Was looking for Coburn's "Back in Black," but can't find it--even on his website. He lists $9T in cuts. Now, THAT is serious!

I saw him a few weeks ago, talking about how the Federal government has buildings it doesn't use and so many assets for which there is no use. The government needs to put a little "ebay" action in the budget.

The younger two of your examples would be nothing without the internet, Ray Jay. And the elder two did not innovate as much as they built on the work of others.
It took public, private and academic efforts and investment to get where we are. I don't think any of those three sectors can claim primacy. But what do I know? I only work in the IT industry for private sector companies.

I'm sure you know more about computers than I do.

I agree that there was private sector, public sector, and non-profit sector involvement in the initial development of the internet.

I also think it is important to acknowledge that the phenomenal growth since the internet's development has been primarily the result of capitalism and the private sector. Are you disputing that?

I'm not disputing the growth. But in order to be in a position to allow the growth, a lot happened first.

ray
It is true that public corporations overly focus on their quarterly numbers. However, governments are known to continue with the same insanity year after year.

Sure. But thats not part of a well run government. There are also bankruptcies in the private sector year after year. So human beings create failure in any structure or organization. Now, Steve will argue that limited government is always better government. And yet the best economies in the world right now are in countries not known for "limiting their government".
In Europe Germany, Denmakr and Sweden are doing quite well. And I've $1.06 CDN dollars and medicare.
And, where the neomercantilist governments of the Far east have involved themselves in developing their high tech industries they now wipe the floor with their American competition. If there is any American competition still around. In many areas there is none. Try and buy a display made in the US.
And as for ridiculous. "Allow growth" is the old end regulation, end competitive barries mantra. There can always be improvements but when one buys into trope and beleives that all regulation and government involvement somehow is counter productive you end up with an ideological belief that belies evidence. And American experience.
IBM and Microsoft are the product of the investment in control systems for ICBMs. IBM was "chosen" by the Pentagon to provide computer systems and eventually IBM chose Microsoft to deliver operating systems. And from there grew what is generally known as Silicon Valley. The industry as much as the location. (Your point about location was really anal by the way.)
If government involvement and even investment in industrial strategy was such a proven loser how is it that South Korea and Singapore have become economic powerhouses? How is it that the largest single source for American oil imports was developed by government involvement and investment?
Look Ray, I'm not championing a managed economy. But I can't beleive that you an witness the hollowing out of the American manufacturing sector over 3 decades because your corporations were left to pursue their short term goals, and somehow not understand that long term national interests require active involvement.
Perhaps today the American form of governance is too complex or dysfuntional by dint of the enduring two party confrontation... , but at one time your national govenrment was responsible for many initiatives that spawned industries that grew into huge industry with many competitors. Computers were but one example... Radio broadcasting is another...

Ricky, his point about location was a little petty, but the problem is that by leaving such glaring errors in your posts, you make it easier for people to attack them. Don't blame others for finding your mistakes.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm sure you know more about computers than I do.

I agree that there was private sector, public sector, and non-profit sector involvement in the initial development of the internet.

I also think it is important to acknowledge that the phenomenal growth since the internet's development has been primarily the result of capitalism and the private sector. Are you disputing that?

Let's not forget the dot.com bubble though. After all the Feds strategy to get the economy going again after that was an important factor in the crash of 2008. And the bubble was capitalism too, just at it's dumbest.

FM:

Let's not forget the dot.com bubble though. After all the Feds strategy to get the economy going again after that was an important factor in the crash of 2008. And the bubble was capitalism too, just at it's dumbest.

I'm not sure which side of the debate you intend to support, but my view is that you support the view that I am espousing which is that there are unintended consequences to everything that government does. Policies that subsidized home ownership in the US for people who could not afford it was a huge cause (some say primary cause) of the 2008 crisis.

Ricky:

There are also bankruptcies in the private sector year after year. So human beings create failure in any structure or organization.

I also think this is an argument for my position. Bankruptcies are a part of life in capitalism and they suck. But they do enable us to weed out activities that are not economical. It's not a perfect mechanism (I'm sure you'll point to the mistakes), but it is the best mechanism we have. Governments generally don't go bankrupt and so bad policies continue even when they don't make economic sense. This happens all over the world, including, and maybe especially, in managed economies such as Greece and China. Greece is having its day of reckoning now, and China may have it later. Because of our size and historical position the US has not had to deal with its structural imbalances. Governments only deal with problems when they absolutely have to. I applaud the Tea Party people for forcing the issue now.

Ricky:

And yet the best economies in the world right now are in countries not known for "limiting their government".
In Europe Germany, Denmakr and Sweden are doing quite well.

How about Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Japan? Smack! Sweden?

Ricky:

(Your point about location was really anal by the way.)

I disagree. Your comment showed that you have no depth in your knowledge. You demonstrate an inability to think critically and carefully, time and time again. Do us all a favor, and self review.

Ricky:

Look Ray, I'm not championing a managed economy.

You're not?

What's the market cap of Google and Apple. How many people do they employ?

Ricky, his point about location was a little petty, but the problem is that by leaving such glaring errors in your posts, you make it easier for people to attack them. Don't blame others for finding your mistakes

Well I'd have to be wrong in the way I used the term and according to this source, I'm not.
Maybe you want to check the usage of the term before you decide to lecture anyyone on accuracy.

The term originally referred to the region's large number of silicon chip innovators and manufacturers, but eventually came to refer to all the high-tech businesses in the area; it is now generally used as a metonym for the American high-tech sector.

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

Besides; without the foudnation of IBM ior Microsoft its debatable that a high tech industry would have grown up. Exactly in Silicon Valley or anywhere...
My usage of the term was accurate. Ray's point was pointless.

yes, of course, without the government's support of IBM we'd all be stuck with 40 year old technology. Progress would have stopped. Yup.

Ray Jay wrote:yes, of course, without the government's support of IBM we'd all be stuck with 40 year old technology. Progress would have stopped. Yup.

Capitalist pig! Running dog lackey of the bourgeoisie!

Geo,

I just read this article that seems to contradict everything you say about the rich paying less then middle class. Specifically, he says that Warren Buffet is lying. From the article.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid an effective 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% and the top 1% paid 29.5%. And what about the highest earners? Americans with annual incomes above $2 million paid an average 32% of their income in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available).

I am curious as to your take on it.

Yeah, I saw this the other day. Just two important points:

1. The super rich (e.g. Buffet) do pay less in taxes.
2. The middle class may have higher marginal rates because of social security, but this article deals with tax burden (i.e. average tax rate) instead of marginal rates.

I think the research is very important as it seems to contradict (or maybe neutralize) a major Democratic argument.

Ray Jay wrote:1. The super rich (e.g. Buffet) do pay less in taxes.

Well, according to the article, only the top 400 reported income actually fall into the category Buffet refers to and then the article makes what seems to be a convincing argument that Buffet isn't counting all the taxes he should be count.

Ray Jay wrote:2. The middle class may have higher marginal rates because of social security, but this article deals with tax burden (i.e. average tax rate) instead of marginal rates.

Again, according to the article, and the portions I quoted from, no they don't. When you include all federal taxes, i.e. social security, Medicare, etc, the top 1% paid 29.5% in taxes while the median income paid 14.3%. Further the article states that for incomes over $2M the most recent year's stats (2005) shows they paid 32% when all Federal taxes are included.

Unless I am missing something this seems to directly contradict the point Geo has been making.