niehei schrieb am 24.04.2016 12:45:
, waren Computer auf dem Stand von 80386 und Software auf dem Stand von DOS. Festplatten waren mit 100MB schon groß. Mit der heutigen EDV ist Planwirtschaft für weite Teile der Wirtschaft möglich, insbesondere Nahrungsmittel, Energie, Kommunikation."
Der Fehler den wirtschaftlichen Status Quo als für die Zukunft ausreichend zu betrachten, haben auch die alten Planwirtschaftler gemacht. Und der PC wurde eindeutig vom Kapitalismus durchgesetzt, die DDR hatte ihn komplett verschlafen und behalf sich dann damit IBM-Computer nachzubauen...
Ich bin auch ganz entschieden dagegen, die IT als so eine Art Wunderwaffe zu betrachten. Es wäre auch früher schon möglich gewesen, den Bedarf der Bevölkerung vorbeugend zu erfassen, DAS war nicht das Hauptproblem.
"(Alan) Greenspan recently gave a talk to newspaper editors in the US. He spoke
passionately about the miracles of the market, the wonders brought by consumer
choice, and so on. He also gave some examples: the Internet, computers,
information processing, lasers, satellites, transistors. It's an interesting list: these
are textbook examples of creativity and production in the public sector. In the case
of the Internet, for 30 years it was designed, developed, and funded primarily in
the public sector, most the Pentagon, then the National Science Foundation -
that's most of the hardware, the software, new ideas, technology, and so on. In
just the last couple of years it has been handed over to people like Bill Gates,
whom at least, you have to admire for his honesty: he attributes his success to his
ability to "embrace and extend" the ideas of others, commonly others in the public
section. In the case of the Internet, consumer choice was close to zero, and during
the crucial development stages the same was true of computers, information
processing, and all the rest - unless by "consumer" you mean the government; that
is, public subsidy. In fact, of all the examples that Greenspan gives, the only one
that maybe rises above the level of a joke is transistors, and they are an interesting
case. Transistors, in fact, were developed in a private laboratory - Nell Telephone
Laboratories of AT&T - which also made major contributions to solar cells, radio
astronomy, information theory, and lots of other important things. But what is the
role of markets and consumer choice in that? Well, again, it turns out zero. AT&T
was a government supported monopoly, so there was no consumer choice, and as
a monopoly they could charge high prices: in effect, a tax on the public which
they could use for institutions like Bell Laboratories, where they could so all the
work. So, again, it's publicly subsidized. __As if to demonstrate the point, as soon as
the industry was deregulated, Bell Labs went out of existence, because the public
wasn't paying for it any more__: its successors work mostly on short-term applied
projects. But that's only the beginning of the story. True, Bell Labs invented
transistors, but they used wartime technology, which, again, was publicly
subsidized and state-initiated. Furthermore, there was nobody to buy transistors at
that time, because they were very expensive to produce. So, for 10 years the
government was the major procurer, particularly for high-performance transistors.
In 1958 the Bell Telephone supplier, Western Electric, was producing hundreds of
thousands of these, but solely for military applications. Government procurement
provided entrepreneurial initiatives and guided the development of the
technology, which could then be disseminated to industry. That's "consumer
choice" and the "miracle of the market" in the one case that you can even look at
without ridicule. ..."
> http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_4648.html
Grundlegende Innovationen, also nicht etwa das iPhone etc., sondern die Gentechnik, vollbringt auch der Kapitalismus im steuerfinanzierten Sektor.
Die Grundlagenforschung spielt sich weit überwiegend an den Universitäten oder staatlichen Instituten ab, oder eben in privaten Forschungseinrichtungen, in welchen der Staat die Projekte fördert, die ihm fördernswert erscheinen.
Im Falle der USA schießen besonders gern das Pentagon oder das Energieministerium Geld zu.