Economics Questions

Re: Major inventions

John James — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:57:26 GMT

The Bomb19:

I don't understand your point. There was demand from the military for this technology, and in the long run it has benefited everyone. How could there have been public demand for a product not yet invented, and when 99.999% of the population had yet to hear of such a device?

You're trying to approach this from a moral point of view, probably because you realise that if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly. So once again, in the absence of government, why would the private sector have developed satellites and invested so heavily in computers during WW2 and the Cold war?

Under what circumstances would you have seen the invention of the internet occurring without CERN? How many lost decades would we have had before the internet was invented? In fact, why did the private sector not invent such a communication earlier?

I assume you're talking to me. (If you'd like to see how to quote, click here. It will help you be able to cleanly address specific statements).

And to address your assumption, no, I most certainly have no problem debunking your claim from a utilitarian perspective either. I just feel the moral one is more important. (Would you torture a baby if it meant you could save the lives of 10 people? From a utilitarian perspective, your answer should be yes.)

First of all, I'm still waiting to see any of this evidence that proves "if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly." You have made claims like this many times now and have offered absolutely zero emprical support for them. And second, if you would at least attempt to answer a couple of my questions you wouldn't have to ask me yours. But let's spell out the premises you're operating under:

1) Satellites and computers are a good thing.

2) The overall total investment in satellites and computers was worth the result we've gotten.

3) There is no possible way that a company in the 1940s or 50s could make any money from investments in computing technology until the 1980s or 90s.

4) Because of #3, those investments wouldn't have taken place.

5) Therefore, it is a good thing that war took place, because it allowed a small group of elites the opportunity to justify forcibly taking ever more resources from the rest of the population to finance the development of technology to more efficiently wage war.

6) And out of war, technology was developed that has been adapted for purposes other than killing people, and that makes us better off.

There are many problems with this. As mentioned above, first and foremost, you have offered absolutely no support for the claim that all of this stuff wouldn't exist if not for government. Second, you have offered no evidence to even suggest a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years. (Frankly it sounds like you just pulled that out of the air.) Third, aside from assuming war is the only reason these things exist, you seem to be automatically assuming their existence was worth the price. For someone who wishes to analyze from a utlitarian perspective, I would love to not only hear the data you are using to run this cost-benefit analysis, but I would also be very interested to hear by what metric you're determining your result. So please, share exactly how you have calculated the utility of satellites and technology versus the utility of the lives lost, the property destroyed, and the productive capacity lost due do those things. Not to mention the personal, emotional impact.

Next, we have to recognize the overall implication you are making...namely that a small political elite knows better about what the people want and need, than the people do themselves. Because of course that is the overall argument you're making. You're essentially saying the market is wrong...the people don't know any better. They don't realize that satellites and computers would be good for them, because if they did, it would be profitable to invest in them. So because these ignorant rubes don't know what's good for them it's a good thing the elites were there to enroll agents to take their money by force so that it can be put to a proper use...as, if people were allow to spend their own money, it would be squandered on something less useful. (And of course "useful" implies "as determined by the elites").

So basically your argument is that a small group of people knows more about what everyone needs than everyone does themselves. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, I'm wondering how exactly this small group is able to make that calculation.

And finally, since you made your assumption about me, I'll make one of my own: "You keep dodging questions and asking new ones, and keep trying to focus on a utilitarian point of view, probably because you realize you have no response to the moral question, and you think the utilitarian argument is in your favor." So I respectfully ask you, to please address the questions I've asked you. I have been courteous enough to answer yours.

1) Why does the will of the elite few take precidence over the will of everyone else? Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they clearly (i.e. demonstrably) don't want?

2) Where is your proof that these things would not have been invented?

3) Where is your support for your claim that a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years?

4) What data did you use to run your cost-benefit analysis of satellites and computing technology vs. the effects of war?

5) What metric did you use to make that calculation?

6) What makes you think a small group of people can know more about what an entire population wants and needs, than the population does itself?

Re: Major inventions

Jack Roberts — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:52:07 GMT

You are correct that the only aspect of R&D that we realy see from the government, comes from its $100 billion's military spending. But the American military is not responsible for many inventions.

http://www.lowvarates.com/va-loan-blog/tag/top-10-military-inventions/

What is an invention that no one uses? It is only when a private organization takes the jet engine and makes it available that it becomes useful. But people might say the military invented these products but that is not entirely correct.

1) Scientists around the world were already working on the invention of atomic energy before the military took an interest in its military application and due to the use military application the government ended up putting tight restrictions on its development. So it definitely was not a good thing that America has endless tax money to throw at the development of nuclear weapons.

2) http://www.vat19.com/brain-candy/accidental-inventions-ether-anesthesia.cfm

3) http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050298.htm / http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm

4) the internet was invented by the RAND corporation and the first implementations of the network were at universities, not military bases. The military was very interested in the idea for its own purposes. But the involvement was not key to the invention.

5) Rand corporation (which is apparently a non-profit R&D arm of the us government dating back 60 years) was involved in the development of the first satellite.

6) http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm (technically not invented by the military)

7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber (technically not invented by the military)

In 1935 Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design in Germany, apparently unaware of Whittle's work.[7] His first device was strictly experimental and could only run under external power, but he was able to demonstrate the basic concept. Ohain was then introduced to Ernst Heinkel, one of the larger aircraft industrialists of the day, who immediately saw the promise of the design. Heinkel had recently purchased the Hirth engine company, and Ohain and his master machinist Max Hahn were set up there as a new division of the Hirth company. They had their first HeS 1 centrifugal engine running by September 1937. Unlike Whittle's design, Ohain used hydrogen as fuel, supplied under external pressure. Their subsequent designs culminated in the gasoline-fuelled HeS 3 of 1,100 lbf (5 kN), which was fitted to Heinkel's simple and compact He 178 airframe and flown by Erich Warsitz in the early morning of August 27, 1939, from Rostock-Marienehe aerodrome, an impressively short time for development. The He 178 was the world's first jet plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

9) After being rejected by the government "HOLLAND found sponsorship with the Fenians, a group of Irish revolutionaries, looking for a way to harass the British Navy. He built a small prototype submarine, "Holland No. 1" to test out his theories – including the use of a gasoline engine. The trial was successful enough to encourage building a larger, more warlike, boat." http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAtwo.htm

10) Pepto-Bismol was invented in 1901 by a doctor in New York. It was originally sold as a remedy for infant diarrhea by Norwich Pharmacal Company under the name Bismosal: Mixture Cholera Infantum, changing to Pepto-Bismol in 1919, and transferring to Procter and Gamble with their 1982 acquisition of Norwich Eaton Pharmaceuticals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepto-Bismol

The rand corporation does in fact lay claim to the invention of the computer and the internet and satellites. But as other people have said if there was a market for those inventions then they would have been produced. Can you point out at any specific inventions that you think would never have been invented if the government was not spending its tax money through corporations like RAND? I am against unnecessary wars and massive government military spending. So even if out of the $100 billions of military spending, we do end up with some useful inventions, I still would not say that the world is better off because of that or that the rubber or GPS on my phone is worth all the destruction and wasteful spending that is the military.

Re: Major inventions

s0beit — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:17:22 GMT

No, they probably wouldn't have invested in them during the Cold War. They would have invested when it wasn't a major money sink and when it would actually benefit mankind, instead of being used to spy on Russians.

Also the internet wasn't a complex invention, LAN already existed and communication between computers was already happening on a fairly large scale before the arpanet was invented. I have no question government can do things "big", they can waste a lot of money on things before they're economically possible for the private sector.

That doesn't mean the internet never would have been invented nor anything else. Read my flying car analogy. Of course the government can sink gigantic amounts of money into research while others can't, most especially because it won't mean any future profits. No profits mean nobody will buy it which in effect means it's useless for the general public and only stands to serve the government at that particular time.

The time between the arpanet and the internet was the time required for it to become economically possible to provide such a service.

Also, I'm a computer programmer. I know how computers work. The internet wasn't some unthoughtof thing that was unable to be accomplished, it was too expensive to develop at that time and the invention of arpanet didn't change that.

Likewise space travel isn't something nobody is thinking of right now, they know they can do it - eventually. The government has the luxury of completely wasting money that private entities do not have. Space travel would have happened in any scenario - government involvement or not.

Re: Major inventions

Praetyre — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:15:20 GMT

Firstly: This seems predominantly a question for anarchists, given that minarchists do not oppose the existence of a military and thus would have no quarrel with the benefits that research in that field brings.

Secondly: In response to your point regarding demand for nonexistant goods, why should government officials have any greater knowledge in anticipating public demand than the public itself, especially given the impossibly of true interpersonal cardinal-utility comparison? And how do you explain the private invention, development and distribution of the airplane and automobile? Were all such inventions copied from golden alien apples?

Re: Major inventions

The Bomb19 — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:54:40 GMT

I don't understand your point. There was demand from the military for this technology, and in the long run it has benefited everyone. How could there have been public demand for a product not yet invented, and when 99.999% of the population had yet to hear of such a device?

You're trying to approach this from a moral point of view, probably because you realise that if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly. So once again, in the absence of government, why would the private sector have developed satellites and invested so heavily in computers during WW2 and the Cold war?

Under what circumstances would you have seen the invention of the internet occurring without CERN? How many lost decades would we have had before the internet was invented? In fact, why did the private sector not invent such a communication earlier?

Re: Major inventions

Charles Anthony — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 23:33:57 GMT

Austrian economics has nothing to do with good or bad.

Regardless,

The Bomb19:
I mean, how long would it have taken to put a satellite in orbit around the earth if there wasn't a space race? It may have been decades later. Are you now going to argue that government is always bad, when these examples clearly prove it isn't?

Sateliites orbtting around the earth are a bad thing, in my opinion.

Some people think they are good. Some people think they are bad. Who wins?

Re: Major inventions

DanielMuff — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:43:53 GMT

The Bomb19:
But the initial costs of the space race would not have been a good business adventure for the private sector. Remember, the private sector have built upon decades of work by governments that would have been in no way profitable (where was the money to be made in launching sputnik or laika? into space).

Without WW2 and the Cold War, computer and other technologies would have been set back decades. Without that big waste of taxpayer money at CERN we wouldn't have had the internet. The biggest demand for technological demand is the military and science. So, tell me, with no Cold War, with no funding of the space race or supercolliders, how would the market have done things more efficiently? Fact is it wouldnt.

I think you missed this by John James:

So you're basically saying "it's a good thing a small group of elites used the threat of force to take money from everyone to finance this project that the people didn't want, because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten done."

Emphasis added.

Re: Major inventions

John James — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:43:39 GMT

The Bomb19:

But the initial costs of the space race would not have been a good business adventure for the private sector. Remember, the private sector have built upon decades of work by governments that would have been in no way profitable (where was the money to be made in launching sputnik or laika? into space).

Without WW2 and the Cold War, computer and other technologies would have been set back decades. Without that big waste of taxpayer money at CERN we wouldn't have had the internet. The biggest demand for technological demand is the military and science. So, tell me, with no Cold War, with no funding of the space race or supercolliders, how would the market have done things more efficiently? Fact is it wouldnt.

I'm going to restate the most important part of what I said, because evidently you missed it. (Even though someone else quoted for you as well)...

You're basically saying "it's a good thing a small group of elites used the threat of force to take money from everyone to finance this project that the people didn't want, because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten done."

My question to you is, why does the will of the elite few take precidence over the will of everyone else? Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they clearly (i.e. demonstrably) don't want? I would be interested to hear your moral justification for this.

Re: Major inventions

ADRIAN C — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:28:04 GMT

Sure it would of. After all in a free market you cant pollute other peoples air, so one of the best sollutions to this problem is helium 3 as an energy source. There is thought to be so much of it in the moon, so it would have been a great investment oppurtunity.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056

Re: Major inventions

s0beit — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:19:01 GMT

I think you mean good business 'venture', and you're wrong. They are good business ventures, obviously, you follow it by saying private companies make money off of those innovations now. The question is, were they good business ventures at the time? No, they weren't.

They removing money from the private sector that would have been used otherwise, but you're assuming that those technologies would never have been made.

Other people like to argue that technology works on a multiplier, and that innovations made by the government have sped up the growth of technology today and will in the future, exponentially. This is a better argument than the ones you've made.

I'd like to hear some responses to that.

Personally, I don't see it happening. To me, it seems, that with better technology and a cheaper cost the work NASA has done in 40 years could have easily been done in half or even a quarter of the time. I'm having this argument right now actually, and I'd like to see opinions on that.

Re: Major inventions

Nielsio — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:09:02 GMT

War is good for the economy?

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Major inventions

The Bomb19 — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:01:00 GMT

But the initial costs of the space race would not have been a good business adventure for the private sector. Remember, the private sector have built upon decades of work by governments that would have been in no way profitable (where was the money to be made in launching sputnik or laika? into space).

Without WW2 and the Cold War, computer and other technologies would have been set back decades. Without that big waste of taxpayer money at CERN we wouldn't have had the internet. The biggest demand for technological demand is the military and science. So, tell me, with no Cold War, with no funding of the space race or supercolliders, how would the market have done things more efficiently? Fact is it wouldnt.

Re: Major inventions

s0beit — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:44:41 GMT

The value of sending a man to the moon is defined by those who desire to go to the moon and are willing to pay for it. It would be just because they really want to go, or because its location is close to earth and they see some sort of oppurtunity.

The point is, nobody has placed a value on that besides the government as a form of dick waving to the Soviets, as technology increases and it becomes economically pheasible to send people to space for the purposes they desire, that's when space travel will be developed.

The reason why nobody else can go to the moon is because the technology does exist, but it's not economically pheasible. Let's say, somebody can build a flying car. This flying car will cost 20 billion dollars to make right now, it will cost 20 thousand dollars in 2040. Should we make a flying car right now? Of course not. That's exactly what the government has done, they made a rediculously overpriced flying car, and wasted a lot of money doing it.

Re: Major inventions

DanielMuff — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:20:34 GMT

So you're basically saying "it's a good thing a small group of elites used the threat of force to take money from everyone to finance this project that the people didn't want, because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten done."

This.

Re: Major inventions

Jack Roberts — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:40:20 GMT

The government is not responsible for the desktop computer. If you read up on the history of computers you will see that it was private organizations that have developed the computer and universities. The military used the computer technology and definitely contributed substantially to the development of computers. Military applications were the first the designated uses of computer technology. As they became more advanced and had more uses private organizations invested in their development. But to go as far as saying, if it was not for the government money (from taxation) being spent on development then they would never have been developed is just wrong. I would hope though at least, that the government does develop, as they take Trillions of money from the population and people should demand value for money. Instead the R&D of the government is very limited in comparison to the revenues of the government.

As for NASA and their contribution, $800 billion (not inflation adjusted) was the total budget since NASA inception. I would be interested in hearing exactly what me and you the consumer has benefited from that money. As often I get the appearance that I can thank NASA for my microwave, wd40, wireless internet etc. But I think they spent all the money on rockets.