List: The world’s best inventions weren’t made for profit

Isn't it true that sometimes there are just things that need a broader initiative? Interstate Highways would have taken forever without a "Federal" concept. Going to the moon would still be just an idea if we left it up to just Mississippi (no offense Mississippi). :)

The Federal government can help to level the playing field so all the people get the most advantage out of something.

But none of this is really the point the original post contained. He was saying many great things were invented by non-profits. I really don't get the arguement... they were... he documented some.
 
Werbung:
VYO / Masher - IMHO you guys are missing the point its not about micro / macro anything, its about the development of original ideas into meaningful or working gadgets irrespecitve of scale or profit. In the orginal post Tesla was cited as dying in poverty not because he was an unrecognised genius in his field or anything to do with his work as a scientist but because he sucked at business. Generally speaking inventors are crap when it comes to standing in front of shareholders or bankers or corporate lawyers because generally they suck at business thus they get others to look after that end whilst doing what they do best - Inventing. Likewise Governmnents generally suck at organising but are great at spending other peoples cash - they can waste money on an industrial scale but can also do good with it! Every now and again some drone rises to the plate and comes up with a good idea for a comittee or project and the spin-offs can be extremely benficial (like the MRC in the UK) either to industry or science or the population.

Corporations are the same they have research and development programmes that will waste money in such crazy ideas that you wonder at the sanity of it, however, every now and again they come up with a neat idea which makes them pot loads of cash.

Masher you mention the Space Shuttle and Space Station as costly failures but do you think that Companies would invest in such ventures - of course not! Its too risky, can you imagine some CEO standing in front of shareholders trying to explain the failure to launch a multi-billion dollare space vehicle...again!! The likes of Bert Rutan and Richard Branson are entering into the space race for profit now because they can piggy back off technology that has been developed and proved by the likes of NASA. Richard Branson is not going to risk capital on schemes like this without a reasonable degree of certainty and that he and his insurers and not going to get screwed due to some monumental balls-up.

Take for example the Aviation industry, the US NTSB is one of the agencies at the forefront of commercial aviation safety standards - they have developed techniques and practises and science to explain plane crashes that no commercial company would undertake because there is no profit in it! Commercial airline manufacturers have to balance between the commercial and safety elements of their aircraft, the manufacturer will lay claim to just how safe his plane is whilst at the same time being able to show how productive that plane is down to the last cent per revenue passenger kilometer. The manufacturer wants to make the most commercial aircraft he can so he can sell it but the safety side usually comes from the crash investigators - aviation development is based on tombstone technology i.e. crashed planes and dead bodies. The whole fabric of modern airline passenger transport is based upon crash investigation through innovative science and breakthroughs in metalurgy and the invention of specialist equipment that saves lives but commercially..... you couldn't buy a fart with it!
 
[]Isn't it true that sometimes there are just things that need a broader initiative? Interstate Highways would have taken forever without a "Federal" concept. Going to the moon would still be just an idea if we left it up to just Mississippi (no offense Mississippi). :)

The interstate highway system, whose proper name is The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, was motivated as a means of defending the nation. In WWII, eisenhower was impressed with how the germans moved troops and materiel on the autobahn (to the allies disadvantage). The interstate highway system thus proceeded from a legitimate federal concern, national defense. As to forever, the system was authorized by congress in 1956, and is expected to be completed in 2009. Does 53 years qualify as "forever"? :D The system never required federal involvement if it weren't for the defense angle, groups of states frequently collaborate on common issues. And going to the moon never required government involvement - all the construction for going to the moon was by private companies.

The Federal government can help to level the playing field so all the people get the most advantage out of something.

Incoherent.

But none of this is really the point the original post contained. He was saying many great things were invented by non-profits. I really don't get the arguement... they were... he documented some.[/COLOR]

No, those achievments were made by people funded by the government - and my point is so what?? The government collects trillions of dollars of tax money people are forced to pay, wastes lots of it, but sometimes creative smart people persuade it to not waste some of it so they can do great things.
 
This is an interesting article, but one sided. Not to say there isn't a point to be made, but likely not a point liberals, and thus most here want to acknowledge.

First, this is statistically one sided. You have 6 specific inventions, and a 7th broad brush 'government did it' answer. How many millions of inventions have been made and yet you claim that all of them were government funded? No. That's ludicrous on it's face. In fact, how many patents are filed every year? Nearly a million per year since 1985. In 2005 alone, nearly 1,750,000 patents were filed. Yet here, you cite 6 examples and say all the rest are due to government? Or do you assume none of the others are "best"?

Second, a free-market "for profit" economy is what allows inventions to be mass produced and successful. Regardless of what reason an invention is created, unless you can successfully build and sell it (thus making profit), it's useless. For example, Göbel may have invented the first light bulb, but was he able to produce it and sell it? No. So what good did it do? Thomas Edison, on the other hand mass produced it, there by allowing the general public to enjoy the product. That is only possible in a free market economy.

Third, this contains yet another liberal/socialist false theory. It's that idea that: government did fund it, therefore it would not exist if government didn't fund it. This is where liberals tend to invent statements I didn't say and credit me with their imaginative quotes.

I am NOT saying that everything government has done would have occurred without government. Obviously no company would be as stupid as our government to fund the space station. But at the same time, it simply isn't true that everything government has funded, would not happen if they didn't.

For example: My company makes high amp, high efficiency power systems used in commercial trucks (and RVs and some large SUVs). We are currently selling it to some international customers as well. Before we created it, we planned to develop this invention no matter what. However, our management found out we qualified for a government grant. So of course we applied for it, and got it. The company saved thousands, the executive board got huge bonuses, and we are now selling the product for a good profit. Would we have created our product without government grants? Absolutely. The point Libm was making, was, if government is handing out money, then people will take it even if they could do without it. The inventions would still be made either way.

Fourth, and this is what most liberals will hate to hear. Yes government does deserve credit for some inventions. But through the military. The military is what has driven most of the examples of success in government funded research. The internet, despite what Albore says, was actually a military project. ARPANET was a project under the DOD, for the purpose of being able to connect all their military installations. GPS, also was build by the DOD, and the project officially called "NAVSTAR GPS" is even to this day, maintained by the United States Air Force 50th Space Wing. Of course, Nuclear research was a DOD thing.

===
To get to my main problem with this, if someone started a thread on corporate welfare, I wager most of the liberal fools in this thread would be all over it, squealing and complaining about the evil corporations and such. Yet, where do most government grants go? To corporations like the company I work for. In the 90s, under captain underpants, GM was given a huge grant to research batteries. GM doesn't make batteries, never did, never will. They make cars. Why did GM apply for the grant? Because they could, and because government was dumb enough to give it. What happened to the research? What little was learned, was sold. How neat, GM spent nothing on the project, got a tax payer hand out, and then sold off everything learned. And we wonder why GM execs get paid the big buck? That's financially brilliant.

Yet even the research the government does do, most is military research that you squeal about constantly. We're spending too much on military, we're in debt, we don't need all this! Then you turn around and cite products of the military budget as proof of successful government research we should continue?

But what really drives me nuts is... if someone brings up the debt, how many liberals start whining hysterically about how we should not be over spending! Yet here you are talking about how great their spending is! WAKE UP! You can't have it both ways! "We need research grants to learn the mating habits of the Japanese Swallow" (actually happened), then turn around and "Bush is horrible! He's over spending!"... idiots??

I would not even have a real issue with some research funding... if we were not 9 TRILLION IN DEBT! But apparently most people have not grown up. Most are still little children complaining when government does do something, and complaining when they don't. "you are spending too much!" "you are not funding research!" Maturity would fix many problems in America.
 
What a.........I'll take issue with that if I may........

The UK Government has a very good record in funding science and technology especially medical research and if the UK Government can make money out of that reseach then good on them IMHO.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a group of around 16 government funded bodies answerable to the Department of Trade and Industry, their CV ain't bad.....
Important early work carried out under MRC auspices was:

-blaw blaw (saving space)

In all, scientists associated with the MRC have received 22 Nobel Prizes in both Medicine or Physiology and Chemistry.

Not a bad record for bunch of Government Drones.................:rolleyes:


Libsmasher here's link to MRC Homepage which you may find interesting

Our Mission
The heart of our mission is to improve human health through world-class medical research. To achieve this, we support research across the biomedical spectrum, from fundamental lab-based science to clinical trials, and in all major disease areas. We work closely with the NHS and the UK Health Departments to deliver our mission, and give a high priority to research that is likely to make a real difference to clinical practice and the health of the population.


That's great. It really is. But can you add up all the medical advancements from every company in every country and compare it to these? The list of advancements would be in the millions, and far exceed the limits of this forum to post them all.
 
That's great. It really is. But can you add up all the medical advancements from every company in every country and compare it to these? The list of advancements would be in the millions, and far exceed the limits of this forum to post them all.

Possibly even more...... my point, however, was to do with Government and the point that Masher made....
And private individuals and corporations CERTAINLY have more initiative, creativity, and inventiveness than government drones. The only things that government can do is force people to pay for things they otherwise wouldn't - that's all.

....I took issue with that. I think that Governments and Corporations can work innovatively together in a public/private partnership whose results benefit the population in a non-profit orientated manner (....Socialism god forbid!!!)
 
Possibly even more...... my point, however, was to do with Government and the point that Masher made....


....I took issue with that. I think that Governments and Corporations can work innovatively together in a public/private partnership

There is an american word for what you describe - it's "boondoggle". :D
 
Werbung:
....I took issue with that. I think that Governments and Corporations can work innovatively together in a public/private partnership whose results benefit the population in a non-profit orientated manner (....Socialism god forbid!!!)

Socialism always fails. But that isn't even what amuses me here... The other 1 million times you see government handing out money to corporations, people from the liberal side start screaming about corporate welfare and how wrong it is... (and oddly you are right... for once) Yet here you are advocating it? The very thing you use to decry Repugs, you now support?

I would suggest that more often than not, when government and corporations team up, very little good comes from it. Possibly there may be examples of success. However I can list dozens that are not. Just look through the Citizens Against Government Waste, and you'll have hundreds of examples each year of money completely wasted through private corporations given tax payer money.
 
Back
Top