Every Friday, I present a topic or question for our merry band of thinkers, leaders, and pirates to discuss in an open thread. Here is this week’s conversation starter:
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers are calling for $100 billion in government spending over five years for basic and advanced technology research and science in an effort to address rising competitive pressure from China. The “Endless Frontiers Act”would also authorize another $10 billion to designate at least 10 regional technology hubs and create a supply chain crisis response program.
Question: Do you support passing the Endless Frontiers Act (or a similar bill)? Why or why not?
Honest Question: Why is government investment in basic R&D often viewed as synonymous with "waste" or "trying to out-Chinese the Chinese?" Government R&D investment literally laid the seedbed for our modern tech industry. We would not have Silicon Valley (and its economic benefits) apart from GOV funding in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
It's one thing to oppose a centrally-managed economy (as I do). But isn't it something else entirely to believe that the government can and should invest public dollars to foster tech and capabilities that will be essential for the common defense and public good?
Actually, those years of government funding instigated a part of the problem we currently have with the cost of post-secondary education. They created a competitive system (I mean beyond sports of course), top universities vying for all the best and brightest; students, profs, equipment, etc.. The schools got used to this and when funding slowed down. In the 80's, the culture was already established. Having the biggest and best was required to attract the brightest and most brilliant, to ensure continued notoriety and private funding (or endowments). No one wanted a pay cut after that and students demanded the best or they'd go elsewhere. Now, basic admin and faculty costs are through the roof and students have to pay for it. For half of them, it's the name on the diploma, which actually no longer guarantees quality education.
good point - I'm thinking ARPANET? I didn't live through its inception (but I certainly rode the wave up), so I speak not from first hand experience, but it seems to me that the federal government simply got lucky on that one (even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), not unlike most innovations (many fail, some succeed). But putting government in the business of innovation as an objective seems destined to fail.
Well, first ARPANET (i.e., the internet) is a bit more than getting "lucky." It literally changed the course of human history. But even this is too narrow. Sonar, air traffic control, man-portable radios, low-light photography, space exploration, nuclear medicine, digital cameras, and a host of other innovations have their origins in government R&D/funding.
Wow - didn't know about (or didn't think about) those products and their origins. It begs your original question - is government uniquely required to develop these things? vs. private industry? Also, Scott brings up a good point - government was a different animal back then, and your question (what's the answer?)... well, my other post...
Back in the 40-80s, government was smaller, marginally more efficient, and more focused on proper research... Today government has grown to the point where they are well beyond their constitutional duties not to mention the layers, lobbying, corruption, and back room deals that seem more prevalent in today's government... And again, too much focus on the money and who is going to benefit from that, rather than what the actual accomplishments are... Too many officials have their pet projects...
Won't deny much of what you say; but, what's the answer? Simply give up on basic R&D and hope for the best? There are basic areas of research that will not support an economic justification for further exploration, and yet, we'll never realize their promise unless that basic research occurs. And our adversaries are certainly pursuing these discoveries.
Also, I totally agree that we need to remove barriers to private investment and business -- 100%! But I'm not willing to cede technological leadership to our challengers while waiting for "good government" to finally emerge. Historically speaking, it's always been this way ... the ideal of small government spending (and it is my ideal) is largely a figment -- not a historical reality.
And what is the funding model for our adversaries pursuits? I realize money doesn't grow on trees although one might think so based on the size of recent bills... At one point, Universities played a big role in some of this research, and yes that was funded by government through DARPA projects... I'm not sure what that balance is and/or how Business and Universities might get that focus back to maintain and advanced our technological edge... Perhaps simply increasing the transparency of how funding dollars are spent, and ensuring tangible deliverables, can help us foster more trust in how these efforts are run...
At first glance, that's a lot of money! I would say allocate about one quarter of that to get started and along the way, our progress will show when or if we need to continue, and if there is benefit to this endeavor. If we take it all at once, we will not be as expedient or as efficient as we should be simply because "there's plenty more where that came from". That's just how we are when we (think we) have unlimited resources.
POTENTIALLY- an excellent idea - though I have a knee-jerk suspicion of anything Sen Schumer advocates. There is little doubt to me that a private industry program supported by government has been the key to our tech leadership in the past. The potential problem today is “globalization” as embraced by US industry. This seems to materialize in the form of manufacturing and supply chains that are out of US control and easily threatened by global politics- mostly to our detriment.
A similar bill makes sense and is likely to pass, given the challenges from China. But as currently configured, it does not properly rationalize the whole of the federal government's research enterprise.
There are many components to federal research funding, including several within DoD, DOE, and NSF, with NSF perhaps the most "blue sky" of the bunch. To target NSF alone for a new technology research directorate, as though technology research funding were somehow new to the federal government, seems almost to minimize that of the other agencies and simultaneously raise the question of whether the federal commitment to fundamental science research is weakening. Without very careful crafting of the new legislation, questions will certainly arise within the other agencies of how their roles should change. The most cited areas for new funding, of quantum information and computing, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, are already being pursued at each of those funders.
Although I support significantly increasing federal support for technology research, it seems almost as though the proposed legislation is tailored to allowing claims of something brand new, rather than a careful coordination and expansion of current efforts.
Too much of government spending has become paybacks and lubrication for their buddies who rarely have the best interests of the country nor the expertise to properly pick and chose the best companies to advance research in the proper areas... IMHO, they would be better off perhaps identifying and suggesting areas for research without (or with very little) monetary incentives so that the decisions are driven by the ideas and needs not by money...
A couple observations. One is that we do see quite fundamental work being funded in the private sector - Google's quantum campus in Santa Barbara aims to "develop" something, sure, but it's on a very long horizon and attacking pretty fundamental issues. They are essentially racing the PRC state.
Another is what becomes of the information. Private actors have an incentive to conceal what they're developing, while publicly funded research tends to be disclosed broadly. Maybe we need to think about IP rights - how they work at a more basic level, in a world where teaching the PRC how to develop increasingly powerful general-purpose technologies (this distinction between military and civilian tech is, at this point, often silly). Do we want to give private sector U.S. companies the ability to develop and protect tech without disclosing it through the patent system if they follow certain rules (perhaps most critically, though perhaps also doubtfully, limiting who can work on the development)?
Don't know much about it to make a solid call. I will say I see the need to turn inward and invest in America. If that "America first", than so be it. We should have certain industries completely with our borders. We know what future threats exist for at least 20 yes out so get'r done. We need to be prepared for the new axis and not from an arrogant, "whatever we say goes" type of perspective but more a "don't f** with me" attitude.
- SELECT funding of particular innovations by the federal government MIGHT be warranted - each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for applicability to fulfilling the greater good AND for the ability of existing agencies or private entities to adequately develop.
- Our current federal government is far too political and wasteful to be entrusted to YET ANOTHER blanket issuance of authority and funding to execute it
In PRACTICE, this Act is not selective, it is overarching with very little accountability, coupled with the likelihood of permanency AND the ability to morph into whatever the political entities want it to be (Green New Deal, anyone?).
In did my best to read the Act - at 160 pages, the volume alone is intimidating, albeit small compared to many, and reading any of these sorts of things requires intense concentration. Some thoughts:
- this Act reads like money looking for a purpose, as opposed to an objective and plan looking for funding (although that's arguable)
- it incorporates things that are irrelevant and smack of the usual politics (i.e., requiring a Chief Diversity Officer, while not mandating much else in organizational structure)
- At least 70% of the funding is designated to Higher Education, an institution which I have zero confidence in right now. It's obvious that this is the real target for this funding. Before we start throwing EVEN MORE money at Higher Ed, they are going to have to undergo dramatic reform and transformation. Also, I'm not even sure Higher Ed needs this in order to accomplish the desired objective - they seem to be doing just fine on their own, and may simply need to refocus objectives.
- Budgetarily, this is REQUIRED to grow every year by AT LEAST the rate of inflation - typical, but I reject this idea categorically.
- it provides the ability for the Directorate to independently change its areas of focus every year, which could result in a complete morphing of the focus.
- it has very small components that are specific enough for my liking - i.e., studies and recommendations for Supply Chain Resiliency and for U.S. Challenges in Science and Technology. These are rightly SMALL, in comparison to the overall allocation and focus. They can stay, the rest can go.
In short, I think it's poor execution of a reasonable idea, and despite apparent bipartisan support, I feel that it is the trojan horse typical of most legislation these days.
I think that we can accomplish the goal by simply encouraging areas of innovation across ALL relevant government agencies, and then let each provide their purpose and plan and request funding.
(but then I suppose that demonstrates my root political orientation)
Well, my statement of "encourage" was more along the lines of cultural - not discouraging out-of the-box thinking, listening to ideas with an open mind, being open to spending R&D dollars on promising innovations or on real critical needs. If we get away from the notion of "the Department of Innovation" (dropping a pile of money on the table and saying "there, go innovate" makes me shudder), then logically, all these innovative ideas are spawned from a real need to accomplish some thing. That's really what I aim at, that innovations are arrived at honestly, and fill a real need. The Act purports to intend that, but, like I imply, a lot of legislation purports one thing and has designs on another, or, worse, does not accomplish what it claims to. If an agency comes up with a good idea, it's R&D should be funded. An example, some innovations come from the DoD and their unique needs, but their budget is so restricted now, and they are politically unpopular with some (categorically), so funding might be difficult. That's a problem. I see the proposed Directorate as political, and potentially just as subject to the whims of politics, and equally unaccountable, therefore accomplishing nothing. So, yes, encourage = a cultural norm, but the problem is that starts to look like the same government inefficiency and corruption, if you happen to disagree with a particular innovation or need. So I guess I don't have a concrete answer. I'm just not happy with the proposed Act...
First things first: let’s stop educating the Chinese and allowing them into our labs. They take that knowledge and information back to China and use it against our industries and government, i.e. against Americans.
I think the public school system (K-12) is failing to properly educate our kids with an eye on college preparation, we're not encouraging enough Americans to pursue college, and colleges are giving preferential admission to non-Americans...
Certainly not, but we're currently going in the wrong direction... Too many people seem oblivious and apathetic to the problem and we're drowning in the social-justice/anti-racism teachings that appear to be today's priority...
Not always: many American-educated Chinese decide to stay here, because of good opportunities and, perhaps more importantly, their embrace of American values. Historically the U.S. has gained tremendously from attracting other countries' smartest minds. Shouldn't we welcome and attempt to maintain that trend?
I'm pretty sure our defense departments are dealing with technology issues and probably getting an infusion from big tech which may explain how we've gotten into this censorship mess. I am still remembering how so many issues relating to supply chain problems were revealed early in the plandemic. Seems that would be a good place to start. Govt should have a seat at the table but not a controlling voice.
Several comments have suggested or implied private funding of research. But true research, rather than development, can only be funded by a monopoly or the government. (Fortunately monopolies are rare.) The word gets out about successful discoveries, researchers change employers, and the financial benefits are difficult to contain within the company that makes the investment.
Government funding does not imply government execution, though, and most research is not conducted by the government. Nevertheless, we should always be looking for better ways to manage the research enterprise. One modern practice is to conduct outcome competitions. We cannot afford to cede research leadership, of ever growing importance, to our adversaries.
That's certainly the question. In a limited government philosophy, extremely few. Presumably, those related directly to defense of freedom would pass a litmus test. Those related to international competitive positioning and innovation would not. I've not seen such a litmus test or framework for examining your exact question.
Well, I think what's happening right now is that key R&D investment is needed in research that transcends both "defense" and "competitive/innovation." For example: AI, quantum sciences, robotics, new materials, etc. are essential for national defense and economic prosperity -- right?
Also, economic strength is essential for national security/defense because only a strong, prospering economy can afford to invest sufficiently in its defense capabilities.
Two ways to go on this. Unfetter American potential (reduce taxes, especially on corporations) and let innovation and productivity thrive, or copy our competitor. We're essentially choosing path B with the proposed approach and, regretfully, our government hasn't shown itself particularly good at placing technology bets. I know because I work in a tech company, that companies are already angling to get the proposed funds; no surprise there. The beneficiaries, however, will be the shareholders because the companies have sufficient funds already to do what is needed, but they're not because of margin targets and other corporate metrics. My vote would be on path A.
The funding should come from a motivated private sector with tax advantages from lawmakers. If the government gets involved, it will become a boondoggle and a cash cow for political friends and families.
Aren't tax breaks just government involvement by another name? Preferential taxes are, by definition, a choice to "advantage" some and not others; right?
You are correct and thank you for calling me out on this, I had the same thought as I click the post button. I believe that the government needs to stay out of ventures such as this because the outcome will be woefully lacking.
The U.S. needs to do something like that to replace IP. We spend hundreds of millions every year to try to protect against hackers and nation state penetrators and even the admitted failures (like Solar Winds) show we’re not succeeding.
Honest Question: Why is government investment in basic R&D often viewed as synonymous with "waste" or "trying to out-Chinese the Chinese?" Government R&D investment literally laid the seedbed for our modern tech industry. We would not have Silicon Valley (and its economic benefits) apart from GOV funding in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
It's one thing to oppose a centrally-managed economy (as I do). But isn't it something else entirely to believe that the government can and should invest public dollars to foster tech and capabilities that will be essential for the common defense and public good?
Actually, those years of government funding instigated a part of the problem we currently have with the cost of post-secondary education. They created a competitive system (I mean beyond sports of course), top universities vying for all the best and brightest; students, profs, equipment, etc.. The schools got used to this and when funding slowed down. In the 80's, the culture was already established. Having the biggest and best was required to attract the brightest and most brilliant, to ensure continued notoriety and private funding (or endowments). No one wanted a pay cut after that and students demanded the best or they'd go elsewhere. Now, basic admin and faculty costs are through the roof and students have to pay for it. For half of them, it's the name on the diploma, which actually no longer guarantees quality education.
good point - I'm thinking ARPANET? I didn't live through its inception (but I certainly rode the wave up), so I speak not from first hand experience, but it seems to me that the federal government simply got lucky on that one (even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), not unlike most innovations (many fail, some succeed). But putting government in the business of innovation as an objective seems destined to fail.
Well, first ARPANET (i.e., the internet) is a bit more than getting "lucky." It literally changed the course of human history. But even this is too narrow. Sonar, air traffic control, man-portable radios, low-light photography, space exploration, nuclear medicine, digital cameras, and a host of other innovations have their origins in government R&D/funding.
Wow - didn't know about (or didn't think about) those products and their origins. It begs your original question - is government uniquely required to develop these things? vs. private industry? Also, Scott brings up a good point - government was a different animal back then, and your question (what's the answer?)... well, my other post...
Back in the 40-80s, government was smaller, marginally more efficient, and more focused on proper research... Today government has grown to the point where they are well beyond their constitutional duties not to mention the layers, lobbying, corruption, and back room deals that seem more prevalent in today's government... And again, too much focus on the money and who is going to benefit from that, rather than what the actual accomplishments are... Too many officials have their pet projects...
Won't deny much of what you say; but, what's the answer? Simply give up on basic R&D and hope for the best? There are basic areas of research that will not support an economic justification for further exploration, and yet, we'll never realize their promise unless that basic research occurs. And our adversaries are certainly pursuing these discoveries.
Also, I totally agree that we need to remove barriers to private investment and business -- 100%! But I'm not willing to cede technological leadership to our challengers while waiting for "good government" to finally emerge. Historically speaking, it's always been this way ... the ideal of small government spending (and it is my ideal) is largely a figment -- not a historical reality.
And what is the funding model for our adversaries pursuits? I realize money doesn't grow on trees although one might think so based on the size of recent bills... At one point, Universities played a big role in some of this research, and yes that was funded by government through DARPA projects... I'm not sure what that balance is and/or how Business and Universities might get that focus back to maintain and advanced our technological edge... Perhaps simply increasing the transparency of how funding dollars are spent, and ensuring tangible deliverables, can help us foster more trust in how these efforts are run...
At first glance, that's a lot of money! I would say allocate about one quarter of that to get started and along the way, our progress will show when or if we need to continue, and if there is benefit to this endeavor. If we take it all at once, we will not be as expedient or as efficient as we should be simply because "there's plenty more where that came from". That's just how we are when we (think we) have unlimited resources.
POTENTIALLY- an excellent idea - though I have a knee-jerk suspicion of anything Sen Schumer advocates. There is little doubt to me that a private industry program supported by government has been the key to our tech leadership in the past. The potential problem today is “globalization” as embraced by US industry. This seems to materialize in the form of manufacturing and supply chains that are out of US control and easily threatened by global politics- mostly to our detriment.
A similar bill makes sense and is likely to pass, given the challenges from China. But as currently configured, it does not properly rationalize the whole of the federal government's research enterprise.
I'm struggling with this concept myself. Can you elaborate on your thoughts of "rationalizing" federal government involvement in R&D?
There are many components to federal research funding, including several within DoD, DOE, and NSF, with NSF perhaps the most "blue sky" of the bunch. To target NSF alone for a new technology research directorate, as though technology research funding were somehow new to the federal government, seems almost to minimize that of the other agencies and simultaneously raise the question of whether the federal commitment to fundamental science research is weakening. Without very careful crafting of the new legislation, questions will certainly arise within the other agencies of how their roles should change. The most cited areas for new funding, of quantum information and computing, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, are already being pursued at each of those funders.
Although I support significantly increasing federal support for technology research, it seems almost as though the proposed legislation is tailored to allowing claims of something brand new, rather than a careful coordination and expansion of current efforts.
There is always, by definition, a frontier. The question is what to do with it.
In this case I think government is well suited to fund basic research.
Too much of government spending has become paybacks and lubrication for their buddies who rarely have the best interests of the country nor the expertise to properly pick and chose the best companies to advance research in the proper areas... IMHO, they would be better off perhaps identifying and suggesting areas for research without (or with very little) monetary incentives so that the decisions are driven by the ideas and needs not by money...
A couple observations. One is that we do see quite fundamental work being funded in the private sector - Google's quantum campus in Santa Barbara aims to "develop" something, sure, but it's on a very long horizon and attacking pretty fundamental issues. They are essentially racing the PRC state.
Another is what becomes of the information. Private actors have an incentive to conceal what they're developing, while publicly funded research tends to be disclosed broadly. Maybe we need to think about IP rights - how they work at a more basic level, in a world where teaching the PRC how to develop increasingly powerful general-purpose technologies (this distinction between military and civilian tech is, at this point, often silly). Do we want to give private sector U.S. companies the ability to develop and protect tech without disclosing it through the patent system if they follow certain rules (perhaps most critically, though perhaps also doubtfully, limiting who can work on the development)?
Don't know much about it to make a solid call. I will say I see the need to turn inward and invest in America. If that "America first", than so be it. We should have certain industries completely with our borders. We know what future threats exist for at least 20 yes out so get'r done. We need to be prepared for the new axis and not from an arrogant, "whatever we say goes" type of perspective but more a "don't f** with me" attitude.
(apologies in advance for a verbose reaction)
Generally speaking, not a terrible idea:
- SELECT funding of particular innovations by the federal government MIGHT be warranted - each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for applicability to fulfilling the greater good AND for the ability of existing agencies or private entities to adequately develop.
- Our current federal government is far too political and wasteful to be entrusted to YET ANOTHER blanket issuance of authority and funding to execute it
In PRACTICE, this Act is not selective, it is overarching with very little accountability, coupled with the likelihood of permanency AND the ability to morph into whatever the political entities want it to be (Green New Deal, anyone?).
In did my best to read the Act - at 160 pages, the volume alone is intimidating, albeit small compared to many, and reading any of these sorts of things requires intense concentration. Some thoughts:
- this Act reads like money looking for a purpose, as opposed to an objective and plan looking for funding (although that's arguable)
- it incorporates things that are irrelevant and smack of the usual politics (i.e., requiring a Chief Diversity Officer, while not mandating much else in organizational structure)
- At least 70% of the funding is designated to Higher Education, an institution which I have zero confidence in right now. It's obvious that this is the real target for this funding. Before we start throwing EVEN MORE money at Higher Ed, they are going to have to undergo dramatic reform and transformation. Also, I'm not even sure Higher Ed needs this in order to accomplish the desired objective - they seem to be doing just fine on their own, and may simply need to refocus objectives.
- Budgetarily, this is REQUIRED to grow every year by AT LEAST the rate of inflation - typical, but I reject this idea categorically.
- it provides the ability for the Directorate to independently change its areas of focus every year, which could result in a complete morphing of the focus.
- it has very small components that are specific enough for my liking - i.e., studies and recommendations for Supply Chain Resiliency and for U.S. Challenges in Science and Technology. These are rightly SMALL, in comparison to the overall allocation and focus. They can stay, the rest can go.
In short, I think it's poor execution of a reasonable idea, and despite apparent bipartisan support, I feel that it is the trojan horse typical of most legislation these days.
I think that we can accomplish the goal by simply encouraging areas of innovation across ALL relevant government agencies, and then let each provide their purpose and plan and request funding.
(but then I suppose that demonstrates my root political orientation)
Encourage how?
Well, my statement of "encourage" was more along the lines of cultural - not discouraging out-of the-box thinking, listening to ideas with an open mind, being open to spending R&D dollars on promising innovations or on real critical needs. If we get away from the notion of "the Department of Innovation" (dropping a pile of money on the table and saying "there, go innovate" makes me shudder), then logically, all these innovative ideas are spawned from a real need to accomplish some thing. That's really what I aim at, that innovations are arrived at honestly, and fill a real need. The Act purports to intend that, but, like I imply, a lot of legislation purports one thing and has designs on another, or, worse, does not accomplish what it claims to. If an agency comes up with a good idea, it's R&D should be funded. An example, some innovations come from the DoD and their unique needs, but their budget is so restricted now, and they are politically unpopular with some (categorically), so funding might be difficult. That's a problem. I see the proposed Directorate as political, and potentially just as subject to the whims of politics, and equally unaccountable, therefore accomplishing nothing. So, yes, encourage = a cultural norm, but the problem is that starts to look like the same government inefficiency and corruption, if you happen to disagree with a particular innovation or need. So I guess I don't have a concrete answer. I'm just not happy with the proposed Act...
Honest. Thanks.
First things first: let’s stop educating the Chinese and allowing them into our labs. They take that knowledge and information back to China and use it against our industries and government, i.e. against Americans.
How do we account for not having a sufficient talent pool domestically to meet our needs?
I think the public school system (K-12) is failing to properly educate our kids with an eye on college preparation, we're not encouraging enough Americans to pursue college, and colleges are giving preferential admission to non-Americans...
How long have we been trying to reform the public education system? Can we really afford to wait until this happens?
Certainly not, but we're currently going in the wrong direction... Too many people seem oblivious and apathetic to the problem and we're drowning in the social-justice/anti-racism teachings that appear to be today's priority...
Exactly what I was going to say as American education continues to fall behind other countries.
Not always: many American-educated Chinese decide to stay here, because of good opportunities and, perhaps more importantly, their embrace of American values. Historically the U.S. has gained tremendously from attracting other countries' smartest minds. Shouldn't we welcome and attempt to maintain that trend?
I'm pretty sure our defense departments are dealing with technology issues and probably getting an infusion from big tech which may explain how we've gotten into this censorship mess. I am still remembering how so many issues relating to supply chain problems were revealed early in the plandemic. Seems that would be a good place to start. Govt should have a seat at the table but not a controlling voice.
Seems the objectives could be accomplished and funded privately, which I always prefer as default first options.
Several comments have suggested or implied private funding of research. But true research, rather than development, can only be funded by a monopoly or the government. (Fortunately monopolies are rare.) The word gets out about successful discoveries, researchers change employers, and the financial benefits are difficult to contain within the company that makes the investment.
Government funding does not imply government execution, though, and most research is not conducted by the government. Nevertheless, we should always be looking for better ways to manage the research enterprise. One modern practice is to conduct outcome competitions. We cannot afford to cede research leadership, of ever growing importance, to our adversaries.
Thanks, Preston. What, if any, types of R&D would be valid targets of GOV funding?
I don't recall taking exception to any of the 10 areas listed in the Act... it's not a bad starting list...
That's certainly the question. In a limited government philosophy, extremely few. Presumably, those related directly to defense of freedom would pass a litmus test. Those related to international competitive positioning and innovation would not. I've not seen such a litmus test or framework for examining your exact question.
Well, I think what's happening right now is that key R&D investment is needed in research that transcends both "defense" and "competitive/innovation." For example: AI, quantum sciences, robotics, new materials, etc. are essential for national defense and economic prosperity -- right?
Also, economic strength is essential for national security/defense because only a strong, prospering economy can afford to invest sufficiently in its defense capabilities.
So how are you drawing that line?
I'm not. I trust that good folks like you are doing that as a public service.
It seems that our current Congress is pulling the names of their “Acts” from “Atlas Shrugged“
Two ways to go on this. Unfetter American potential (reduce taxes, especially on corporations) and let innovation and productivity thrive, or copy our competitor. We're essentially choosing path B with the proposed approach and, regretfully, our government hasn't shown itself particularly good at placing technology bets. I know because I work in a tech company, that companies are already angling to get the proposed funds; no surprise there. The beneficiaries, however, will be the shareholders because the companies have sufficient funds already to do what is needed, but they're not because of margin targets and other corporate metrics. My vote would be on path A.
The funding should come from a motivated private sector with tax advantages from lawmakers. If the government gets involved, it will become a boondoggle and a cash cow for political friends and families.
Aren't tax breaks just government involvement by another name? Preferential taxes are, by definition, a choice to "advantage" some and not others; right?
You are correct and thank you for calling me out on this, I had the same thought as I click the post button. I believe that the government needs to stay out of ventures such as this because the outcome will be woefully lacking.
The U.S. needs to do something like that to replace IP. We spend hundreds of millions every year to try to protect against hackers and nation state penetrators and even the admitted failures (like Solar Winds) show we’re not succeeding.
The democrat party would just toss it down a rathole
Pretty sure wasteful spending is a bipartisan challenge.