Comments on: Life is Unfair applied to globalization http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/ A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months... Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:12:52 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Stella Aquilina http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94687 Stella Aquilina Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:29:46 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94687 "I doubt HP has an aversion to any mode of legal reliable income these days" Addendum: it appears there is still a case outstanding against HP by the DoJ, I may need to retract that statement pending case outcome. "The U.S. Department of Justice has joined three whistleblower lawsuits alleging that HP, Sun, and Accenture paid and received kickbacks from IT partners in exchange for preferential treatment on government contracts, the DOJ said" “I doubt HP has an aversion to any mode of legal reliable income these days”

Addendum: it appears there is still a case outstanding against HP by the DoJ, I may need to retract that statement pending case outcome.

“The U.S. Department of Justice has joined three whistleblower lawsuits alleging that HP, Sun, and Accenture paid and received kickbacks from IT partners in exchange for preferential treatment on government contracts, the DOJ said”

]]> By: Luke http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94686 Luke Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:49:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94686 Philg: I wasn't claiming that <B>all</B> advanced technology development was funded by the government, just most of it. There's no question that the three technologies that you mentioned were all heavily helped by taxpayer-funded R&D. I was about to concede your point about IBM, Oracle and relational databases. Then I did some googling and found this document - http://kb.cospa-project.org/retrieve/1998/20040116445.pdf. If you read it, you'll see that government research grants played a significant role in the develpoment of the technology. One of the IBM researchers was quoted as saying "A very modest federal research investment, complemented by an also-modest industrial research investment, led directly to U.S. dominance of this market." Regarding your last point - I suppose it is reasonable to say that if the government collected no taxes, individuals and businesses would have more money to invest in R & D. However, it big business appears to prefer the situation as it stands. Philg: I wasn’t claiming that all advanced technology development was funded by the government, just most of it. There’s no question that the three technologies that you mentioned were all heavily helped by taxpayer-funded R&D.

I was about to concede your point about IBM, Oracle and relational databases. Then I did some googling and found this document – http://kb.cospa-project.org/retrieve/1998/20040116445.pdf. If you read it, you’ll see that government research grants played a significant role in the develpoment of the technology. One of the IBM researchers was quoted as saying “A very modest federal research investment, complemented by an also-modest industrial research investment, led directly to U.S. dominance of this market.”

Regarding your last point – I suppose it is reasonable to say that if the government collected no taxes, individuals and businesses would have more money to invest in R & D. However, it big business appears to prefer the situation as it stands.

]]> By: Stella Aquilina http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94685 Stella Aquilina Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:41:13 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94685 HP developed the TAC line of ruggedized Unix workstations for the Navy in the 90s. Whether all work was fixed fee or any was cost plus I am unsure. And you do realize that HP now owns EDS - a very serious group of cost plus award fee blue suited Beltway bandits right ? I doubt HP has an aversion to any mode of legal reliable income these days. It would be surprising if HP has the same corporate character it may have had back in the day. We live in a different world now where people job hop and jobs are outsourced when cost effective. Do companies like HP actually retain staff and management long enough to cultivate a corporate culture ? I surmise the culture is how can this division make this level of profitably and meet these growth figures this quarter. I guess I am skeptical of any altruistic reason that HP may eschew a cost plus contract . Perhaps fixed fee DoD work better fits their method of assessing cost and obtaining expected profit levels. HP developed the TAC line of ruggedized Unix workstations for the Navy in the 90s. Whether all work was fixed fee or any was cost plus I am unsure. And you do realize that HP now owns EDS – a very serious group of cost plus award fee blue suited Beltway bandits right ? I doubt HP has an aversion to any mode of legal reliable income these days. It would be surprising if HP has the same corporate character it may have had back in the day. We live in a different world now where people job hop and jobs are outsourced when cost effective. Do companies like HP actually retain staff and management long enough to cultivate a corporate culture ? I surmise the culture is how can this division make this level of profitably and meet these growth figures this quarter. I guess I am skeptical of any altruistic reason that HP may eschew a cost plus contract . Perhaps fixed fee DoD work better fits their method of assessing cost and obtaining expected profit levels.

]]> By: philg http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94628 philg Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:17:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94628 James: I was an HP employee and that's one thing that they told me during orientation back in 1982. I don't think that anything has changed. HP is happy to sell the Federales whatever it is selling to the commercial world and even happier to sell $1 billion worth. But HP does not develop customized products or weapons on a cost-plus basis for the Defense Department. To the extent that HP does IT solutions for the government it is work that has the same character as building IT solutions for a Fortune 500 company. James: I was an HP employee and that’s one thing that they told me during orientation back in 1982. I don’t think that anything has changed. HP is happy to sell the Federales whatever it is selling to the commercial world and even happier to sell $1 billion worth. But HP does not develop customized products or weapons on a cost-plus basis for the Defense Department. To the extent that HP does IT solutions for the government it is work that has the same character as building IT solutions for a Fortune 500 company.

]]> By: James http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94619 James Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:50:04 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94619 Philip, I am intrigued by your statement that HP "has had a long-standing policy of not doing any contract work for the federal government ..." I googled it but what I found were stories like HP won another billion-dollar federal government contract, etc. So do you mind sharing your source? Thank you. Philip, I am intrigued by your statement that HP “has had a long-standing policy of not doing any contract work for the federal government …” I googled it but what I found were stories like HP won another billion-dollar federal government contract, etc. So do you mind sharing your source? Thank you.

]]> By: philg http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94611 philg Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:34:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94611 Dominik: How not to reduce GDP as a lawyer? It might be too late! You were one of MIT's brightest students and instead of working as an inventor or business manager you're now going to be shuffling paper. If you work for a company as in-house counsel that might help minimize the deadweight loss to the economy. If you work mostly with young companies and help them get funding, you might not be too destructive (though again you would have to look at what you'd have done with your life had you not gone to law school). This is not a criticism of your career choice, by the way. In the context of the original posting you are doing pretty well, choosing a career that figures largely in government employment and also one where being locally present and licensed is often required. A law graduate in Bangalore cannot work for the U.S. government. A law graduate in Bangalore cannot show up in a U.S. courthouse to represent a client. Luke: Your idea that all valuable technology was funded by the government is an interesting one, but I don't think it has held up to scrutiny by economists. NASA has had some spinoffs but the cost to the taxpayer for those spinoffs has been staggering. The military has done somewhat better, e.g., the Air Force was a big proponent of integrated circuits, but overall the military tends to be conservative in its use of technology. The Navy is famous for using UNIVAC computers that failed in the commercial marketplace decades earlier. Oracle, an example that you cite, was entirely privately funded and the underlying ideas were developed by IBM. You also cite HP, which has had a long-standing policy of not doing any contract work for the federal government because they believe that it will make their company so inefficient that they would never again be able to compete commercially (see Lockheed-Martin for an example). HP will sell its products to the government, but development is all done independently. Do keep in mind that if the government weren't spending 36 percent of GDP in the U.S., citizens and private companies would have nearly 50 percent more money to spend and they might spend some of that on R&D or innovative products. Government spending is not free... Dominik: How not to reduce GDP as a lawyer? It might be too late! You were one of MIT’s brightest students and instead of working as an inventor or business manager you’re now going to be shuffling paper. If you work for a company as in-house counsel that might help minimize the deadweight loss to the economy. If you work mostly with young companies and help them get funding, you might not be too destructive (though again you would have to look at what you’d have done with your life had you not gone to law school). This is not a criticism of your career choice, by the way. In the context of the original posting you are doing pretty well, choosing a career that figures largely in government employment and also one where being locally present and licensed is often required. A law graduate in Bangalore cannot work for the U.S. government. A law graduate in Bangalore cannot show up in a U.S. courthouse to represent a client.

Luke: Your idea that all valuable technology was funded by the government is an interesting one, but I don’t think it has held up to scrutiny by economists. NASA has had some spinoffs but the cost to the taxpayer for those spinoffs has been staggering. The military has done somewhat better, e.g., the Air Force was a big proponent of integrated circuits, but overall the military tends to be conservative in its use of technology. The Navy is famous for using UNIVAC computers that failed in the commercial marketplace decades earlier. Oracle, an example that you cite, was entirely privately funded and the underlying ideas were developed by IBM. You also cite HP, which has had a long-standing policy of not doing any contract work for the federal government because they believe that it will make their company so inefficient that they would never again be able to compete commercially (see Lockheed-Martin for an example). HP will sell its products to the government, but development is all done independently. Do keep in mind that if the government weren’t spending 36 percent of GDP in the U.S., citizens and private companies would have nearly 50 percent more money to spend and they might spend some of that on R&D or innovative products. Government spending is not free…

]]> By: Jeff http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94603 Jeff Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:09:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94603 The exponential growth of government sure is troubling... with new real estate tax income, all the local and state governments in my area [WA state] have grown massively - some more than 50% measured by headcount. So now we're looking at even more cost over time as these workers receive raises, massive retirement guarantees, and more - who's going to pay for them over time? The rest of us? The exponential growth of government sure is troubling… with new real estate tax income, all the local and state governments in my area [WA state] have grown massively – some more than 50% measured by headcount.

So now we’re looking at even more cost over time as these workers receive raises, massive retirement guarantees, and more – who’s going to pay for them over time? The rest of us?

]]> By: Crimson http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94602 Crimson Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:38:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94602 People are taking "medical vacations" for health care because it's cheaper to fly overseas and get your surgery done in Thailand rather than drive down the road to the nearest hospital. A lot of medical work like radiology is also being outsourced overseas. Education-wise, we already see places like your very own MIT offering free courses online. How long before someone offers online education for grade school children? (I'd be surprised if someone somewhere wasn't already doing this) Take away lesson? The government can't protect you from the laws of supply and demand. People are taking “medical vacations” for health care because it’s cheaper to fly overseas and get your surgery done in Thailand rather than drive down the road to the nearest hospital. A lot of medical work like radiology is also being outsourced overseas.

Education-wise, we already see places like your very own MIT offering free courses online. How long before someone offers online education for grade school children? (I’d be surprised if someone somewhere wasn’t already doing this)

Take away lesson? The government can’t protect you from the laws of supply and demand.

]]> By: Luke http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94598 Luke Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:54:27 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94598 Your discussion about the economy, the government and technology touches on a number of interesting issues. One important point to note is that the development of the three technologies that you mention - "the container ship, the jet airliner, and the Internet" - was funded to a great degree by the U. S. government, mostly through the Defense Department. Boeing, for example, was able to use technology developed for fighters and bombers (and paid for by the taxpayers) and apply it to civilian airplanes. The Internet was originally the ARPANET. Also, the DOD funded development of containers during WW2, Korea and Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization). What's interesting about this history is that it is at odds with the prevailing theory in America that the government is a parasite feeding off of the private sector. In fact, government-funded R & D is responsible for most of our leading-edge technology. It's also responsible a great deal, perhaps most, of our exports. Boeing is our largest single exporter. Oracle, HP, Microsoft, etc. are major exporters. And, of course, our agricultural sector is also the source of many exports. Agriculture, as you mention, is highly subsidized and regulated by the government. Another interesting point is the way fact the government just gave away this technology to these large corporations. For example, if Microsoft develops new technology, they will typically get a patent on it. Then, if some other software company wants to use that technology, they are required to pay Microsoft a license fee. In the case of the Internet and many other technologies, the taxpayer funded the development and companies like Microsoft, Boeing, Google, etc. get to use that technology for free. In addition to that, these technologies are playing a role in the stagnation or decline of the standard of living of the majority of the population. So, instead if getting a return on their investments, the taxpayers of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, funded technology which is making their children and grandchildren poorer. Your discussion about the economy, the government and technology touches on a number of interesting issues. One important point to note is that the development of the three technologies that you mention – “the container ship, the jet airliner, and the Internet” – was funded to a great degree by the U. S. government, mostly through the Defense Department. Boeing, for example, was able to use technology developed for fighters and bombers (and paid for by the taxpayers) and apply it to civilian airplanes. The Internet was originally the ARPANET. Also, the DOD funded development of containers during WW2, Korea and Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization).

What’s interesting about this history is that it is at odds with the prevailing theory in America that the government is a parasite feeding off of the private sector. In fact, government-funded R & D is responsible for most of our leading-edge technology. It’s also responsible a great deal, perhaps most, of our exports. Boeing is our largest single exporter. Oracle, HP, Microsoft, etc. are major exporters. And, of course, our agricultural sector is also the source of many exports. Agriculture, as you mention, is highly subsidized and regulated by the government.

Another interesting point is the way fact the government just gave away this technology to these large corporations. For example, if Microsoft develops new technology, they will typically get a patent on it. Then, if some other software company wants to use that technology, they are required to pay Microsoft a license fee.

In the case of the Internet and many other technologies, the taxpayer funded the development and companies like Microsoft, Boeing, Google, etc. get to use that technology for free. In addition to that, these technologies are playing a role in the stagnation or decline of the standard of living of the majority of the population. So, instead if getting a return on their investments, the taxpayers of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, funded technology which is making their children and grandchildren poorer.

]]> By: dominik http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/02/life-is-unfair-applied-to-globalization/comment-page-1/#comment-94596 dominik Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:27:33 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1144#comment-94596 As a third year law student, I can only hope that as a lawyer, I won't reduce GDP. Suggestions for how to pull that off appreciated :) As a third year law student, I can only hope that as a lawyer, I won’t reduce GDP. Suggestions for how to pull that off appreciated :)

]]>