[robomartin]

Right. The difference is that Carl Sagan didn't use such comments to instigate and exploit class warfare and divide a country. Carl Sagan didn't use such statements to brainwash the masses for personal gain. Carl Sagan didn't use that statement to mean that a successful baker, today, owes their success to the creation of the universe.

We operate within the reality that we happen to live within at the time of our lives. The Vikings had one reality. They moved within it and flourished. People born in England in the 1,200's had a very different reality to construct their lives around than those born 200, 400 or 800 years later. That's just the way things work. You use the tools you have at your disposal.

It would be unthinkable to propose that someone in the year 1,200 invent the transistor. Lot's had to happen before the transistor could become a reality. Did they fail because of a failure of government to provide the necessary infrastructure? No, they failed because they would have been, quite simply put, way ahead of their time.

Did Fleming come across Penicillin because government built roads? Not really.

How about Madame Courie?

Tesla?

Hertz?

Newton?

IBM?

Dell?

Staples?

Coca Cola?

Did the engineers in the 1940's owe the development of the transistor to the roads, sewers and other services government managed for us? Of course not. Their success was the result of a myriad of personal factors, not the least of which were inspiration, intellect, drive and being in the right place at the right time. The infrastructure was there already. It wasn't built for them to be successful at this one task.

It is an insult to the human condition to propose that we owe our personal success to government.

Historically speaking, governments have caused humanity far more pain, agony, death and loss than almost any other human invention. Individuals don't go to war, governments do.

So, Mr. Obama, do we also owe the 50 million people who died in World War 2 to the infrastructure the US Government put into place: roads, railroads, phones, telegraphs, airports, etc.?

Of course not. Don't try to make connections where they don't exist. Politics sucks.

[guiomie]

"Did the engineers in the 1940's owe the development of the transistor to the roads, sewers and other services government managed for us? Of course not."

Of course yes. Government makes sure we have good life conditions. If you have a government that takes decent care of its people, then those people will strive and innovate, instead of surviving.

If government is so bad around here, move to Somalia. Come tell us how much you think a government that doesn't invest in its people is great for innovation.

[robomartin]

Oh, please. Government didn't build these things so that a handful of guys cold invent the transistor. These are things that our society wants and requires. Businesses and entrepreneurs live within this reality.

Entrepreneurs headed West and literally created their own path as they went along. No infrastructure existed. Many years later the railroad became a necessity. The Interstate system didn't come into play until almos 200 years after the creation of this country and around 450 years after Columbus arrived.

You could very well argue that the exact opposite is true: Business has driven governments to push forward decisions and projects that benefit all. The Panama Canal could be one example of this.

[kamaal]

His point is that it those luxuries applies to everybody. Then why didn't everybody invent transistors?

Given equal conditions, not everyone achieves equally.

[a5seo]

Are you arguing that Einstein invented the atomic bomb in the US because our infrastructre was better than Germany?

[Choppen5]

Einstein invented the atomic bomb? That's funny. Not very HN level of knowledge there buddy.

And yes.. that is almost exactly the reason (US vs Germany developed the first atomic bomb). 1000x the resources and scientists, applied to a know physical possibility, supported by: the government, and infrastructure via the army.

[a5seo]

Sorry, late night comment. My point is that there's nothing magical about infrastructure like roads and bridges.

How do you account for other advanced economies that have invested more than the US (presumably a cumulative number over the past 50 years, excluding WWII rebuilding investments, per capita) and yet fail to produce the same wealth (again per capita) as the US?

Clearly, other factors outside of individual effort are involved, but I'm sorry, I'm not buying that they are roads and bridges.

In fact, I don't think the X factor is anything the US has intentionally invested in. And I don't think government gets the credit, any more than someone who plays "slop" in pool.

Shit, look at all the so-called startup hubs that are trying to recreate SV via infrastructure investments. Can you show me one that's worked?

Or look at startuplandia: startups choose different cloud hosting services, and as far as I can tell, the particular one you choose (or even the choice to use cloud vs. colo) is not predictive of success.

I don't know... maybe on a national level you have evidence (perhaps a scatterplot of cum infrastructure investment per capita against wealth per capita by country) showing the two are causal (or even correlated), but I have yet to see it. Here's my 2 cents as someone who founded and sold a business for 8 figures:

Businesses succeed or fail because a) founder/exec's intelligence, b) ability to execute, c) luck, d) x-factors-that-government-didn't-build.

[flyinRyan]

I think the above post was pointing out that Germany actually spent incredible amounts on infrastructure and business. I have a hard time believing the US had 1000x the resources. Germany had the Silver Arrow Mercedes race car that was doing 250mph back then. They also didn't have much restriction on what scientists were allowed to try.

[jeltz]

And the Germany industry was also very successful. Germany was an industrial powerhouse despite having lost WW1 and suffered the depression.

[Choppen5]

>>1000x the resources If you look at the scientist working on it was about that. They had Heisenberg. And about that money wise (don't have the exact numbers.)

The Abomb is a really bad example of not needing government. It was almost entirely an example of what can happen with total government support.. unfortunately that usually comes during a war.

[marmaduke]

there's a quote from a German minister during WWII: "Their German scientists are better than our German scientists."

[nhebb]

FYI - I don't know if that quote is real. It was a post-WWI Cold War quip that has been attributed to many people (even Bob Hope).

[mixmastamyk]

I think you're looking for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Then you can brush up on your history ;).

http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm

[ktizo]

Although he may have developed much of the physics and saw that it was possible, Einstien didn't invent the atomic bomb and he developed the physics before he got to the US.

I think that he is arguing that there are certain things you need to have organised in society to give the space for more advanced development, irrespective of individual brilliance.

[ktizo]

I am reminded strongly of ... "What have the Romans ever done for us?" ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[javert]

One point you're trying to make is that having certain resources at your disposal (for example, previous knowledge gained by others), and then making something new with them, is still a significant accomplishment that one deserves credit for.

Another point that you're trying to make is that government doesn't tend to have all that much to do with having those prior resources. (OK, so the government organizes road-building - big deal.)

I agree with you, just not with the way you presented your position.

[ktizo]

It is an insult to the human condition to propose that we owe our personal success to government.

All ownership rights that are not built on direct possession are down to the social contract of government. Without that you would have no rights to anything that you cannot personally defend. This is really the only reason why we put up with government, despite all the associated crap that goes along with it. We like being able to leave the parcel of land we have claimed without having to leave someone on it permanently to make sure it is still there to return to when we get back.

Individuals don't go to war, governments do.

They wouldn't get very far without the soldiers.