Apple may be one of the world’s profitable tech company, but you know who invented its biggest single product, the iPhone? If you’re House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the answer is simple: not Steve Jobs, Jony Ive or any combination of Apple employees — but rather the federal government.
Check out the video below.
“Anybody here have a smartphone?” Pelosi asked an audience at a Democratic National Convention Platform hearing in Washington, D.C. this week. She then held up her iPhone, and said that everything in it came from federal investments in research.
“They say Steve Jobs did a good idea designing it and putting it together. Federal research invented it,” she said — naming GPS, high-tech displays, wireless data compression, voice recognition and more as some of the iPhone’s supposedly key components.
It’s an interesting (and contentious) point, reminiscent of President Obama’s 2012 comments in which he said that anyone who had achieved something with their life had done so due to investment on the part of the American government — whether they got there thanks to “a great teacher somewhere in your life [or] somebody [who] invested in roads and bridges.”
“If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
Do you think Pelosi (who certainly hasn’t been shy about using Apple government products in the past) is right or wrong about the iPhone? Leave your comments below.
Source: Washington Free Beacon
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
137 responses to “Nancy Pelosi: The U.S. government invented the iPhone”
who keeps voting for these bat $h*t crazy people?????
other bat-$h!t-crazy people
In the West Coast state of vegetive politicos, fruits and nuts!
Who keeps supporting the system of voting where idiots can elect people like Pelosi in the first place? the problem is democracy itself, which can never ever work, not who is voting.
Nancy Pelosi,
What can I say but like other things involving Government, they are so out of the mainstream and thought processes of the real world!
It’s just a series of tubes.
The government invented or innovated most of the things in an iPhone (not necessarily most of the things in her list), but at the time, it would have taken a steamer trunk and a nine-foot antenna strapped to your back to carry them all.
Point taken. Look at Apple’s patent portfolio to find what the “government agrees is their technology.” Samsung, et. al. as well.
Her statement is not incorrect, in that government-funded the research in a lot of the elements that were put together to make the iPhone. Apple didn’t invent the mp3 player (iPod), they took the idea and perfected it. Jobs himself would say that they “steal” ideas. They took existing technologies (funded by others – private and govt) then added their own technology and design and created the product.
Apple’s ample patent collection tells the story where the federal government agrees they invented most of the iphone and many other products.
Her statement is actually incorrect. All the listed tech she mentioned (written by a staffer, LLD?) was not invented BY the government, it was invented FOR the government by contractors… those evil corporations.
The point is, tax dollars, public investments, pay for government contracts and cause the work to be done.
Public investments almost always comes from national defense initiatives in the technologies cited. No one here should forget that.
All taxation is theft.
You seem to be taking the right to live in a first world country as inalienable. In actuality, it is a privilege. If you want to renounce your citizenship and live in a third world country with no taxes then that’s your right. But you don’t have the right to enjoy first world society without paying for it. Extreme libertarianism is theft.
You presume to know what I think. Think again. I never said I have any right to government benefits. If I want benefits, such as the ability to drive on roads, I will pay for them. If I don’t pay for them, I have no right to them.
“You presume to know what I think. Think again. I never said I have any right to government benefits.”
Alright, so you pay for your use of the roads. Now how are you going to go back in time and pay for all the transister research from the 1940s and 1950s that not only built the basic technology but also the skillsets which caused the computer revolution to occur here instead of overseas? Libertarianism is theft.
So because the government stole money in the past – raped people’s billfolds – it now has the right to steal it without their consent today. We can now proceed to go into rabbit holes about reparations of the past, or you can stick with discussing the central issue which is: Why should anyone – be it through government, charity, or on an individual basis – have any right to take another person’s property without their consent?
“So because the government stole money in the past – raped people’s billfolds – it now has the right to steal it without their consent today. ”
No. After you renounce American citizenship and move to a country that has no taxes, the US government will have no more right to take taxes from you. What I object to is your insistence on having all the benefits of first world society without having to pay for them.
Again you try to put words in my mouth because you can’t argue a point. I insist on not stealing from others and not being stolen from myself. You endorse financial rape by taxing me for things I do not consent to. If I want to use a road I should have to pay for it, but I should never be forced to pay for it. You are a financial rapist.
“I insist on not stealing from others and not being stolen from myself.”
How will you pay for your use of the roads? With a job? Well paying jobs are only found in first world countries. Are you assert your right to participate in this job pool without having to pay into the first world country the funds that allow it to exist? Or do you insist on the right to work for a company that has paid into the system so that it’s employees could live in a first world country as a freebee?
You act like it’s some mythical society that is only achieved through financial rape. I guess you’ve given up the argument conceptually and are now moving on to the practical matter of achieving a first world society through consensual financials? LOL!
Yes, it is only possible to have a first world society that includes a modest amount of group coercion. This is not “giving up the argument”. It is reporting on what you actually see in the real world. I have zero interest in what color the easter bunny’s tie is.
Perhaps you have a counter example? Show me a tax-free, coercion-free society that has prospered.
So your reply is to depend on what is seen as is that’s an argument. I’m sure societies pre-democracy had someone saying “show me a society without an unelected king”. Yet that’s no argument against democracy. Look at it conceptually and see how rape its wrong, whether of body or billfold, and let’s find something better that doesn’t start with rape.
I’m sure those who lived before true democracy insisted on naming an example. A-Ha, therefore we must have an unelected leader. Same goes for this financial rape. Just because it hadn’t existed yet is no argument for continuing the current non-consensual system. Look at it for what it is, wrong conceptually, as our founding fathers did.
Only a modest amount of rape, right? I’m sure the people who existed before democracy insisted on an example. Does that mean an unelected official is better?
“I’m sure the people who existed before democracy insisted on an example. ”
I wasn’t aware that there were any first world societies that existed before democracy. Do you have a link?
“Does that mean an unelected official is better?”
No. Nothing in this discussion relates to election structure.
“Only a modest amount of rape, right?”
Please explain why you think rape is necessary for civilization.
Actually, the constitution, starting from the Declaration of Independence all the way to the Bill of Rights, explicitly states that it’s governments, not the other way round, who owe loyalty to people and rule by privilege…which can be taken away if they abuse it.
Does this have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion? Brian was claiming that he has a right to a bunch of free stuff, including the ability to work at a high paying job instead of a nike shoe factory without paying for it in taxes. If he thinks he is better served to move to a third world country with no taxes to avoid the “financial rape” then more power to him.
Of course, part of the problem is he seems to believe in the possibility of a Santa Claus first world society with no taxes. Of course the laws of math say otherwise, but since he is bad at math he is damaging the political process.
Lol, I don’t see where this need to completely disrespect third world countries economies come from. As someone who invests in Emerging markets, I can tell you, the problems they have do not stem from lack of taxation.
Wealth has to be produced before it can be taxed and then reinvested elsewhere.
You didn’t build those roads ! Give me an effing break
It’s a widely held belief and fact that the “trickle down” research and development from various government funded entities (NASA, DARPA, Armed Services, etc) have aided in realization of consumer products that we never thought to imagine. Look at the R&D currently being invested in robotics, autonomous navigation, inertia navigation and maritime technologies. What about Bio-Research? That too. The government has their hands in all aspects research & development as they collaborate with our universities and colleges.
Trickle down works? Who knew.
Public trickle-down works becaues government is supposed to answer to the public. Private trickle-down, thinking if you always make the rich richer they will always make the poor richer, is another story.
This mistake is thinking you can ever not make the rich richer.
Absolutely
“…as they collaborate with our universities and colleges.” and military contractors.
Until you realize that most government investments make the average venture capitalist look like he’s he’s hitting .400 from the field.
The government wastes a lot more money than people think.
I just rolled my eyes so hard, I saw my brain.
Based on this comment I’m guessing you were mistaken.
What point is she trying to make? Take full credit for the iPhone and make us feel sorry that the Feds? Is she trying to make the Feds out to be victims?
No. She is making the point that you shouldn’t try copying your budgetary ideas from a third world economy unless that’s the type of society you are trying to create.
Nailed it!
Ask “how are you going to do this?” If it involves money from taxes, they must be stopped right there. That is theft.
And when you go to a country club do you consider their dues or green fees to be theft as well? You may have a right to live without taxes, but you have no right to expect to live in a first world country without taxes. Libertarianism is theft.
Again, you are very prideful to think you can put words in my mouth. I have no right to things that are not mine. If I want to drive on roads, I will pay for them. If I don’t, I don’t get to have them. What you propose is Financial Rape. You take money without consent. Your argument is the equivalent of saying, “Oh, you don’t like rape? Then don’t expect to have the right to have sex with whom you please.” Absolutely ridiculous.
Ok, I guess I was wrong when I assumed you would want to hold onto citizenship in a first world country.
“You take money without consent.” So it sounds like the only advantage of a country with taxes in it over a country without taxes is the former has roads. Have fun building your society without taxes.
Again you continue to justify financial rape as if it’s the only way to a first world society. Like a rapist who says “the only way I could have sex its through rape”. There are obvious ways to things that don’t violate people’s consent
Sheesh! What is it with you and rape? Over and over again. If we promise not to put anymore words in your mouth will you stop writing them, as well?
Because the crux of the issue is consent. We as a society respect consent w.r.t. the body, and my central argument is that we should respect it w.r.t. our property. Basic property rights.
You HAVE consented to the taxation because you have CHOSEN to live in the society. Luckily you have a chance to change the rules of our society, or you can leave the society. There are many people that do not have those choices.
If you don’t like your taxes, see a good accountant. That’s what most people who have the means to do so, do.
If the majority of your revenue comes from personal income, you’re screwed. The loopholes in tax law that are extensively mined tend to be for the benefit of those with more.
No crap, Sherlock. The whole discussion is not about what is in place currently, but what should be in place. Here in America, we discuss whether things should be this way or that way – not “Oh boy, it’s this way and if you don’t like it leave”. I’m sure there are things you want changed, but it’s not helpful to me to say to you “vote or leave”. When you have a point, get back with me.
Hell she’d say her Government also invented the railroads, the car and the airplane if she gets another 10 years of government schooling instilled into people’s brains. Cause then people’d be too dumb to think otherwise
At least one brain would have benefited from another 10 years of education.
Typical.
Everything Pelosi says is true. Despite all the GOP jokes made at Al Gores expense, the Internet infrastructure was created with government resources, and Gore was instrumental in getting the funding for that infrastructure, over GOP opposition.
And your parsing of Obama’s comments to make it appear that he was referring to the business rather than the roads and bridges is despicable.
You’re drinking the Kool-Aid, Timothy. Pelosi’s statements are at best misleading and conditional. What the hell are liberals trying to prove? How insecure they truly are? Funding development is one thing. But the actual inventing, the brainwork, the creativity, the marketing…that couldn’t come from the federal government in 1,000 years.
It did.
The point that is frequently made by those that say “Steve Jobs built it, so stop giving credit to government” is that we should prefer a level of public support for innovation that is better associated with Indonesia than with our massive successes like Japan or South Korea of the middle of the twentieth century.
It was Japan and South Korea that made themselves. We dumped plenty of money into the Philippines and South Vietnam, and neither did well. Us taking credit for the determination of leadership in both countries is a little like, well, Nancy Pelosi taking credit for the development of the iPhone.
I apologize for saying “our massive successes” when I meant to say “the world’s massive successes” or “the field of economics massive successes”. I would never in a million years say that the US government had anything to do with South Korea’s success or more that just a small military support donation to Japan’s success.
The fact that you think that’s where I was going means you probably missed the point about Mercantilism.
Fine hair splitting, exaggerations, and appropriating the meaning of words. The Feds very likely funded the development of the technology, but they did not invent it. All that technology, would, as some one else suggested, would have filled a small trailer on your gasoline car to have been useful and mobile. Jobs invented the iPhone as part of a design team.
If it’s not funded it doesn’t get invented, because the would-be inventor has to do something that pays their bills. Basic research is risky for private investors because they can’t expect any short-term profit. The point is government has an important role and there are people who want to deny that who need to face the facts.
And if tax dollars aren’t paid, there is no government.
All taxation is theft. I don’t care how noble their cause, no charity has the right to take others’ money at gunpoint. Same with the government. When you see a government official state how great their work is, remember it is illegitimate and theft.
In Silicon Valley. Not in Ethiopia. The point is when we are planning our public support for private enterprise we want our children to have a Silicon Valley as well.
so if my iphone fail, I get to claim my warranty from the US government?
Why?
just change invented to facilitated and everyone can calm down.
Or just change “Pelosi” to “Mush For Brains”.
The internet was developed by DARPA as a way to communicate after a nuclear war. Pelosi should be thanking the Soviets for being such a resolute enemy during the Cold War. Without them, where would we be today? The same goes for landing on the moon. The rocket technology was developed as a way to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles at Russia.
Pelosi and Putin should get together and have their own parade. They should invite Trump and Hillary along too.
I see a lot of hatred, but very little in the way of effective public policy here.
You’re actually retarded if you think America invented the Internet
Tim Berners-Lee did, when he was a researcher at CERN in SWITZERLAND. Go get your facts right
Tim invented http, which is not quite the internet. DARPANET, which is what Al Gore was referring to in his infamous statement, was the US military network that was de-militarized and became what we know as the internet. Federal dollars (military expenditures) created it, and federal legislation opened it up to the public.
Hahah wrong
Modern technology is built on both private and public investment, but anytime someone tries to remind people of the public investment, it causes outrage with the anti-government, anti-tax crowd. They’d be outraged even if the point wasn’t made clumsily.
Nice try at revisionist history, but that’s not what she said. “Federal research invented it.” is her quote.
I agree she made her point clumsily. What’s important is that government make strong investments in basic research, which might be part of a product we can’t live without 50 years from now. A private company wouldn’t be serving their shareholders to spend $100 million of on something that far out unless the government was paying for it.
1. Just because somebody funds a project doesn’t mean they actually invented anything.
2. Let’s not forget where “the government” gets all of its money. The “government” isn’t investing in or paying for anything. The taxpayers in this country are.
Forcing the people to pay for basic research is a good thing for government to do, and if Pelosi causes it to be funded, she’s better for her job than someone who might know exactly where the parts of the iPhone came from but only wants to cut taxes.
Try to stay on topic. Your “reply” really wasn’t a reply to anything I’ve said here.
My first post that you replied to wasn’t about what she said but why she said it. I don’t want support for federally funded research to be damaged by a clickbait headline trying to get people to laugh at Pelosi the same way people laughed at Al Gore trying to make a similar point about the Internet. Pelosi doesn’t know exactly how smartphones were developed — no shit, that could be the subject of a postgraduate thesis. But does she support government playing an important role in research? Yes she does, so I’m against the way this story is being spun.
Fair point on the spin of the story. But like the Obama comment, you have to look at what they’ve actually done to fully grasp the context. Are Pelosi and Obama friends of big government or a friend of private enterprise? They clearly side with one much more than the other and keep in mind who she was speaking TO. I’m a big fan of NASA and personally raise thousands of dollars every year for medical research, but I find marginalizing entrepreneurs to gin up support for more government to be offensive.
Entrepreneurs and government don’t have to be at odds. They can be great partners, with grants and tax incentives and visa waivers for foreign experts and whatnot. I don’t think increasing support for public investment holds back entrepeneurs. I’d be skeptical of a broad argument that the tax burden of public research inhibits private R&D.
“Are Pelosi and Obama friends of big government or a friend of private enterprise?”
You mean you have to choose? Which ones did you have in South Korea when Samsung and Kia were still playing catch-up to their larger competitors in Brazil and they got help in the form of guaranteed local markets, public private partnerships (analogous to Sematech in the US), massive investment in colleges and universities, and public grants to private companies with promising ideas in an industrial area the government felt had promise? Is pulling what actually worked to develop technology industries in the US, South Korea, and Japan in the middle of the last century being a friend of big government, or a friend of private enterprise?
1) well then Steve Jobs didn’t invent anything, nor did apple they just paid people too..
A) the government actually does research and invent stuff but they also pay companies and universities to do the research. I think if you pay for it then it’s probably yours
2 your point … we the people = government … we pay taxes … the US Government invest in technology directly and indirectly and it’s good! Use GPS recently.
..
Absolutely, so Pelosi’s comment should be the people of the US invented the iPhone. Taxpayers pay for all government research except that paid for by private companies but even those companies are paid for by the people of the US and the world. People, most of whom are taxpayers, work for the government and government contractors so those people actually made the iPhone. Politicians just can’t get over the fact that our government is supposed to be for the people and about the people, not about the government and certainly not about politicians.
First – she’s speaking about smart phones in general, and is using it as an example. Don’t know the context here, but I’m guessing she’s fighting cutbacks in public science investment. There is a lot of truth in what she is saying.
GPS is a great example: We see a green pointer on a screen and go oh yeah the 7-11 is 3 blocks away. That green dot is there because of a signal from 3 or more satellites in geo-sychronous orbit around the earth. How did they get there?
How did the internet get here? etc etc
Easy to dismiss, but a valid point is being made.
Like the military, the amount of waste in government investment is outstanding. They should cut back so that they can make better decisions, but somehow, everytime someone says the government should be more efficient, people act like every where government officials put their money ends up as a success.
Maybe, but had the Federal government designed and produced it you would see a rotary dial and a crank.
Don’t believe me? Ask SIRI.
Actually no… we went to the moon with government technology
…. no one else has.. we have only functional GPS system. You’ve drank the cool-aid that everything government is bad despite living in world where much of the coolness comes from government investment… it always boggles the mind to see an American say this stuff. Let’s go over some stuff F22, Saturn 5, M1, interstate system, Hoover Dam, F16, hundreds of top notch public universities which get billions of dollars in research monies, b1, b2, b52, nuclear reactors, gps, tcpip, the original Internet backbone… I mean the list goes on and on… Ohio class submarines, skylab , hubble, mars missions, voyage 1 and 2 …. pretty much any major bridge
Journalism is dead.
This ranks right up there with Al Gore inventing the internet. Typical Dumbocrat taking credit for everything….
According to this logic, since we as so indebted to other countries, especially China and Japan: why don’t we give them credit for every technological innovation, bailout and job created over the last 20 or so years.
Investment ≠ Invention. If Nancy understood that, she’d probably be in a different profession and not spewing all that horse manure.
“why don’t we give them credit for every technological innovation”
Because that doesn’t really relate to the question of whether we prefer Silicon Valley levels of public involvement, support, and infrastructure or whether we prefer third world country levels of the same. If her primary concern was growth of places like Bangalore and Hong Kong she probably would refer to innovation in those countries. I think she is more concerned with economic growth in the US, though.
What she’s basically saying, in principle, is that if a government funds what you do, whatever you create, they deserve credit for it. Much of our economy, which is increasingly funded by debt (esp. in the Housing market), is funded by foreign countries.
I also think her concern has nothing to do with public involvement, infrastructure or support of any kind, like similar comments made by other politicians, the desire is simply to cut down tall poppies.
” they deserve credit for it.”
Meaning can only be interpreted in context. The context for the political debates in the US over the last 50 years has been libertarians screaming over and over again that government is useless, so the key debate is not whether corporations can build things, but whether corporations can build the same kinds of things in ethiopia with no public support as in Silicon Valley, with tons of public support and a long history of public research.
Those that talk about ending public infrastructure are really talking about ensuring that the next Silicon Valley is in China or India rather than here.
“the desire is simply to cut down tall poppies.”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The fact that we have a lobbying crisis and that there is so much money in politics, is more than enough evidence – if that doesn’t do it for you, I don’t know what will.
If the government has billions to dish out, and there are thousands of companies and universities who want some of it, how exactly is the government supposed to objectively determine, without bias, which companies should and should not get the subsidy?
Furthermore, the libertarian argument, which is rooted in free markets, has and always will be, that government intervention in the economy, leads to corruption, as well causes moral hazard (which regulations tries to control – which ever since the South Sea Bubble has always been a failure), mostly because rather than basing business decisions on supply and demand, businesses have to base their decisions on what future government decisions will be.
Government isn’t useless – only anarchists believe government is useless. There is fraud and there is the need for law, especially since businesses cannot function without the enforcement of contracts, which can only be done by government. However, as is always the argument that many libertarians make and statists overlook, is that governments do not allocate capital well, mostly because there are no consequences for wasting taxpayer money.
“The fact that we have a lobbying crisis and that there is so much money in politics,”
Evidence of what? Libertarians are the ones that are for money in politics. They call it free speech.
“Government isn’t useless – only anarchists believe government is useless. ”
People like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are the ones fighting against government. They are the ones that Nancy’s speech is aimed at.
“If the government has billions to dish out, and there are thousands of companies and universities who want some of it, how exactly is the government supposed to objectively determine, without bias, which companies should and should not get the subsidy?”
Double or quadruple NIH funding instead of cutting it every year like we have been doing since Reagan was elected. Create the “Center for unpatentable medicine”.
” that government intervention in the economy, leads to corruption, ”
See 1933-1945 for a thorough refutation of this. It is a small ship that is blown off course by corporate headwinds – not a large one.
“However, as is always the argument that many libertarians make and statists overlook, is that governments do not allocate capital well, mostly because there are no consequences for wasting taxpayer money.”
Neutral profit incentive always allocates money better than profit incentive for waste, eg. privatized prisons.
Libertarians do not want the government involved in the economy outside of enforcing contracts – it’s pretty straightforward, and there are never-ending economic reasons that have been given. You’re projecting what you hear come out of politicians mouths as what a political philosophy actually is. And the same thing is what happens with privatized prisons, which are the product of governments working alongside businesses.
As for 1933-1945; well, in case you want to know where the modern lobbying system began, here you go. Even back then, it was well known, and even liberals like Gore Vidal admitted this, FDR was recreating the same kind of political system nationally that he was a part of as governor of New York. I forget who the liberal economist was criticizing neoliberalism policies since Reagan, but he basically admitted that the closest liberals came to their dream of full employment, was only through massive conglomeration.
All those massive investments in the economy are what leads to all the problems that are eventually blamed on corporations and their greed.
“As for 1933-1945; ”
190% growth in 12 years. That’s the point.
What are you using to measure growth: GDP, GNP, Retail Sales?
GDP. 190% from 1933-1945 compares with <10% 1920-1932, when Republicans held both branches of congress for 12 years and libertarians got everything they could ever dream of through congress.
The Democratic viewpoint: People are essentially unintelligent and don’t know how to take care of themselves, therefore, the government will step in and tell people what they need and will support them. With a Democratic government there is no need for personal responsibility or initiative. The government will provide all. This, however, flies directly in the face of the US Constitution, where the entire reason for the government is simply to ensure domestic tranquility so that citizens can pursue life, liberty and happiness.
While government-sponsored research does exist, it takes individuals with vision, courage and tenacity to start and run companies that put ideas, research and technology into forms that can actually be used. The whole “You didn’t make that…” attitude is an enormous insult to every hard-working business owner and all his or her staff.
Actually drop the 1st paragraph we don’t feel that way… we just see a part for government in the word
“With a Democratic government there is no need for personal responsibility or initiative. The government will provide all. ”
This is the “We should all move to Antarctica because, see? I just burned myself with fire” argument.
“he whole “You didn’t make that…” attitude is an enormous insult ”
The whole “I could have built the same thing in Somalia” argument is an insult to the hard-working people who have chipped in taxes to build roads, pay teachers and judges, etc.
The government obscures market conditions, and always shifts blame to the market when the consequences come about.
You can go back to the building of the Railroads to see a prime example of this. There were companies who built the railroads with only private investment, and then there were those who built with government funding. The result was that those who built on government backing, were far more corrupt. Not only that, they built more rails than necessary, which is one of the reasons why J.P. Morgan had to intervene and fix the industry when he did.
It also has to do with the fact that governments do not have objective means to assigning capital to companies. They have to assign capital to either those who they have connections to, or those that have a big enough size to gain government attention. This is the same thing when it comes to research or anything that the government invests in. This by nature leads to corruption. And yet the same people who love and proclaim the greatness of government investment, somehow are too blindsided by their distaste towards corporations (and commerce in general) that such things necessitate corruption.
Not to mention, that for those of us, who actually pay attention to what the government does with our money, it’s pretty clear that most government investments are wasteful.
First off, I’m not a republican or a democrat.
Second off, I’m sick and fucking tired of these worthless journalists writing click-bait articles! Luke Dormehl you are worthless!!! Please die!!!!
Lost control and no idea this lady talking about…man comeeee
The US government didn’t invent the iPhone but it certainly subsidized and created most of the underlying technology, this is undisputable
The first computers, Billions on computer research, Billions on university r and d and. He’ll the biggest spinoff of the Apollo program was modern software development…. they didn’t even have functions but the multi hundred dollar project payed for the first real enormous software development large scale.
Over the last several decades IT has become self supporting but US and other Government developed, supported and subsidized both directly and indirectly these technologies for 4 plua decades. TCP/IP ARPA (the predecessor to DARPA) GPS government developed, … so yes absolutely
There’s no doubt that governments fund things. But remember they are using money that comes from companies and the public, who is to say that if the money was not taken, that it would not be put to better use?
It’s also telling that most people are unaware of how much of taxpayer money is wasted on these investments.
All taxation is theft. I don’t care how noble their cause, no charity has the right to take others’ money at gunpoint. Same with the government. When you see a government official state how great their work is, remember it is illegitimate and theft
Lather, rinse, repeat. Or here on the ARPANET: copy, paste, repeat.
When you lack an argument you go from questioning the issue to questioning the person. Ad hominem attacks are unhelpful and non-rational.
This taxation is theft, raping at gunpoint, help! help! I’m being oppressed silliness is ridiculous on it’s face. It’s the end result of decades of conservative/libertarian nonsense equating taxes with, well, according to you, theft and rape. I sure as hell don’t want to live in the blasted hellscape of your idyllic Galt’s Gulch.
The same things were said by those across the pond when the American revolution was under way. That the complaints about taxing and rights were ridiculous and menial.
And that thinking is exactly the problem. That our government is somehow foreign, the “other.” The government is us. This isn’t 1776 and what’s on you head isn’t a tri-corner hat. (Maybe a beanie with propeller?) You don’t have to grab your musket to effect change. Vote.
This is dangerous, when you look at it from the perspective of our involvement in other countries. Or consider this, when things like the NSA come about.
I’m not sure what your comment means. What’s dangerous? And the NSA?
Government my ass. The government just wants to take every good idea and make it thiers so they look good.
Don’t know if I need a double-face palm or
“We never had a single new idea, but we’ll take credit for all of yours.”
“We made the roads. If you used a road today, everything you did afterwards, I’m taking credit for.”
She’s plainly right — she is talking about the fact that many technologies are researched on the public dime. She clarified by expressing how government efforts, funds, and infrastructures help build business. It’s fair.
Lol, I’ve never seen so much defense for the Military Industrial Complex: but here we go.
Whether you see it as support for the Military Industrial Complex or the Knights Templar doesn’t make what she says any less accurate. I enjoy churning butter as much as the next guy but I like that an interstate highway system allows Land O’Lakes to transport their fine product to my grocery store where I can buy it. (Sometimes I drive there on the same interstate highway system!)
Most of the time, few people single-handedly invent anything. Even Calculus can be credited to both Liebniz and Newton. Seems to me that the folks at Apple found a way to perfect existing technologies and make them attractive to average consumers. Maybe they even had help from outside researchers, but it shouldn’t matter. Even if some government lab flat out handed them an iPhone prototype, which I don’t think they did, I don’t know what her point is. It can’t be money. Apple pays its taxes, so you know Uncle Sam’s got his.
It stems from the meme of “You didn’t build that” which was probably first put out there by Elizabeth Warren. It’s basically saying that because your wealth is a product of public policy, the public has the right to ask you for whatever it deems necessary to fulfill the needs of the public interest. If the government needs you to pay 90% of your profits, then yeah, you owe it to them to give it to them, and you should like it.
This attitude isn’t directed at the people as a whole, because if it was, it would be seen for what it basically is: fascism: loyalty to the nation state above everything else. But if it’s only directed to the wealthy or 1%, it’s easy to miss it, but it’s the same thing.
It’s true that many people help invent things. Apple wouldn’t exist without unix. But there isn’t an attitude that they’re obligated to give back for providing useful products to consumers. There’s a mentality among people like her, where paying taxation is viewed as a greater betterment to society than the actual production of goods and selling products. And she’s lowkey expressing that in her commentary.
Ok, now that I actually watched the video (duh!) I get what she’s saying. I don’t think she’s saying the government invented the iPhone, only that the features many of us enjoy may have arisen from past federally funded research. Any geek worth his or her salt knows that the Internet first arose from a DARPA project to ensure continued communications during a nuclear war. The tech evolved and we ended up with the web and social media. Those are just positive outcomes of a research project that started off as something else. I don’t think she would then assert that the govt owns or created Facebook, for example.
Nice, this is fuel for the Conspiricy crowd , Obama is kinda being mean say that succefull business people didn’t make there Buisness, what a Dick
GPS has it’s origins in the U.S. Military personnel discovering that they could track sputnik and other satellites by utilizing the dopplar effect and distortion of frequencies. A lot of the research for these technologies was developed by cooperation between government, private sector companies and intellectuals. None of this could have happened without Lockheed Martin and many other companies and individuals who developed the scientific knowledge necessary for these inventions. A lot of it came from military needs but government needed private industry and also the tax dollars came from hard working Americans. A lot of these things come from the progress in general from the industrial age forward to today… Things like the telegraph, the telephone, photography, sound recordings, digital audio (Invented by Phillips Magnavox and other private sector people and shrunken by Sony, not any government). To diminish what Jobs and others have done as “a good idea” is ridiculous. They put more computing power that can be held in the palm of one’s hand than all of the computers in the Apollo Space Program put together. If the government did it why doesn’t my phone say “Government Issue” instead of “Apple”?
Then I guess aluminium invented Jony Ive :/
This daffy beotch and her queen, Reid need to be shown the door
This is some insightful commentary. You’ve truly embiggened our smartness.
Let’s not forget Al Gore invented the internet too…
according to nancy pelosi and all the comments i just read, i am the inventor of the iphone since the i pay the government with my taxes and the government paid corporations to invent the individual parts.
but no one mentioned that the iphone is greater than the sum of it’s parts.