I ignored your premise because it was false. No one thinks the private sector needs government to function, so why debate that. You keep setting up straw men to argue with.
Where we disagree is you think that at the economy should function without government intervention and therefore any call for intervention hampers the economy and is wrong. I think you are not describing reality. Private enterprise is heavily influenced by government action today and I favor reforms that tune that action to support other goals than the protection of old industries and established wealth.
There is a side issue which is you don’t believe the government can innovate. Heck – how did the Russians launch the first satellite and the first manned space flight in a totally government run system? If you are right, that could not have happened, but it did. Sometimes, even socialists can innovate!
All I am trying to delineate is our two different views about reality – and I’ll keep pushing back on the caricatures you like to argue against.
1 Like
Actually you simply have to read through the previous posts to see that more than a few think exactly that. Otherwise there would be no discussion.
Private enterprise is hampered by government action. I’ve seen it first hand throughout my career. The private sector spends a considerable amount of money to comply with an endless procession of burdensome government regulations.
The Russian government didn’t innovate. They simply forced captured German scientists to do their bidding.
We obviously see the world quite differently. I don’t disagree with you there.
As to the Russian missile program — it certainly wasn’t a triumph of free enterprise. My understanding was von Braun brought most of the German team to the US because so much of what they did had been based on Robert Goddard’s work.
The Nazi rocketry program was a government program as well, of course.
I don’t doubt others agree with you. And I am not arguing all government action is beneficial. But there are areas where markets fail to protect the common good — probably best analyzed by Michael Sandel). For example — safety regulation of cars has saved lives. Something private enterprise failed to do.
But that is the major problem with big Government. It is never enough. It just keeps getting bigger and more intrusive.
And that is how we end up with a Venezuela. No one intended for Venezuela to become a failed state. Over time more government intrusion, led to more government intrusion, led to more government intrusion.
It really is a never ending cycle of more and more intrusion.
We are seeing this in spades today as each DEM candidate tries to outdo each other with the absurdity of free Government giveaways that the rich couldn’t possibly even begin to pay for.
More straw men and generalities. If you want to object to something specific, do so. There is huge government intervention in the economy today. But you seem fine with that. Why. Take one item: the carried interest deduction. Huge negative impact on employment. Would eliminating it be “crushing regulation?” It is the government’s thumb on the scale. Why hasn’t it led to unstoppable intervention?
What makes you believe I’m fine with existing government intervention? But once again, I’m betting we are talking about very different things entirely.
DougBH
113
Yep. Sometimes you just have to recognize that it isn’t literal, its just stupid.
And those German scientists worked for the government didn’t they
Oh please. Not even close. That’s just nonsense.
WuWei
116
Because obama was above the law.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? That socialism really does work? 
Idk… pure socialism… probably not.
What version of socialism is coming to the US? What part of the mean of production is the government taking over?
Not the topic of the thread. Trump and Un and their favorable media is.
Enough whataboutism and deflections and back to the topic!
Politics is not like a memory foam mattress.
JayJay
122
Yes…there was a multiplicity of events that led to the Internet as we know it today…one might say the Internet is an “emergent” entity.
However, the innovation that led to many of the underlying technologies that make the Internet operate today were made possible (and, more importantly, scalable) via government funding.
JayJay
123
Your own sources point to government-sponsored innovation as one of the many events that catalyzed the emergence of the Internet.
To have made your point, you would have had to have shown that government programs slowed the creation of the Internet, and then later private innovation overcame this government obstacle.
Your own sources show nothing of the kind.
Your own sources show packet switching, for example, was invented by a UK individual, but never got off the ground until it was incorporated into ARPANET.
Your own sources show that email was invented by an ARPANET contractor…and email was a catalyst for later widespread adoption of the Internet.
This is the exact opposite of what should have happened if your thesis that government only stymies innovation was true.
1 Like
A lot of the debate has between Trump supporters who think in absolutes such as;
Government cannot innovate
Socialism always fails
And Trump critics who think in less absolutist terms
Innovation can come from lots of places, including government
Socialism can have successes
The example – which came initially from me – was the Russia was able to put up the first unmanned satellite and first manned space craft was well… two instances where the Soviet Union led everyone else in innovation.
Do I really have to state that the ability of a socialist system to succeed at some things does not mean that socialism is superior or preferable. Just trying to poke holes in the Trumpian tendency toward Manicheanism in which things are absolutely good or absolutely evil. That may work in superhero movies, but not in politics.
2 Likes
