Thread: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Hooking up computers was no big deal even in the 80s when I was using clustered VAXes to cummunicate with co-workers in London.
Only IBM couldn't seem to get their act together.

My first exposure to the Internet for non business purposes was back in 1993 or so and it was being used mostly to share research and a BBS like a bluescreen Facebook.

As late as the mid 2000's Yahoo and Amazon and others were pumping a frustrating amount of money into developing viable shopping sites.
In fact, Yahoo's 7th quarter loss in late 2000 helped in major way to get a lot of physicians to pull out of the market and thus the dot com collapse.
It was big struggle and most blue chips stayed out of the game until maybe around 2005.
I lived it.

Very few major corporation developed web sites until perhaps 2004 or meybe even later.

I see you back tracked on your original response here. The article plainly states:

According to a book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning" (by Michael Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn't wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. "We have a more immediate problem than they do," Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch in 1973. "We have more networks than they do."

As for the government's role, the Internet was fully privatized in 1995, when a remaining piece of the network run by the National Science Foundation was closed—just as the commercial Web began to boom. Blogger Brian Carnell wrote in 1999: "The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished. . . . In less than a decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most important technological revolutions of the millennia."

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

I see you back tracked on your original response here. The article plainly states:

Yes, and the private market DIDN'T take up the challenge for like, uh, 11-12 years.
And if Amazon, eBay and Yahoo didn't eventually make it big it would have died.
Try going back to some financial periodicals from the late 90s to mid 2000s, IBM and many others had NO INTEREST.
In other words, no vision.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Yes, and the private market DIDN'T take up the challenge for like, uh, 11-12 years.
And if Amazon, eBay and Yahoo didn't eventually make it big it would have died.
Try going back to some financial periodicals from the late 90s to mid 2000s, IBM and many others had NO INTEREST.
In other words, no vision.

Amazon, eBay, Yahoo. Are those acronyms for some government agency?

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

Amazon, eBay, Yahoo. Are those acronyms for some government agency?

Actually, I think a fascinating study would be the development of government sites vs the few very private sites from 1995 through 2005.
I would be willing to bet that porno and government sites took HTML and transaction processing way beyond what the private did.

It's like saying we won't build a highway unless a corporation waits until the government does it.
Oh wait, that's what DOW Chemical and countless other coporation did.

In fact, I would say at least half the private companies across our fruited plain would collapse in a few months if the goverment stopped paying for their services.

You see, I get the relationship, Conservatives talk big but their Reps still suck at mommy for more money.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

. . . You see, I get the relationship, Conservatives talk big but their Reps still suck at mommy for more money.

Therein lies the problem IMO...faux conservatism has replaced actual conservatism. In twisting what the POTUS says, Romney winds up overplaying his hand with his own commercial for which Obama's camp can now volley back:

July 23. 2012 3:32PM
John DiStaso's Granite Status: Romney-backer's NH business received government-assisted loans
By JOHN DiSTASO
Senior Political Reporter

MONDAY, JULY 23, UPDATE: HE GOT HELP. In the Mitt Romney campaign web and television ads that received national attention last week, a blunt Jack Gilchrist of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating in Hudson tells President Barack Obama that he, his father and his son _ and not the government _ built his company.

But as it turns out, Gilchrist did receive some government help for his business, albeit a long time ago.

In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority “to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment,” according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time.

The federal government allocates to each state a certain amount of tax-exempt bonding capacity each year for business and housing loans.

Because the bond buyers do not pay federal taxes on the interest, the interest rate for the borrower is typically lower than that of standard bank financing.

Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending.

. . .

http://www.gadailynews.com/thumbnail...=article_large

The POTUS' point was larger than that, but one would think Romney would have vetted this guy better for his ad so he was at least clear of direct government help, never mind all the other contributing factors.

The President's point was a banal one, and it basically concedes the small government advocates' point. Everything that helps people get a hand up makes up maybe a quarter to a third of the budget. The rest is just taking money from the politically unfavored to give it to the politically favored. The President is right: we should cut those entitlements and invest more in infrastructure.

Originally Posted by adaher

The President's point was a banal one, and it basically concedes the small government advocates' point. Everything that helps people get a hand up makes up maybe a quarter to a third of the budget. The rest is just taking money from the politically unfavored to give it to the politically favored. The President is right: we should cut those entitlements and invest more in infrastructure.

IF that's what he meant.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Therein lies the problem IMO...faux conservatism has replaced actual conservatism. In twisting what the POTUS says, Romney winds up overplaying his hand with his own commercial for which Obama's camp can now volley back:



http://www.gadailynews.com/thumbnail...=article_large

The POTUS' point was larger than that, but one would think Romney would have vetted this guy better for his ad so he was at least clear of direct government help, never mind all the other contributing factors.

As Romney pointed out, the rest of that speech makes the comment look worse, not better. You could excuse that comment as poorly worded if it wasnt for the rest of the speech which reinforces the point.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The Internet became privatized in 1995.
Who was using it in 1995?
Holy sh!t, when it comes to technology you better stop posting!

A lot more people that you realize. The Web which is actually HTML or Hypertext Markup Language had been adapted in the late 80's early 90's. I was running a 4 Node BBS in 1986 which actually worked with RIP scripts and HTML.. it was called VBBS. I even had internet access when I dialed up to the local ISP to allow people to connect.

Colleges and some High Schools had internet over teletype, punch cards and other methods before the acoustical modems.. see War Games for an idea what an acoustical modem was. 1993/5 was about when the Internet started to explode with the "Web" coming into existence.

Connecting with the use of IPs to chat rooms and chat forums was very common.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

A lot more people that you realize. The Web which is actually HTML or Hypertext Markup Language had been adapted in the late 80's early 90's. I was running a 4 Node BBS in 1986 which actually worked with RIP scripts and HTML.. it was called VBBS. I even had internet access when I dialed up to the local ISP to allow people to connect.

Colleges and some High Schools had internet over teletype, punch cards and other methods before the acoustical modems.. see War Games for an idea what an acoustical modem was. 1993/5 was about when the Internet started to explode with the "Web" coming into existence.

Connecting with the use of IPs to chat rooms and chat forums was very common.

Not to deflate anything you posted, I believe I stated that in my bluescreen Facebook sentence.
I used the BBSs in college and when I graduated I started working on a VAX, which had clustering down pat already.

1993/5 saw the NetScape Navigator but a scant few businesses had the vision, or wanted to invest in the expense, of what was still to be determined as proven technology.
As to be perfectly honest, I couldn't blame them
AOL was killed by entering the arena too soon.

Originally Posted by jviehe

As Romney pointed out, the rest of that speech makes the comment look worse, not better. You could excuse that comment as poorly worded if it wasnt for the rest of the speech which reinforces the point.

Nah, it's the silly season of twisting words again in a political race, that's all. The POTUS was actually just being the master of the obvious rather than a man of insight and revelation. Sure, an entrepreneur can go from rags to riches, but other people and even the government also played a role in that, much of which is taken for granted or conveniently overlooked.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Nah, it's the silly season of twisting words again in a political race, that's all. The POTUS was actually just being the master of the obvious rather than a man of insight and revelation. Sure, an entrepreneur can go from rags to riches, but other people and even the government also played a role in that, much of which is taken for granted or conveniently overlooked.

That ignores the fact that the business man pays for the help he gets from others and from the government. Obama wants everyone to thing he gets all this help for free and should therefore willingly sacrifice a portion of his profits for him to use to buy votes.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Nah, it's the silly season of twisting words again in a political race, that's all. The POTUS was actually just being the master of the obvious rather than a man of insight and revelation. Sure, an entrepreneur can go from rags to riches, but other people and even the government also played a role in that, much of which is taken for granted or conveniently overlooked.

Watch the speech. He is condescending to succesful people proud of their accomplishments.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there

Hes saying intelligence and hard work are nothing special. Just because youre smart and work hard, you cant succeed without govt. You didnt build your business, someone else did. Its not like this is a unusual sentiment for him or liberals to have. Why run from it?