As the U.S. government has created IPHONE

When you say the new technology creates Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and others — do not believe. Yes, their names are often flashed in the media. They even learned how to articulate some politicians and economists, but … All in a different way, do not they play a key role in the emergence of new technologies.

Let us emphasize that this is a very important myth of our time. Remember what The Economist wrote last year: to protect the prosperity of innovation, the government should "stay the foundations." Build roads and other infrastructure, educate children and adults, and leave the rest garage revolutionary pioneers, these giants of business innovation.

7abda
You, above all, do not disturb the person behind the computer do its thing, assures us The Economist. Do not have all of these taxes on the private sector, and gosvlozheny too! State intervention benefits neither the economy nor the innovation sector. (Illustration Brett Ryder.)

Like us, some comrades overseas doubt the loyalty of allegations that the new technologies are the garage start-ups.

Take the "garage" in the roots of Apple, this is the "shining example of innovative private company." At the very beginning of his career, it has received a grant of $ 500 thousand agree that half a million dollars in the prices of 1980 — it is not enough for a start. However, God bless them with money. Suppose the U.S. government had a sunstroke, it just decided to throw good money after bad, the grant was given in vain, because the "Yabloko" would have managed without it.
 

Take a look wider: the company's products, including the infamous iPhone, heavily in technologies developed by the U.S. government. Internet, as we all remember, there was the fact that after the launch of the first satellite of the USSR the U.S. military suddenly realized that nuclear warheads could arrive at any time — and for the protection of need reliable network transmission system. Next came on the thumb: Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Ministry of Defense (DARPA), and so on GPS — purely military development. Touchscreens? — Grants of the Research of the Air Force and the Navy United States. Siri? — Direct use of Apple (and this is no secret) CALO, the technology created for the same money DARPA.

And if only the iPhone … Government National Institutes of Health in the United States a year spend about $ 30 billion on new drugs and biotechnology research, three-quarters of funding that goes to the creation of new drugs in the United States — it is their money.

Google? Sergey Brin, while still a student at Stanford, he worked on the program Digital Library Initiative of the National Science Foundation of the U.S. government. As Larry Page, of course. That's when a prototype was created PageRank. Why, the first address "Google" as the older generation remembers, was google.stanford.edu, rather than google.com.

Go ahead. Who is the main investor in "green" energy in Germany? — The bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, fully public. In China? — State banks. In Brazil? — State banks. By the way, the same Germany and China — nyneshnielidery alternative energy market.

Of course, one could argue: SpaceX, Tesla Motors … Falcon 1 rocket was created without the participation of state funds, but then the state become generous to orders. But it's worth noting that the issue here is not so much about innovation as an engineering design: RN SpaceX still relatively close to normal, and electric vehicles for more than 100 years. It is most likely that these ideas have been used in concrete structures: the company of Mr. Mask does make rockets cheaper than any other American, and Tesla Motors sales in California is broke Buick, Cadillac, Chrysler, Fiat, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln , Mitsubishi, Porsche and Volvo. But as long as there is no fundamentally new technologies: as in the case of submarines XXI series, just managed to blend pre-existing components in the most successful proportions.

But to create something that is not ready to immediately go to the market, but one day will be able to arrange the industrial revolution, needed an assistant, and as long as there is no one better than the state. Even if it's the U.S., exhibited other Russian idealists almost an icon of libertarianism.

Matstsukato Mariana (Mariana Mazzucato), an economist at the University of Sussex (UK), is sure: the real sector in terms of innovation is the same thing that happened with the financial sector a few years ago. Namely privatization of profits and nationalization risks. And quite frontal: the same holds in offshore Apple more than $ 100 billion, that is, two-thirds of their money. The result: a committee of the U.S. Senate obvinyaetkompaniyu of evading taxes on $ 44 billion in the last four years.

That's just to prove it in court will not work: Apple worked through the loopholes in the law, and therefore technically innocent. At Google, of course, the public is not stupid: remember Irish "bridging" of the company, after which dengiuhodyat to Bermuda. And investments in R & D by private companies shtatovskih steadily declining all XXI century, and the state's share in this process of growing.

The economist believes that something must be done. Because such a policy at a time when we need to cut the national debt, and huge in the U.S. and in the UK, will lead to the fact that we all will not be any R & D or innovation in significant amounts. First, she is sure, we need to recognize that the state is not a "night watchman", intended only to correct market failures. In fact, this state has created and shaped the main features of many of these markets, taking big risks. What would be the financial sector in the United States in 2009, though this did not happen?

Secondly (and this is key) for these risks, including research and development, the state should receive compensation. Otherwise, it will finish its economy growing debt. But the current tax system does not compensate, for too cumbersome and inefficient (compared to less creative masters as "Yabloko" and "guglovtsy").

The solution to this problem, Ms. Matstsukato and calls the third priority task. As at least partially refund the money the state invests in innovation? She believes that there will a modified system of payment of ex-students of funds for education. Roughly speaking, if the grants of the National Science Foundation, the U.S. government issued Google today, the relevant documents should be to write such a condition: "If the grantee to make this technology X billion dollars, Y of them will go to the National Science Foundation."

Once again, we ask you: do not be naive to it? After all, enough to close the company to open another in Ireland, rename the technology to replace it insignificant element … from abundance of such methods, which themselves are generated in the brain dizzy. Ms. Matstsukato seriously proposes to impose such a toothless obligation on the company, among whose founders have come from Russia?

848ff
You, above all, do not disturb the person behind the computer do its thing, assures us The Economist. Do not have all of these taxes on the private sector, and gosvlozheny too! State intervention benefits neither the economy nor the innovation sector. (Illustration Brett Ryder.)

Like us, some comrades overseas doubt the loyalty of allegations that the new technologies are the garage start-ups.

Take the "garage" in the roots of Apple, this is the "shining example of innovative private company." At the very beginning of his career, it has received a grant of $ 500 thousand agree that half a million dollars in the prices of 1980 — it is not enough for a start. However, God bless them with money. Suppose the U.S. government had a sunstroke, it just decided to throw good money after bad, the grant was given in vain, because the "Yabloko" would have managed without it.
 

Take a look wider: the company's products, including the infamous iPhone, heavily in technologies developed by the U.S. government. Internet, as we all remember, there was the fact that after the launch of the first satellite of the USSR the U.S. military suddenly realized that nuclear warheads could arrive at any time — and for the protection of need reliable network transmission system. Next came on the thumb: Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Ministry of Defense (DARPA), and so on GPS — purely military development. Touchscreens? — Grants of the Research of the Air Force and the Navy United States. Siri? — Direct use of Apple (and this is no secret) CALO, the technology created for the same money DARPA.

And if only the iPhone … Government National Institutes of Health in the United States a year spend about $ 30 billion on new drugs and biotechnology research, three-quarters of funding that goes to the creation of new drugs in the United States — it is their money.

Google? Sergey Brin, while still a student at Stanford, he worked on the program Digital Library Initiative of the National Science Foundation of the U.S. government. As Larry Page, of course. That's when a prototype was created PageRank. Why, the first address "Google" as the older generation remembers, was google.stanford.edu, rather than google.com.

Go ahead. Who is the main investor in "green" energy in Germany? — The bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, fully public. In China? — State banks. In Brazil? — State banks. By the way, the same Germany and China — nyneshnielidery alternative energy market.

Of course, one could argue: SpaceX, Tesla Motors … Falcon 1 rocket was created without the participation of state funds, but then the state become generous to orders. But it's worth noting that the issue here is not so much about innovation as an engineering design: RN SpaceX still relatively close to normal, and electric vehicles for more than 100 years. It is most likely that these ideas have been used in concrete structures: the company of Mr. Mask does make rockets cheaper than any other American, and Tesla Motors sales in California is broke Buick, Cadillac, Chrysler, Fiat, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln , Mitsubishi, Porsche and Volvo. But as long as there is no fundamentally new technologies: as in the case of submarines XXI series, just managed to blend pre-existing components in the most successful proportions.

But to create something that is not ready to immediately go to the market, but one day will be able to arrange the industrial revolution, needed an assistant, and as long as there is no one better than the state. Even if it's the U.S., exhibited other Russian idealists almost an icon of libertarianism.

Matstsukato Mariana (Mariana Mazzucato), an economist at the University of Sussex (UK), is sure: the real sector in terms of innovation is the same thing that happened with the financial sector a few years ago. Namely privatization of profits and nationalization risks. And quite frontal: the same holds in offshore Apple more than $ 100 billion, that is, two-thirds of their money. The result: a committee of the U.S. Senate obvinyaetkompaniyu of evading taxes on $ 44 billion in the last four years.

That's just to prove it in court will not work: Apple worked through the loopholes in the law, and therefore technically innocent. At Google, of course, the public is not stupid: remember Irish "bridging" of the company, after which dengiuhodyat to Bermuda. And investments in R & D by private companies shtatovskih steadily declining all XXI century, and the state's share in this process of growing.

The economist believes that something must be done. Because such a policy at a time when we need to cut the national debt, and huge in the U.S. and in the UK, will lead to the fact that we all will not be any R & D or innovation in significant amounts. First, she is sure, we need to recognize that the state is not a "night watchman", intended only to correct market failures. In fact, this state has created and shaped the main features of many of these markets, taking big risks. What would be the financial sector in the United States in 2009, though this did not happen?

Secondly (and this is key) for these risks, including research and development, the state should receive compensation. Otherwise, it will finish its economy growing debt. But the current tax system does not compensate, for too cumbersome and inefficient (compared to less creative masters as "Yabloko" and "guglovtsy").

The solution to this problem, Ms. Matstsukato and calls the third priority task. As at least partially refund the money the state invests in innovation? She believes that there will a modified system of payment of ex-students of funds for education. Roughly speaking, if the grants of the National Science Foundation, the U.S. government issued Google today, the relevant documents should be to write such a condition: "If the grantee to make this technology X billion dollars, Y of them will go to the National Science Foundation."

Once again, we ask you: do not be naive to it? After all, enough to close the company to open another in Ireland, rename the technology to replace it insignificant element … from abundance of such methods, which themselves are generated in the brain dizzy. Ms. Matstsukato seriously proposes to impose such a toothless obligation on the company, among whose founders have come from Russia?

848ff
Plasma screens have been designed by the same government project that touchscreens. The same, by the way, in 1964. Total 50-60 years for the private sector to commercialize all this stuff. Could this kind of research to be born in the depths of the private sector? Ready to whether he was in 1960 to invest in non-science fiction to make a profit through half a century?

Well, it offers alternative ways: allocate gosinvestoru or Grantmakers stake in the company, aimed at commercialization of the developed product. As an excellent example of the success of the model of "grants in exchange for shares" given the relationship of the Finnish State Fund SITRA and Nokia. Again, you can give the state a share of the intellectual property developed by public money. This is certainly not an iron solution to all problems, but it is closer to life.

But the most important thing in her thesis — is still no way of "squeezing" of profits from the private sector who does not want to invest in research and development. The key point of the concept is that the recognition of the state a key player in the innovation market, as well as key support its risk profile, will finally stop the ridiculous attempts to weaken the innovation process under the banner of inefficient government spending cuts in science and technology.

That is, government spending, of course, are not effective (and not only him, remember Apple, GM and Microsoft), but it is better inefficient spending on R & D than their reduction or simply lack.

compulenta.computerra.ru

Like this post? Please share to your friends: