Showing posts with label Steve Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Jobs. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2010

Yes, government creates jobs

Erick Erickson at the right-wing blog Red State made Keith Olberman's "worst person in the world" list Thursday night, but what he rants here is far worse:
After reflection on Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, I am left with one overarching conclusion... Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was a declaration of war on the free market.

Barack Obama said, “Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses.”

But prior to that, he said, “Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”

Review the list. Every job listed is either a government job or a job so connected to government that it would not exist but for government. The clean energy industry? It would not exist, but for government subsidy. Construction? He is talking about roads and other infrastructure — jobs that will go away once the project is done and the whole way through is dependent on the government.

All of these are government jobs.

Hmmm, yes, it's bad to create government jobs - a war on the free market even. Jobs like firefighters, teachers, police officers, scientists. Everyone knows correctional officers and first responders are the bulwark of socialism.

Here's a question for Erickson: Without these government jobs, who will protect private property from fire and theft? Who will teach our children to invent the technologies and build the companies that create jobs 10-20 years from now? Private companies are the engine of growth, but government is the foundation.

There are few left in the GOP who understand such ideas, simple though they be. Since purging intellectuals from the party, the GOP has lived in a magical fantasy land in which businesses will solve all our problems, if only the government would get out of the way. The base has descended into boorish binaries: that Government and Business are opposing forces and never partners, that everything good comes from the private sector and government action always kills growth. If an infant industry depends on government support, it must be a war against the free market; since the market is always perfect, the government is stopping it from finding more efficient uses for capital.

For example, Erickson bashes the clean energy industry because "it would not exist, but for government subsidy." But can he name a single industry created in the last 100 years that was not jump-started by government subsidy, research, protection, or infrastructure? The automotive industry could not have gotten rolling without government-built roads. Power lines and water pipes would not have been laid without government backing up private investment. Today's high-tech firms would not exist even in our imaginations were it not for the government-created Internet. Indeed for almost any tech firm around today, its latest top-selling technologies stand on the shoulders of discoveries made 20-30 years before in government-funded research labs - research which would never be funded by private capital because the payoff is too uncertain and far away.

And just what does Erickson think will happen to American business when our infrastructure crumbles to the point that goods can't move quickly across the country? After all, the federal government subsidized the railways and built the interstate highways. Maybe infrastructure jobs wouldn't exist "but for government subsidy," but they're the lifeblood of commerce.

The bottom line is, government and business need each other. The way the economy works is that the government lays the foundation upon which private companies build, and corrects externalities that result from market breakdowns. Government-employed police officers allow businesses to operate without fear of theft or intimidation. Government regulators enforce property rights that allow investors to create jobs without fear that their investments will be damaged by others (Republicans ostensibly support property rights, but they aren't doing much to protect my property right to a clean atmosphere). Government-subsidized hospitals help the working poor get better and get back to work. Government-employed teachers educate tomorrow's inventors and job-creators, while government scientists conduct crucial basic research - research that's not commercializable on any kind of investment time frame, but which lays the groundwork for the next 50 years of growth. And yes, government environmental regulations prevent companies from dumping waste into our drinking water and polluting our air - kindof important services, don't you think?

This is the narrative liberals need to tell, the counter to the brutish but intuitive thinking of "taxes bad, regulation bad, markets good." Low taxes increase profits on iPads and iPhones, but it took government-educated brains to create them.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

iPads and iPols

Wednesday was a big day.  While President Obama was preparing his State of the Union address, Steve Jobs was announcing Apple's new tablet computer: the iPad.  And I have to say, I wasn't exactly blown away.  


As numerous bloggers have pointed out, it seems basically like a giant iPod Touch.  Perhaps more shockingly, Steve Jobs didn't sell me on it either (you can watch his presentation here).  "It's thin," he says.  Ok, so what?  "If you rotate it, the screen rotates too, so it doesn't matter which way you're holding it."  Yeah, the iPhone does that too.  


Beyond its features, I don't understand the niche for it.  What does it do that you can't do with a Kindle or laptop?  The Kindle lets you read books without burning your eyes out.  A laptop is easier to type on.  And if you already have these devices, why buy an iPad?  


Despite these questions, I have little doubt that the iPad will sell.  Apple's loyal early adopters will line up outside Apple stores to buy them.  The media will cover the lines outside the stores, causing more people to think, "this must be a great product," and line up behind the early adopters.  It's a self fulfilling prophecy.



More importantly, while the iPad itself hardly seems revolutionary NOW, I have no doubt that the subtle changes it ushers in today will have major follow-on impacts on business, technology, and the way we live our lives.  Most obviously, the iPad fundamentally changes the way we interact with computer content: from manipulation of physical devices (e.g. keyboard, mouse) to control the content, to manipulation of the content directly.  It seems small now--maybe even inconvenient (I imagine the keyboard is nowhere near as effective as a physical one)--but who knows what innovations will be built on the shift the iPad has initiated?  20 years from now, will computers be Minority Report style interfaces where we whisk icons, graphics, and text through the air with a hand flick?  Based on the difficulties of interfacing with MS Office software, that doesn't seem like such a bad future.


The other important thing to note is that whatever the iPad lacks now, it's only version 1.0.  Apple doesn't presume it can anticipate all the device's flaws and potentialities in advance and bake those into a perfect, final product: it lets the device evolve over time.  Based on flaws it finds in the field and suggestions solicited from users, Apple will no doubt have version 2.0 out in 6 months that fixes flaws and adds new features.  Moreover, Apple understands that creative iPad users will figure out new ways to use the device so much better than Apple can, and therefore farms the job of improving the device out to the users themselves.  If there's a problem, a developer will write an app to fix it.  If a developer spots an unrealized capability the device has enabled, well there'll be an app for that too.


Which makes me think, why can't we take an approach like that to health care?  Why can't Congress work more like the App Store?  The House can pass the current Senate bill that does five basic things, then have the Senate develop "apps" to fix bill 1.0 through the reconciliation process.  Even better, allow health reform's users (e.g. doctors, nurses, patients, scientists, economists) to write "app legislation" to solve problems they spot as they go about their business, and make those "apps" available in a market in which smaller institutions (states, localities, hospitals, companies) can shop for ones that solve their own unmet problems as needed.


Call it the Apple approach to health care reform.  Of course, the second half of that is just a little unconstitutional, but I don't see why the House and Senate can't act as hardware manufacturer and app developer.


RELATED POSTS