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

[MonkeyDoughnut 10145]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:40 AM, 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. 

 

You're making a really large assumption that the Government didn't create Crypto/Bitcoin....

[jimmyjazz 45560]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

No shit.  That line stood out and pretty much confirms the intention of this thread.

[Goredho 17349]

25 minutes ago, bernorange said:

@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.

@bernorange I'm sorry your supposition that government acts as the Eye of Sauron at the frontiers of business is ridiculous and failed to garner the engagement here that you desired.  Maybe your next kooky fringe post will garner the discussion you seek.  Good luck.

[bernorange 8348]

40 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

Do you agree that regulation can be assessed on a spectrum from necessary to punative?  To say that no regulation whatsoever is punative (as your comment above purports) is dumb IMO.  But again, that is not what I meant with my Eye of Sauron comment.  Government (or factions within the government more properly) make decisions on what disruptive tech they want to stifle or foster.  The tools they use to achieve those goals can include regulation, but that is not the only tool.  I don't really care about the specific tool(s).  I care about what authority we the people cede to government to pick winners and losers.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by bernorange

[956 Worldwide 34444]

Sauron was extremely disruptive— mass production, attempting to harness the immense power of the ring. Bunch of gatekeeping wizards and Luddite agrarians fucked it all up standing in the way of progress. 

[wildcat09 29260]

13 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Do you agree that regulation can be assessed on a spectrum from necessary to punative?  To say that no regulation whatsoever is punative (as your comment above purports) is dumb IMO.  But again, that is not what I meant with my Eye of Sauron comment.  Government (or factions within the government more properly) make decisions on what disruptive tech they want to stifle or foster.  The tools they use to achieve those goals can include regulation, but that is not the only tool.  I don't really care about the specific tool(s).  I care about what authority we the people cede to government to pick winners and losers.

 

No, it pretty clearly doesn't do that.

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Government (or factions within the government more properly) make decisions on what disruptive tech they want to stifle or foster.  The tools they use to achieve those goals can include regulation, but that is not the only tool.  I don't really care about the specific tool(s).  I care about what authority we the people cede to government to pick winners and losers.

And I already told you, we cede that authority based on policy goals and positions as established in our constitution, statutes, and regulations promulgated pursuant to same.  For example, based on the widely agreed good policy of "murder is bad," the government would "stifle" the development of an energy source that required burning humans alive, no matter how efficient or cost-effective the energy source was.  That's 100% stifling, but also 100% motivated by a set policy of "yeah, murder is bad."

If you ask the separate question of "well, do those policies ever get set, modified, or twisted based on the influence of players with an interest in the subject matter?", that's a different question, and the answer is of course "YES."  It's a human system.  Even if it performed at the most effective level seen in human history, it would still be tainted by the actions of powerful people asserting their self interest.

In other words, your question is a stupid question.  "Disruptive technology" is just another thing.  Just like "established technology," or "rules of commerce."  Societies set policies.  Things like "stuff shouldn't kill people," and "stealing is not a valid commercial activity," and "lying to people to get them to invest in something is bad."  They then apply those policies to.....everything.  Yes, including "disruptive technology."  That's it.  There's detail and nuance (e.g., sometimes, it takes some thinking to overlay existing policies onto new tech, but we do so all the time -- e.g., "free speech" logic and rules that applied to broadsides and newspapers are applied to publishing on the internet), but that's it.  We apply policies and priorities that society established by agreed-upon methods.

[G650 14108]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

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

Lmaoooooooo

[Nivek 16861]

Disruptive technology is such a douche thing to say.

[TreatyOak 16150]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:13 AM, YChang said:

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.

Someone actually created a crypto called “Ponzi Coin.” It was able to attract investors who funded it fairly well. Big surprise, it crashed like all the others. 

[TreatyOak 16150]

Other countries have created legislation to try to control how people can invest in crypto. Some politicians here pushed for crypto regulation, only because they received huge contributions from people like FTX’s Sam Bankman Fried. He was able to prosecuted not because he sold an unregulated token, but because he misled and misused people’s money. I believe we should not regulate crypto as it would lend an air of credibility to it that it doesn’t deserve. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

I've been kind of pondering this.  I think the "pick winners and losers" thing is way overblown and a product of hindsight bias.

The government occasionally "makes investments" in technologies that appear to serve a valid purpose that aligns with some perceived social good.  Like all investments and all "speculation" about the success or value of a particular technology, it's a very hit/miss proposition.   In hindsight, it seems like picking winners (those who receive the investments) and losers (those who don't).

The only example I can think of is the Solyndra debacle under the Obama administration.  In truth, Solyndra got loans guaranteed by US DOE after applying through a new technology assistance program.  They lied in their application.  Shenanigans and losses followed.

So, to me, it's not really an issue of picking winners and losers, it's more like to what extent and under what conditions should the government subsidize technology?

There is no way to make that foolproof, in the private or public sectors.  The question then becomes how smart is the government being about doling out subsidies.  And that question arises every time the government doles out subsidies, to anyone, for any purpose.

I suppose that you could argue that the government ought to get out of the subsidy business altogether.