The following are in response to Michael Edesess’ article,Did Steve Jobs Really Build That?, which appeared last week:
Dear Editor,
Edesess fails to even discuss the billions and billions of dollars of government waste. Sure, some good has come from government funding, but that pales in comparison to government waste and interference. Edesess’ one-sided, liberal portrayal of Mazzucato’s misguided view of government’s role in innovation is sorely lacking. Hey, maybe every congressman needs those 25 paid aides and assistants to bring true entrepreneurial enlightenment to us all. Maybe we need more governmental agencies and IRS agents to chase political foes.
Anybody who read Steve Job's biography would have a hard time picturing any government official being his equivalent in terms of creative genius and creating a company.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Poland, CFA
Braeburn Wealth Management
Norton Shores, MI
Michael Edesess replies:
The writer's sarcasm aside, I think Mazzucato has a good point about government "waste." It's conventional wisdom that venture capital hits paydirt in only one-in-10 of its investments, so the others are "waste." Why should government investments be held to a different standard?
Dear Editor,
Edesess missed a few key points about the expansion of statism willy-nilly into research and development.
While it probably doesn't make any difference who ultimately pays the creative and entrepreneurial types, their employer makes a big difference. Working for the government, their supervision would necessarily come from plodding, but fiercely territorial bureaucrats, who in turn would be "supervised" by greedy, jobbing backstairs politicians. Leadership matters above all, and government service does not reward, or even condone any independence of thought or action, except in wartime.
Edesess bemoans a lack of "trust in government." Well, they have earned it, and as we have seen with our schools, good money after bad only makes things much worse. If the government actors would launch a 10-year plan to improve their trustworthiness, then maybe we should talk.
Many of the examples cited in the review were the product of Cold War thinking, including the space program. If the government could marshall the hearts and minds of the creative individuals, by instilling in them that they were really doing something great for their country, then government would be able to make a difference beyond the embryonic stages. But noble causes are on thin ground these days.
Kimble Johnson
LPL Financial
Dear Editor,
This article contains nothing but highly speculative reasoning.
I had an NIH grant for three years and spent at least a third of my time justifying its renewal. It is why I quit the university and went into private practice.
I should have known better beforehand, since as a student I decided one semester to read all of the references (approximately 30 per hour of lecture) and found fewer than a half dozen research papers worth the time I spent reading them, and these were the papers specially selected by the lecturers.
It is completely naïve of the writer to be unaware of the fact that most research that is sponsored by government funding is selected to attract money, not because of good ideas. The dean of my school suggested the research he wanted me to do based on his knowledge of which topics were “hot” and would be funded.
At least private research is selected based on what will sell, rather than on what a bureaucrat will support.
Fred Goodman, CFP
The following is in response to Stephen Roach’s commentary,The Global QE Exit Crisis, which appeared on August 26:
Dear Editor,
Stephen Roach is a fine analyst. So it’s puzzling that he blames the Fed and the borrowers but exculpates the yield-eager lenders from any responsibility for imprudent loans. Isn’t that their job, to make sensible investments and loans?
Helen Updike
Bridgewater Advisors, Inc
New York, NY
