What, if any, role should government play in stifling or fostering disruptive technologies?

[bernorange 8348]

This is not a red v blue question.  This is a philosophical question about the proper role of government.

There are some markets where we see the effects of technology evolving over time:

• Music industry - 8 track, cassette/LP, CD, MP3 - My understanding is that the internet and MP3 technology has disrupted the modern music industry model of labels-radio controlling everything.
• Video - From VCRs to  DVRs to streaming, Network tv to cable channels, the delivery and consumption of video media has changed a lot in recent years.

I'm sure if I spent more time noodling it, I could come up with more examples, but these are examples of tech that evolved over time.

Wikipedia describes disruptive technology as one that dramatically transforms (or revolutionizes) a certain industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

There are some examples of technology that are being developed right now that have the potential to disrupt existing, entrenched industries/markets:

• Clean energy - from power generation and storage to the auto industry, government is currently subsidizing (fostering) growth of green energy technologies
• Crypto - as a potential competitor for banking and financial services (TradFi), crypto (DeFi) is currently struggling with government efforts to stifle growth
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) - This one seems to have gotten out in front of government for the moment, but government is looking to put a yoke on it

Should government be intervening in markets and picking winners and losers?

 

 

[Dbeasy 14970]

Government should absolutelyfund fundamental research that has the potential to address the needs and issues of man/womankind. For profit entities often cannot justify the investments required to advance science quickly enough to meet the timelines needed for innovation.  

[troph 24563]

35 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Government should absolutelyfund fundamental research that has the potential to address the needs and issues of man/womankind. For profit entities often cannot justify the investments required to advance science quickly enough to meet the timelines needed for innovation.  

100% this. VHS vs Beta nah. Research and subsidize disruptive tech that can radically improve or preserve our lives and the health of the planet, absolutely yes.

[bernorange 8348]

50 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Government should absolutelyfund fundamental research that has the potential to address the needs and issues of man/womankind. For profit entities often cannot justify the investments required to advance science quickly enough to meet the timelines needed for innovation.  

Do you draw any distinction between government funded research ala NASA - where the fruits of research are public domain versus government subsidized research where private entities control (patent) the fruits?

If you believe government should be fostering disruptive technologies (to the detriment of existing industry), do you also believe that government should be stifling disruptive technologies (to the benefit of existing industry)?

Also, (@troph) who makes the value judgement on which disruptive tech is beneficial vs. boondoggle?

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by bernorange

[TwiceHorn 31284]

I think funding of research may be a different question from OPs original question, which is what should the government do with a "disruptive technology" regardless of origin?

 

[Celery Man 20886]

Man, evolution of physical media (your two examples) seems highly different than say clean energy, where the free market is unable to act efficiently.

If we accept that crypto is digital beanie babies then I don’t see why the government needs to be involved. I don’t think they we accept that, though.

[TwiceHorn 31284]

Also, one thing that's heavily implicated here is IP.

The government, fairly obviously, grants and permits enforcement of IPR in an ostensibly neutral way (and, I think a practically neutral way, also, despite what some conspiracy theorist types may think).

But now we have gotten to Standards Essential Patents (SEP) that are required to be licensed on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.  In the US, the government most stays out of that and lets private consortia (standard-setting bodies) decide what is an SEP and the courts mostly decide what is FRAND.

In other countries, I believe there is a bit more government intervention.

Also, with respect to medical/pharma tech, the FDA has their thumb on the scale as well as the IP system and it's a lot more arguably non-neutral.

[sidis 9754]

i genuinely cannot tell if your question is a conversation starter regarding the government's role in fostering things that aren't economically rational in a commercial sense in their early development but have potentially substantial positive externalities...or if you are just using this as a springboard to bitch about regulation.

as someone who is currently dealing with city bureaucracy just to i can finish some god damned fucking landscaping adjustments to my property, you are catching me in a particular anti-regulatory mood but if you are implying that letting the marketplace dictate the direction of major areas of critical society infrastructure without regulatory guardrails, you're acting like an insane person that just waves their hands when trains carrying toxic chemicals completely destroy entire towns in ohio or chemical plants in east houston explode or fedex and swa planes nearly collide on the runway at austin bergstrom because you didn't get directly affected.

if you are asking more of the former, like most everything in life, it is a balance.  is it possible to overreach, of course.  if there are governmental mechanisms of exclusion from certain private parties pursuing a potentially disruptive technology are weaponized because of economic rent seeking behavior from established market participants (or others for whatever motivation) leveraging its power through the political process, that is super bad.  but that doesn't mean that some upstart group of folks that are willing to deploy some experimental shit that is potentially dangerous to unsuspecting members of society (driving on i-35 next to a dipshit unwittingly beta testing his tesla's autopilot bullshit in traffic) should be able to operate with impunity or else that is also super bad.

[wildcat09 29260]

It's extraordinarily funny to me that OP didn't think to mention the internet.

[G650 14108]

I think the government should ban crypto, and call it the Fuck Bernorange Act

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Regarding IP . . . and without going into the deep dive @TwiceHorn has already hinted at . . . I think research that is funded (at least in part) by the government should not lead to 100% revenue/profit capture by the developers.  I don't know how the splits would be set up, because money is quantifiable whereas innovation and effort are more nebulous in terms of value, but there has to be some way to hash it out, and perhaps revise as efforts move along.

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

Do you draw any distinction between government funded research ala NASA - where the fruits of research are public domain versus government subsidized research where private entities control (patent) the fruits?

If you believe government should be fostering disruptive technologies (to the detriment of existing industry), do you also believe that government should be stifling disruptive technologies (to the benefit of existing industry)?

Also, (@troph) who makes the value judgement on which disruptive tech is beneficial vs. boondoggle?

 

 

30 minutes ago, G650 said:

I think the government should ban crypto, and call it the Fuck Bernorange Act

Seriously, we all knew what this post was really about. CRYPTOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Surly Bevo 24696]

Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

[YChang 3431]

There will likely be unintended consequences from any governmental intervention. Even if one advocates for balance, cause you know people are irrational beings.

 Where I want to see our government (really all of us) do better is to own up and grow/learn from mistakes. Have a growth mindset. 

[bernorange 8348]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think funding of research may be a different question from OPs original question, which is what should the government do with a "disruptive technology" regardless of origin?

Agree, except "what should the government do with" implies to me that government should be intervening whereas my question "What, if any, role should government play in stifling or fostering" is really asking *if* government should be intervening.

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Man, evolution of physical media (your two examples) seems highly different than say clean energy, where the free market is unable to act efficiently. ...

I mentioned the physical media examples specifically to draw the distinction with disruptive technologies.  I apologize if I confused the issue there.

49 minutes ago, sidis said:

i genuinely cannot tell if your question is a conversation starter regarding the government's role in fostering things that aren't economically rational in a commercial sense in their early development but have potentially substantial positive externalities...or if you are just using this as a springboard to bitch about regulation.

...

if you are asking more of the former, like most everything in life, it is a balance.  is it possible to overreach, of course.  if there are governmental mechanisms of exclusion from certain private parties pursuing a potentially disruptive technology are weaponized because of economic rent seeking behavior from established market participants (or others for whatever motivation) leveraging its power through the political process, that is super bad. ...

I am interested in a good faith discussion on the topic as presented.  I got to thinking about the juxtaposition of the government's efforts in the disruptive technologies that I mentioned in the OP and got to pondering the larger issue (as I'm wont to do). 

The issue is not regulation per se.  Regulation can be perfectly reasonable.  It could also be one of the tools government uses to stifle a disruptive technology.  But I did not start this thread to discuss government tools for stifling a disruptive technology.  I'm interested in the bigger picture discussion of whether government should be engaged in picking winners and losers with disruptive technologies.  This is (at least, I was hoping it would be) more of a philosophical question on government and free markets.

Your comment, which I added bold emphasis to, is, I believe, happening right now with the banking and crypto sectors. 

34 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's extraordinarily funny to me that OP didn't think to mention the internet.

The internet was technology born from DARPA (for a robust communication infrastructure that could survive nuclear attack) and released in the public domain.  It's akin to technologies developed by NASA in pursuit of space exploration.  While disruptive, they (both the internet and NASA related tech) were not technologies that were targeted by government action to stifle or foster specific industries.  They are essentially byproducts of legitimate government programs.  It's not really germane to the issue I wanted to discuss.

[wildcat09 29260]

So you don't think that the most disruptive technology in the history of mankind, which was created by the government, is germane to a discussion about what government's role should be with regard to disruptive technologies?

[VRHorn 718]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

So you don't think that the most disruptive technology in the history of mankind, which was created by the government, is germane to a discussion about what government's role should be with regard to disruptive technologies?

[Bullneck 18987]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So you don't think that the most disruptive technology in the history of mankind, which was created by the government, is germane to a discussion about what government's role should be with regard to disruptive technologies?

[sidis 9754]

16 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I'm interested in the bigger picture discussion of whether government should be engaged in picking winners and losers with disruptive technologies.  This is (at least, I was hoping it would be) more of a philosophical question on government and free markets.

Your comment, which I added bold emphasis to, is, I believe, happening right now with the banking and crypto sectors.

okay, we've narrowed down what you really want to discuss...that one of your pet libertarian utopian enabling "disruptive technologies" cryptocurrency (like tax free gold bartering) is being purposefully stifled by established banks and the u.s. government.  what specific action are you referring to?

if anything, the crypto sector is not regulated enough as evidenced by the number of scams and unbelievably reckless behavior that has festered in the marketplace...$7.8 billion lost in 2022 alone.  ftx, etc...  and its failure in the marketplace is largely derived from its perception resulting from all the shenanigans.  imo, the shitty market participants are largely to blame, not institutional burying of it through rent seeking.  i can transact things in btc and can buy all of it i want in the marketplace if i want to.

[YChang 3431]

I'll readily admit, I have a novice's understanding of crypto. And at first it seems really cool all the good and possible things it can do as  described by its evangelists say 5 years ago. It seems currently though, it's evolved to basically speculative investment asset type that borders on a ponzi scheme... I think it's kinda understandable why governments around the world are stepping in and regulating this technology.

[troph 24563]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

Do you draw any distinction between government funded research ala NASA - where the fruits of research are public domain versus government subsidized research where private entities control (patent) the fruits?

If you believe government should be fostering disruptive technologies (to the detriment of existing industry), do you also believe that government should be stifling disruptive technologies (to the benefit of existing industry)?

Also, (@troph) who makes the value judgement on which disruptive tech is beneficial vs. boondoggle?

 

If the government is deciding where to spend government dollars then the legal framework is there - congress apporpriates, president signs the bill, agencies spend subject to the laws passed. Indirectly the people through a representative government.
 

 Schoolhouse Rock baby. 
 

Edited December 20, 2023 by troph

[Brisketexan 104628]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

okay, we've narrowed down what you really want to discuss...that one of your pet libertarian utopian enabling "disruptive technologies" cryptocurrency (like tax free gold bartering) is being purposefully stifled by established banks and the u.s. government.  what specific action are you referring to?

if anything, the crypto sector is not regulated enough as evidenced by the number of scams and unbelievably reckless behavior that has festered in the marketplace...$7.8 billion lost in 2022 alone.  ftx, etc...  and its failure in the marketplace is largely derived from its perception resulting from all the shenanigans.  imo, the shitty market participants are largely to blame, not institutional burying of it through rent seeking.  i can transact things in btc and can buy all of it i want in the marketplace if i want to.

This.  Let's clarify what this "disruptive technology" that the crypto bros are so in love with is really about.

We have these things that you can buy into, which will appreciate in value and make you money.  Sure, your investment could lose money, but trust me, you're gonna make money.  Now, the government regulates what I can say or do to induce you to buy those things....which we call "stocks" and more broadly, "securities."  We do so both specifically in statutes, and broadly in the vernacular to apply to investment vehicles.

But see, if there's these OTHER things that you can buy into, which will appreciate in value and make you money.  Sure, your investment could lose money, but trust me, you're gonna make money.....and we call those things "cryptocurrencies," well....it's a free-for-all, and any regulation or restriction on THOSE is "stifling disruptive technology," and "banksters protecting their monopoly."

Fuck that.  You shouldn't be able to rook people out of their retirement by selling them lies about how much money they are going to make on 1) stock in MegaCorp., 2) Beanie Babies, or 3) cryptocurrency.  Stocks and securities weren't "stifled" by laws requiring transparency.  If crypto is stifled by that, then guess what: that's a telltale sign that it's more of a scam than it is an actual thing.

Glad we cut to the chase and got to the "disruptive technology" that the cryptobro really wanted to talk about. And that's another thing -- if your money plan is all fucking buzzwords (disruptive, stack, interoperability, decentralization, etc.), it's a scam.  Want to invest in, or induce others to invest in, Beanie Babies and crypto?  Sure, whatever, people should be free to buy and sell pretty much whatever they want.  Just follow the rules on transparency, disclosure, not committing fraud, not using it as a money laundering vehicle, etc.  Just like everything else.

[troph 24563]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i genuinely cannot tell if your question is a conversation starter regarding the government's role in fostering things that aren't economically rational in a commercial sense in their early development but have potentially substantial positive externalities...or if you are just using this as a springboard to bitch about regulation.

as someone who is currently dealing with city bureaucracy just to i can finish some god damned fucking landscaping adjustments to my property, you are catching me in a particular anti-regulatory mood but if you are implying that letting the marketplace dictate the direction of major areas of critical society infrastructure without regulatory guardrails, you're acting like an insane person that just waves their hands when trains carrying toxic chemicals completely destroy entire towns in ohio or chemical plants in east houston explode or fedex and swa planes nearly collide on the runway at austin bergstrom because you didn't get directly affected.

if you are asking more of the former, like most everything in life, it is a balance.  is it possible to overreach, of course.  if there are governmental mechanisms of exclusion from certain private parties pursuing a potentially disruptive technology are weaponized because of economic rent seeking behavior from established market participants (or others for whatever motivation) leveraging its power through the political process, that is super bad.  but that doesn't mean that some upstart group of folks that are willing to deploy some experimental shit that is potentially dangerous to unsuspecting members of society (driving on i-35 next to a dipshit unwittingly beta testing his tesla's autopilot bullshit in traffic) should be able to operate with impunity or else that is also super bad.

Trees are people too.

[sidis 9754]

Just now, troph said:

Trees are people too.

I have over 60 of them and added more than thirty more of them but a little crushed gravel is apparently an issue. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Is there anything about crypto that's actually different than investing in other vehicles, like stocks, ETFs, funds, bonds, CDs, or even forex, other than (perhaps) the level of risk associated with volatility (which should be priced into potential gains)?

[Brisketexan 104628]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Is there anything about crypto that's actually different than investing in other vehicles, like stocks, ETFs, funds, bonds, CDs, or even forex, other than (perhaps) the level of risk associated with volatility (which should be priced into potential gains)?

Yes.  See, it's the blockchain, and decentralization, and banksters, and the lies of fiat money, and stuff.....so crypto should be free of all government regulation, oversight, laws, etc., unlike all that other stuff, which has to be purchased with fake fiat money. Crypto is the only thing that will save us.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Crypto/Bitcoin has zero purpose other than exchanging money for illegal good and services.  

The government should not regulate it, it should be outlawed so stupid people don't lose all their money on digital beanie babies. 

 

[Captainant 27467]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Crypto/Bitcoin has zero purpose other than exchanging money for illegal good and services.  

The government should not regulate it, it should be outlawed so stupid people don't lose all their money on digital beanie babies. 

Conversely, the government should also not be directly subsidizing crypto.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

It's clear that, with 8 billion people on the planet, the only way we'll survive is via disruptive technologies. Unfortunately, many of those technologies can be used by evil actors as well. Plus, one never knows what impacts one's disruptive technology will ultimately end up having. They could be both good and bad.

And then there's the Norman Borlaug conundrum.  The Aggies brag about how he was a Noble Prize winner (although he won it 14 years before starting to work at A&M) etc...  The Aggies claim he "saved" a billion lives. If that's true, those people have gone on to procreate and to create the 8 billion people that we have now. If the end result of overpopulation is the irrevocable despoiling of the one planet upon which all 8 billion survive, and if that results in the deaths of a billion people or more, what did Borlaug save?    

As a complete aside, Mark Zuckerberg is building a massive, very secret, technologically-advanced compound on his place in Kauai.  Workers have to sign NDAs etc...

https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-inside-hawaii-compound/


 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Crypto/Bitcoin has zero purpose other than exchanging money for illegal good and services.  

The government should not regulate it, it should be outlawed so stupid people don't lose all their money on digital beanie babies. 

 

I'll have you know that my NTF ---- a digitalized square of the suit that Donald Trump wore at his arraignment --- is expected to increase 400% in value over the next 15 years. Try getting that kind of return at one of your so-called "banks."   There's a reason they call them banksters.  

[bernorange 8348]

46 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So you don't think that the most disruptive technology in the history of mankind, which was created by the government, is germane to a discussion about what government's role should be with regard to disruptive technologies?

As I already mentioned, the internet and technologies (like Teflon et al) that were byproducts of NASA space exploration efforts are not examples of government purposely intervening to foster or stifle market disruptions.

34 minutes ago, sidis said:

okay, we've narrowed down what you really want to discuss..

There already is a CR crypto topic, and had that been what I wanted to discuss, I would have used it.

I started this thread because, while the topic was a big part of the impetus, I am interested in the bigger picture issue here.

22 minutes ago, troph said:

If the government is deciding where to spend government dollars then the legal framework is there - congress apporpriates, president signs the bill, agencies spend subject to the laws passed. Indirectly the people through a representative government.

On all 3 disruptive tech that I mentioned in the OP, there are factions within DC that champion and factions that dissent from government support and/or obstruction.  I understand that as a practical matter, this is the way it works right now.  (Political) might makes right.  Team A wins, policy (dis)favors accordingly.  Team B wins, policy (dis(favors) accordingly. 

When the Founding Father were engaged in writing the foundational structure for our government, they wrestled philosophical issues on imposing various limits on government power.  What I'm asking is... Do you think that government should be picking winners and losers - fostering or stifling technologies/industries according to whatever factions have the best lobbyists or campaign war chests?

[TwiceHorn 31284]

Does crypto really have any existence independent of blockchain?

Other than blockchain, it's just a security masquerading as currency.

[hayden_horn 11360]

on the one hand we have nasa and all is subsequent benefits 

on the other we have pharma and energy

gow do we weigh cost benefits of government subsidy? 

because right now capitalism blows and is starting to show the worst of its colors so i might be biased against the free market's invisible hand right now

[Brisketexan 104628]

Just now, bernorange said:

Do you think that government should be picking winners and losers - fostering or stifling technologies/industries according to whatever factions have the best lobbyists or campaign war chests?

No, they should be supporting or restricting/regulating technology for policy reasons.  However, the unfortunate truth is that most such policy reasons are advanced and presented to the government via parties with an interest one way or the other.

If the new "disruptive technology" is a device that can disintegrate human beings by the thousand, I'd hope that the policy reason of "maybe we shouldn't have tech that can exterminate thousands of people at once just floating around out there for anyone to use" would prevail.

Likewise, if the new "disruptive technology" is a device that can extract huge amounts of clean energy from the air for little cost, making oil, gas, and other energy sources functionally obsolete, I'd hope that the policy reason of "free clean energy will be a long-term good for humanity" would prevail.

I'm well aware that there would be lobbyists and interests working against both policy reasons.  That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be involved, or not involved.  The policy choice is one of involvement/non-involvement, and the nature and degree of same, in any given circumstance.  Government has a role.  Sometimes, it's to exercise firm control.  Other times, it's to take its hands completely off the wheel.  More often, it's somewhere in between.  It's a policy decision.  Which, sometimes, the government gets wrong.  Sometimes, it gets them right.  Human beings are some flawed motherfuckers.

[Blotto 23434]

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

There already is a CR crypto topic, and had that been what I wanted to discuss, I would have used it.

I started this thread because, while the topic was a big part of the impetus, I am interested in the bigger picture issue here.

So we have your word that you will abstain from discussing government regulation of crypto in this thread? 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Goddamn it guys, he’s trolling. This is literally what they ask Will Ferrel in Old School, just about biotechnology

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89450]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It's extraordinarily funny to me that OP didn't think to mention the internet.

That's because AOL invented it.

[TexArcher 37521]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That's because AOL invented it.

Pretty sure it's spelled AL.

[Brisketexan 104628]

18 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That's because AOL invented it.

Wrong, commie, it was Prodigy!

 

CSB: back when I was starting law school, I got a fancy new Packard Bell 386. Had a CD Rom drive, connected to the world via phone cord modem.  As I set it up, I saw I had a promotional CD Rom to set up a service with this outfit called "Prodigy."  I read the accompanying marketing materials.  And I DISTINCTLY remember - as in, I remember exactly where I was sitting, what the light was like, etc. - the moment I chucked the CD Rom in my my wastebasket and said out loud to myself "Internet?  Sounds like a scam."

I'm still not sure if I was wrong or right.

[Gatorubet 30117]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

So you don't think that the most disruptive technology in the history of mankind, which was created by the government, is germane to a discussion about what government's role should be with regard to disruptive technologies?

 

Germane? Fuck, they bombed Pearl Harbor!

[Biff Tannen 45499]

54 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Wrong, commie, it was Prodigy!

Dude, I loved prodigy as 10 year old. I can find sports scores on this screen?  Mind blown. 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Packard Bell with Prodigy was the first computer our family ever had. The San Diego Zoo CD was played every single day

[Celery Man 20886]

[G650 14108]

Where my Compuserve homies at

[956 Worldwide 34444]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Crypto/Bitcoin has zero purpose other than exchanging money for illegal good and services.  

The government should not regulate it, it should be outlawed so stupid people don't lose all their money on digital beanie babies. 

 

In Tashkent, at the summer peak when temperatures spiked at 110, Tashkent housewives watered their driveways. It kept the dust down and the water would visibly evaporate from the pavement and run into the blacktop.  The water came from a tributary of the Syr Darya (the Jaxartes for you classicists). At the time it struck me as a stupid and wasteful thing to do. But water was virtually free, a legacy of the old Soviet government that simply gave water away to cities and factories and farmers. 
 

And why not, the Syr Darya was there, it flowed from the Tian Shen and emptied into the vast Aral Sea and the water was free and cool and kept the dust down. Tamerlane could have told you that, or Alexander the Great had he made it that far. 
 

Then I traveled West to Karakalpakstan, where the desert reminded me of Midland and Odessa except every shrub was coated in choking, crusty, white dust.  The dust blew in, salty and poisonous, from what used to be a sea but is now just more shrubs and poisonous salty dust. And there is a giant empty factory there, that used to pack tins full of fish, and the soldiers of the Red Army ate the fish from those tins as they marched across Russia, across Ukraine, across Poland into Germany. There is a memorial to the fishermen that canned those fish. The gravestones in the cemetery in the seaside town that doesn’t exist are marked with anchors. 

Not far from the factory there is a fleet of hulking, rusted out ships coated in that poisonous white dust. They used to sail across the sea, for the fish, all the way to Kazakhstan where what is left of the sea is a slimy mud hole a man can usually walk across.  That is what is left of the sea that fed the Red Army. The water that fed the sea is diverted via leaky and crumbling canals to grow cotton. And some of it, to water driveways in Tashkent in July. 
 

I think about those ships when I remember that Texans in 2023 are watering machines to solve computer Sudoku they can then pretend is money. We’d be better off watering driveways. 

Edited December 21, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[jimmyjazz 45560]

First year of grad school at UT my lifelong friend and now apartment mate got an offer from some dorky undergrad to help sell hard drives and other early computer peripherals.  He declined.

That dorky undergrad?  Michael Dell.

Oops.

 

[Goredho 17349]

On 12/20/2023 at 6:09 AM, bernorange said:

This is not a red v blue question.  This is a philosophical question about the proper role of government.

There are some markets where we see the effects of technology evolving over time:

• Music industry - 8 track, cassette/LP, CD, MP3 - My understanding is that the internet and MP3 technology has disrupted the modern music industry model of labels-radio controlling everything.
• Video - From VCRs to  DVRs to streaming, Network tv to cable channels, the delivery and consumption of video media has changed a lot in recent years.

I'm sure if I spent more time noodling it, I could come up with more examples, but these are examples of tech that evolved over time.

Wikipedia describes disruptive technology as one that dramatically transforms (or revolutionizes) a certain industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

There are some examples of technology that are being developed right now that have the potential to disrupt existing, entrenched industries/markets:

• Clean energy - from power generation and storage to the auto industry, government is currently subsidizing (fostering) growth of green energy technologies
• Crypto - as a potential competitor for banking and financial services (TradFi), crypto (DeFi) is currently struggling with government efforts to stifle growth
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) - This one seems to have gotten out in front of government for the moment, but government is looking to put a yoke on it

Should government be intervening in markets and picking winners and losers?

 

 

I think government should safeguard the public against wanton capitalism and corporations that operate only with their profit motive as a north star.  As an example, take the Boeing 737 max debacle.  Deregulation and cuts led to Boeing pretty much solely responsible for its own regulatory compliance and inspections.  That regulatory vacuum plus human fallibility and greed led to multiple crashes and over 5,000 deaths.  A government that had not abdicated its responsibility to the public wouldn't have allowed that.

So let me ask you this:  If the government (specifically the FAA) would have made Boeing adhere to appropriate safety standards, that would have resulted in the 737 rollout being delayed until it was safe, and that would have resulted in Boeing and its shareholders suffering financial harm.   Would that act constitute the government influencing who wins or loses within the aviation industry?  Or would it constitute the government serving the public's best interests?

[bernorange 8348]

@Goredho - your post is non-responsive to the topic I was attempting to discuss here.  As I have mentioned/clarified, the issue is not regulation per se (unless said regulation is being used as a tool/weapon to stifle/foster novel/disruptive technologies).  I'm talking about the Eye of Sauron deciding who wins and who loses.

[Captainant 27467]

6 minutes ago, bernorange said:

As I have mentioned/clarified, the issue is not regulation per se (unless said regulation is being used as a tool/weapon to stifle/foster novel/disruptive technologies). 

Yeah unfortunately that's not where the dialogue is right now. Go talk to some of our business owners on the board - all of them frame regulation as ALWAYS stifling innovation and harming consumers. 

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I'm talking about the Eye of Sauron deciding who wins and who loses.

This is what any discussion of regulation turns into, because tHe MaRkEt WiLl PuNiSh BaD bUsInEsS and the government should stay out of it

[wildcat09 29260]

Characterizing any government regulation as the Eye of Sauron doesn’t seem conducive to constructive discussion.