Re:Here’s How The Government Can Fix Silicon Valley: Leave I...
by anigbrowl on Monday June 07, 2010 @06:34PM
(#1412222)
What a heap of self-serving, nutrition-free bullshit.
Mostly because of the broken promises. From my interview with [Barack Obama, pre-election]:
He is staunchly in favor of net neutrality, and has promised to make it a priority to reinstate it in his first year in office. He has proposed intelligent programs for increasing technology education and access to children. He doesn’t believe the FCC went far enough in their proposed rules for opening up the 700MHz spectrum auctions. He wants to see increases in the number of H1-B visas given out each year. He strongly supports research into renewable energy sources and he has a realistic, market based approach to capping carbon emissions.
None of these things happened, nor seem likely to happen under his presidency.
But it’s more than broken promises. Our government is just way too interested in mucking around in Silicon Valley by creating and enforcing rules based on little or no understanding of the consequences. A perfect example – recent proposed financial reform legislation by Senator Chris Dodd added on a few random provisions that could have devastated Silicon Valley’s delicate venture capital ecosystem.
So basically government would be good if it delivered specific results that you like but it's bad because some of its proposals would lead to results that you don't like.
Net neutrality? Liked by tech companies, loathed by communications companies. Shut down (at least temporarily) by the supreme court, not the action of the executive. Meanwhile the FCC is drawing up a new policy which would enforce net neutrality, ariousing the ire of libertarians and those who think governments shouldn't tell telcos and ISPs how to operate their routers and switches.
Spectrum auctions, I have not paid attention to. Neither has Obama, perhaps.
H1-Bs? Good for investors in tech industry and holders of advanced STEM degrees, both of whom need each other. Not so popular with voters, many of whom feel the program has been abused by employers who want lower wages and onerous employee commitments. Of course some objections are also grounded simple xenophobia/racism, but given the unlucky coincidence of high unemployment and a relatively large population of illegal residents, overcoming the popular antipathy to importing more workers from abroad is extremely challenging in political terms.
As for renewable energy/carbon markets, surely it can't have escaped Arrington's attention that issues of fuel sources and environmental policy are among the most bitterly disputed policy debates between the two main parties, and that the administration is opposed from the left by hippies who think solar panels are free and anything which smacks of technology or markets is evil, and opposed from the right (at least until very recently) by a large body of people chanting 'drill baby drill'. Not to mention the more substantive questions of just how we should fund the transition to renewables, which technologies we should prioritize, and what effect a mandatory market for carbon credits would have on energy costs and economic growth.
So the financial reform bill first arrived in Congress with a policy tweak that might have limited the amount of investment $ for startups if interpreted over-literally by the two regulatory agencies involved. After a fuss was made, the provision was excised as part of the normal legislative process, and nobody went broke or had to go to court or got saddled with massive new legal compliance costs because the policy tweak never even became law.
This editorial is shallow and insubstantive, amounting to little more than 'government never gives me what I want and sometimes saddles me with things I don't want. All I want is to have a good time and government keeps ruining it for me and my friends. I hate you, government!' and since there's always a ready audience of people who like to complain about the government and how useless it is, at least some of his readers can be relied upon to cheer this tantrum - though looking at the TC comments, I see I'm not alone in my skepticism.
Mostly because of the broken promises. From my interview with [Barack Obama, pre-election]:
He is staunchly in favor of net neutrality, and has promised to make it a priority to reinstate it in his first year in office. He has proposed intelligent programs for increasing technology education and access to children. He doesn’t believe the FCC went far enough in their proposed rules for opening up the 700MHz spectrum auctions. He wants to see increases in the number of H1-B visas given out each year. He strongly supports research into renewable energy sources and he has a realistic, market based approach to capping carbon emissions.
None of these things happened, nor seem likely to happen under his presidency.
But it’s more than broken promises. Our government is just way too interested in mucking around in Silicon Valley by creating and enforcing rules based on little or no understanding of the consequences. A perfect example – recent proposed financial reform legislation by Senator Chris Dodd added on a few random provisions that could have devastated Silicon Valley’s delicate venture capital ecosystem.
So basically government would be good if it delivered specific results that you like but it's bad because some of its proposals would lead to results that you don't like.
Net neutrality? Liked by tech companies, loathed by communications companies. Shut down (at least temporarily) by the supreme court, not the action of the executive. Meanwhile the FCC is drawing up a new policy which would enforce net neutrality, ariousing the ire of libertarians and those who think governments shouldn't tell telcos and ISPs how to operate their routers and switches.
Spectrum auctions, I have not paid attention to. Neither has Obama, perhaps.
H1-Bs? Good for investors in tech industry and holders of advanced STEM degrees, both of whom need each other. Not so popular with voters, many of whom feel the program has been abused by employers who want lower wages and onerous employee commitments. Of course some objections are also grounded simple xenophobia/racism, but given the unlucky coincidence of high unemployment and a relatively large population of illegal residents, overcoming the popular antipathy to importing more workers from abroad is extremely challenging in political terms.
As for renewable energy/carbon markets, surely it can't have escaped Arrington's attention that issues of fuel sources and environmental policy are among the most bitterly disputed policy debates between the two main parties, and that the administration is opposed from the left by hippies who think solar panels are free and anything which smacks of technology or markets is evil, and opposed from the right (at least until very recently) by a large body of people chanting 'drill baby drill'. Not to mention the more substantive questions of just how we should fund the transition to renewables, which technologies we should prioritize, and what effect a mandatory market for carbon credits would have on energy costs and economic growth.
So the financial reform bill first arrived in Congress with a policy tweak that might have limited the amount of investment $ for startups if interpreted over-literally by the two regulatory agencies involved. After a fuss was made, the provision was excised as part of the normal legislative process, and nobody went broke or had to go to court or got saddled with massive new legal compliance costs because the policy tweak never even became law.
This editorial is shallow and insubstantive, amounting to little more than 'government never gives me what I want and sometimes saddles me with things I don't want. All I want is to have a good time and government keeps ruining it for me and my friends. I hate you, government!' and since there's always a ready audience of people who like to complain about the government and how useless it is, at least some of his readers can be relied upon to cheer this tantrum - though looking at the TC comments, I see I'm not alone in my skepticism.