellar evolution.


Agreed. You've proven nothing. I'll assume that you can point out good work from nearly everyone there. Thats' begging my point, which you're still not addressing.


Device: You don't say what kinds of devices, but a really good example in RTP is the SANS Research Institute.

Materials: Again, you don't say what kind, but the Bekaert Corporation, for example, is doing lots of fundamental research into materials for fiberoptic communications.

Methinks you are the one who is in denial. RTP was founded in 1959 by private interests trying to combat the "brain drain" out of NC, and was made specifically (although not wholly) to have a place in the state where fundamental research would be done.



I said very clearly that they DO get results. I also said that they aren't as EFFICIENT and they don't represent the SCIENTIFIC INTERESTS as well.

Once again, you tilt at a straw man. I know why RTP was founded, I know people who worked (and work) there.

What they can't do is walk across the street to discuss something new with their competitors, iwhere at a large lab someone can walk down to Building 1 and discuss something new with their peers.

Your argument as to why RTP was founded is irrelevant, it is exactly as relevant and meaningful as the fact that the Shaker colonies were founded in order to create a utopian, simple lifestyle. By raising it, you're simply introducing irrelevant confusion.

You lie much, and it is entirely contrary to reality.

Your insistance that I lie, when both you and I know that I have not, and do not, is part of your campaign to harm those who won't accept your political religion of libertarianism. Your dishonest attempt to extract my statements from context fully and completely shows the bankruptcy, unethical nature, and dishonesty of your means of argument.

I call on you once again to accept basic ethics and retract all, each, every, and ALL of your accusations directed at me, and to renounce your deceptive, dishonest, and unethical argument tactics permanantly.

Once again, the data discussed here has shown conclusively that research labs (plural) have flourished during times of government regulation, and that they are foundering completely in this day and age of deregulation. It is conclusively shown by this data that you can NOT assert that the FREE MARKET is the best market structure in which to advance technology.

The real-life data is clear, unquestionable, and there for anyone to see.

It is, frankly, counter to what I would have expected myself, but there it is, and all your crybaby "liar" tactics can't change the facts. When you let that rock go, it falls on your foot.

[Snide]

Originally posted by jj

All from the 3-month nature of the FREE market.

Just curious, jj. Have you read Alex Berenson's The Number ? (Title derived from the 3-month mentality; specifically, earnings per share)

Interesting reading, although I'll probably be called a leftist pinko commie for saying so. :)

edited typo

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
But to your point, the "large corporation" gets a lot of its advantages because of its deal with the government. So that would run counter to jj's claim, which seems to be that any time the government gets into it it's not the free market anymore, so here we have examples of the non-public corporations being more innovative than the public corporations, exactly the opposite of what jj is asserting.

You can "seem" and "state" until the well runs dry, but the data is there, we can all see it. What I've asserted is fact. It's there, and none of your unsupported theorizing and proselytizing can change that.

[jj]

Originally posted by Valmorian


It was quite clear to me as well. I hope you're not suprised at Shanek's attitude here. Hell, that's why I read the threads with him posting in them, it's damn funny stuff.

I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. He seems a strange combination of smart but unable to learn.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by jj


I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. He seems a strange combination of smart but unable to learn.

He's seen "the way" and it is Libertarianism. Capitalism > all when it comes to innovation, examples of the contrary be damned.

He's smart, but has already made up his mind.

[jj]

Originally posted by Valmorian


He's seen "the way" and it is Libertarianism. Capitalism > all when it comes to innovation, examples of the contrary be damned.

He's smart, but has already made up his mind.

He reminds me of Charlie Brown, and we're all Luci with the football. :)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek
Sure. And if profits can be maximized by conducting important research, and that business plan can be communicated to investors, then investors would be more willing to risk their money.

But to your point, the "large corporation" gets a lot of its advantages because of its deal with the government. So that would run counter to jj's claim, which seems to be that any time the government gets into it it's not the free market anymore, so here we have examples of the non-public corporations being more innovative than the public corporations, exactly the opposite of what jj is asserting.

1) RE: communication.
I think we agree that, in a more or less free market, if you can sell it well enough, someone will buy it. Wine, research, whatever. I have no problem with that. Obviously, in a free market, anyone with a good idea and a better marketing pitch can innovate.

In that sense, a free market makes it easier to innovate.


2) RE: "large corporation":
The point I was trying to make is that innovation can be stymied by a free market, too. In my hypothetical Nestle/wine example, my suspicion is that the investors would not approve of such a long term investment, especially at the cost of near-term profits.

The goverment's got nothing to do with that.

By the way, I picked Nestle because the bottle of water sitting in front of me was made by a Nestle subsidiary. No other reason.

[Lemastre]

It's hard to compare the free market with something else if free market means no government regulation, because all activities are regulated. I suppose the degree of regulation intended and the degree achieved vary. As in the stock market, where we are seeing the failure of the SEC to do its job monitoring securities and mutual-fund companies. So the fact that businesses fail or succeed seems to have to do with things other than regulation. It occurs to me that if any business should fail, it's the tobacco business. Yet it continues to thrive despite the fact that everyone knows it purveys poison. Whatever the regulations do, they apparently don't prohibit selling poison to any and everyone.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

The point I was trying to make is that innovation can be stymied by a free market, too. In my hypothetical Nestle/wine example, my suspicion is that the investors would not approve of such a long term investment, especially at the cost of near-term profits.

Bump, in case it was missed.

I am curious to see the response I get to my speculation here.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by shanek
I would love to see you people explain free market wine makers...You know, people who produce a product that won't be sold and consumed for decades if not centuries? Wine isn't research. The winemaker knows that a guaranteed large percentage of the effort he puts forth will pay off in a predictable way. You're confusing time with risk (among a great many other things). The risk with research vs. the reward is not so easily quantified, which is why a large government-supported/sponsored/regulated institution will always be better positioned for long-term research where the payoff is not evenly or immediately predictable. Your inability to grasp this is due to your immovable tautology that FREEMARKET=GOOD;GOVERNMENT=BAD. The concept that there is a shade of grey between these two entities is quite obviously beyond your intellectual abilities to grasp.

JJ's demonstration that government-regulated entities have contributed significantly to the advancement of technology (and have just as spectacularly failed without that support) is just the tip of the iceberg. We would have none of the following if a government had not decided we needed one: New World; Moon Rocket; Internet; Atom Bomb (unfortunately); Nuclear Fusion (still maybe a good thing, who knows?).

There's no doubt that free-market physics can and should control a good many things. I think cell phones work fine under a free market --- but that's AFTER almost a century of government support established the infrastructure and with it the wide social acceptance of telephone service in the first place, something no sane capitalist would ever have done on his own. When it comes to many other subjects (such as recent Adventures in Beef Safety) it's obvious as all hell that the free market left to its own devices would fail to deliver anything of use to society. Even the automobile would have been a relatively meaningless invention without the Interstate Highway, a wholly government-sponsored affair.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by jj

The difference, of course, is that in the wine industry value can arise from waiting. In the present FREE MARKET financial climate, anything that hasn't produced in 3 months is cut before it has a chance to produce, making it impossible to make many (if any) quantum leaps in basic technologies.

Yes, computers improve incrementally. Networks improve incrementally, but do we see any new improvements in switching like we saw for transmission in light fibers? Not yet. Who'se working on it? Well, not many people, even though that's the bottleneck, plain and simple.

That's just one element in a long, tragic list. I second that. I've been in IT professionaly for nine years, and a computer hobbyist for over 20. When I started, information technology was in the tail end of a long period where research, some of it from decades before, was starting to pay off immensely. I swear, it all peaked about 1996. Since then, it seems like all technology companies are just doing the Same Old Schist over and over again. Microsoft certainly is a counter-example to your Bell Labs -- a gigantic company that could and should take tremendous risks and make huge strides, and somehow can't manage to come up with a single new thing in ten years. Almost every piece of Microsoft software you buy now is either a refinement of something already well-developed (think Windows NT-XP) or bought from someone else. Their response to competition is to buy it. PC's have supposedly gotten faster and faster over the last few years, but frankly I can hardly tell. My 2.some gigahertz laptop responds no more smoothly than a five-year-old desktop. Compared to the massive advances that occurred in eighties and nineties, it seems like Moore's fictitious Law is finally peaking. Of course, Moore's Law never described improvements in actual performance, just the number of transistors. You can say that about free markets. They can crank up the volume. But they can't really change the tune.

[gnome]

Originally posted by patnray
I don't know if there will ever be another institution as productive as Bell Labs. All is not dark -- there are companies with vision funding pure research. But there are no more institutions probing so many different avenues under one roof...

At the university in the 90's I used to hear similar stories about 3M's research wing, what are they up to lately?