How Should a Capitalist Social Democratic Republic Finance Tech Innovation?
Allan R. Scott
Technology Innovation | Go-to-Market Strategy | Marketing Communications | Business Planning
Every generation seems to face its own unique existential crisis. Currently it's the growing polarization between the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal', a trend which is manifesting itself in comical half-witted debates on social media about the evils of socialism vs. capitalism and more seriously over today’s Mason-Dixon line demarcating where the role of the federal government ends, and the role of state governments begin.
It's long been my view that the role of the federal government should be to do the things that the states can’t do for themselves. More specifically and aside from the obvious (those things explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States such as defense spending, international relations, etc.) the federal government should for the most part be outward-looking establishing and executing policy that secures the long-term well-being of our society.
This means investment in infrastructure, human resources such as education and healthcare, and innovation. Said differently, the stuff making up the foundation on which the private sector and our society builds.
Historically the U.S. private sector has been the most visible source of funding for innovation (let’s for now ignore the role of government investment, such as spending on defense and science which have yielded innumerable commercial and consumer benefits, and the role of the Federal Reserve).
The financial sector regularly experiences its own existential crises, often self-inflicted, leading to routine recessions and depressions which the majority of society pays for in the form of increased unemployment, reduced standard of living, bailouts, the loss of long-term competitive advantage to hostile states, etc.
领英推荐
So how should a capitalist social democratic republic compete, in terms of investment in tech innovation, with a controlled economy such as China’s where their ‘private sector’ operates as an extension of the central government and there is no debate about private sector vs. public sector much less conservative vs. liberal and therefore is better positioned to execute long-term economic strategies?
In ‘What's a better way to fund tech in the US?’ Quartz argues that Silicon Valley Bank's failure is the perfect moment to rethink how we finance innovation and that a public (yikes, there go those socialists again) tech bank might be a better option for funding future innovation.
Bon appetit!
"Stay curious my friends" ~ A.R. Scott, Partner, Bear Scott Company
ToK instructor at Coral Reef High School
1 年When I visited Scandinavia, I saw what it meant to invest in the people and infrastructure. I am unashamedly a social democrat, and it was nice to see it in play. Few people there worry about the cost of giving birth, of education, of medical expenses, or even old age. Yes, they are by-in-large a homogenous society. Given the influx of environmental and political refugees, that may change. It has already started sadly. All I know is that in a capitalistic society, if there is too great a divide between rich and poor, the question of innovation is a mute point. Unless, of course, we wish A.I. to take over.
COO at Helios Acquisitions
1 年Once again, excellent food for thought.