backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jan 13 at 7:12 AM


Aneesh Chopra  (Source: AFP)
CEA President Gary Shapiro says the government is silencing innovation

The Obama administration has already had a profound impact on technology.  From charging Intel with antitrust violations to taking majority ownership of GM and Chrysler, the administration's actions have profoundly affected the tech landscape.  And as new decisions, such as the proposed ACTA treaty and Copenhagen climate promises loom, the Obama administration is a hot topic at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show.

Obama's Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra was in Las Vegas yesterday, but received a rather icy welcome from Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro, who admonished the Obama administration's approach on many topics.

He offered mild criticism of the bailout of the financial and auto sectors, which he called "panic spending".  And he stated, "When it comes to innovation, there's a lot the government can do, and there's a lot they should not do.  The government doesn't spur innovation or entrepreneurship. The government often gets in the way."

Mr. Shapiro complains that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to make sure that the U.S.'s trade policy allows our goods to compete with cheaper goods elsewhere.  He also complains that they are dragging their feet about implementing measures to allow the faster transfer of tech savvy workers from nations like China and India.

An apologetic Chopra commented, "We have to eat our own dogfood.  Gary is right about the federal deficit. We are in an economic crisis but we are going to tackle it. We have to get it right."

Mr. Chopra is a graduate of John Hopkins and worked in government and as the managing director at a health think tank before taking on the role of government CTO.  The tech industry's leadership has thus far been rather mixed in their opinions on his leadership and that of the Obama administration.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 1:17:50 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
Shapiro needs a cold can of STFU.


I'm sorry, but what company are you a CEO or President of again ? Yeah, that's what I thought.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 2:00:31 PM , Rating: 1
hmurchison is right, Shapiro needs to STFU. He's complaining that the financials and others got money from the bailout, forgetting that it was a policy created during the Bush era by Henry Paulson. McCain and Obama supported the final version of the measure, but neither had a hand in creating the original version. It had to be revised a few times before passing both the House and the Senate, which is the only time Obama or anyone other than Paulson could have legally (I stress legally) influenced the proposal. It went into effect October 3, 2008; Obama assumed Office January 20, 2009, nearly four months afterward. By then a good portion of the money was "lent". Obama is just trying to play ball with the Republicans and instead he gets shafted.

Then Shapiro says America needs to increase skilled emigration. I don't think you'd like that:
quote:
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 3:23:22 PM , Rating: -1
It's not like there are millions of Americans that can't even find work. Clearly we need to bring in foreigners to compete with Americans for jobs.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 3:12:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It went into effect October 3, 2008; Obama assumed Office January 20, 2009, nearly four months afterward. By then a good portion of the money was "lent". Obama is just trying to play ball with the Republicans and instead he gets shafted.

Only $298B of TARP I was spent by the time Obama got his hands on it. Thats less than half. And nearly all of the money under Bush's TARP I plan has been repaid. "Lent" and repaid, check.

Of course the monkey was out of the bag for O. He went on to create TARP II at $900B and this wonderful medical mess we've inherited at 10 Trillion. Then put money down on two car companies that haven't made money in a decade.

298B vs 11,900B and 10% unemployment. Maybe you need to take a sip of that STFU yourself...


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By omnicronx on 1/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 4:21:40 PM , Rating: 5
Not enough time has passed for revisionist history just yet.
quote:
TARP 1 was designed to increase lending

Uhm, NO, that was part II genius and completely organized by BO.

The CBO and several other organizations tracked the funds of TARP. TARP I's sole purpose was to rescue the financial market. Lending was not even on the radar yet. The following summers high gas prices revealed the housing. When the funds exceeded the needs of the banks it was later revised as an "as needed" fund. TARP I funds are tracked and mostly recuperated.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp., BB&T Corp, and Bank of America have repaid TARP money.

AIG, GM, and Regions are the only companies not listed as having not repaid or don't currently have a plan to do so.
quote:
By the time TARP was actually passed, the market didnt even think it would work.

You mean you didn't think it would work, but it did so get over it.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By omnicronx on 1/8/2010 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
TARP I's sole purpose was to rescue the financial market. Lending was not even on the radar yet.
.. and what exactly do you think was the purpose of pumping billions back into financial institutions? To get them to continue lending, so to say it was not even on the radar yet is just plain foolish.
quote:
You mean you didn't think it would work, but it did so get over it.
Really? So why is it when it was announced the stock market rebounded, in which the bill ended up not being passed. When the bill was finally passed the stock market failed to rebound in the same way, that's not my opinion that's the financial markets opinion. Personally I had no idea if it would work or not, nor can you make the claim that it did work. Its not like it would have an instant effect, for all you know TARP II was the reason the market rebounded.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 7:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? So why is it when it was announced the stock market rebounded, in which the bill ended up not being passed. When the bill was finally passed the stock market failed to rebound in the same way, that's not my opinion that's the financial markets opinion.

Pretty simple with anyone with a brain that has actually learned anything from what has happened.

The markets fluctuate on the possibilities of just about everything. A larger than average thunderstorm flings the market into turmoil. You aren't exactly hitting me whirlwind evidence here. Speculation is one of the biggest pitfalls of the current market and that hasn't changed under Bush or Obama.
quote:
.. and what exactly do you think was the purpose of pumping billions back into financial institutions?

And what do you mean it didn't have an instant effect? Are you blind??? Did you not see the effect of an imminent run on the bank that was circulating when these institutions were floundering? It happened to many small banks, and one particular bank in California that was ceased by Feds before it collapsed in utter disarray.

The whole and entire purpose of TARP was the stop the imminent collapse of the dollar. The was no collective insight beyond that. There wasn't enough time! Nor did they have any idea how many banks would be affected or the outcome of lending for the next year. They took the biggest banks that had the highest impact of the economy and did what was necessary for their survival, thats it! Sorry, but you are clearly looking back on the situation with so much revisionist history and hatred that you can't tell the obvious from your little fantasy world.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By ekv on 1/11/2010 3:25:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
bank in California that was ceased by Feds

as in deceased? or perhaps seized? The way I heard it was that Paulson was shoving TARP down everybodies throat, so to speak, including small banks that were perfectly solvent and did NOT want the money. With the money, of course, came Federal control. Etc.

quote:
The whole and entire purpose of TARP was the stop the imminent collapse of the dollar

Odd statement, especially considering that the Fed has not supported the dollar for quite some time. Foreign governments and other large holders of dollars aren't happy at losing billions upon billions [may Carl Sagan roll over in his grave 8] of dollars in the process. Pressure is mounting to do something. FOMC meeting is Jan. 25-26 which, simply, will be interesting.

I am also terribly curious what the deal tween Turbo Timmy and AIG was. Of course, that transaction isn't exactly transparent. Or is it?


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By amanojaku on 1/8/2010 4:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
ONLY $300B of TARP was spent in three months? That's nearly HALF! Programs like that are supposed to last years and it was in danger of being spent in less than one year.

We all know what happened, of course. As you pointed out Obama spent another $787B (not including any later adjustments) on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That included more than just business relief. $51B was set aside for business relief. $237B was tax cuts for citizens. $91B went to education and $148B went to health care. $83B went to worker's benefits (unemployment, welfare, job training, other)... The list goes on, but at less than 10% business bailouts were not a significant part of the stimulus.

I agree that Obama needs to quit with the damn medical reform. People aren't THAT interested in change, and we don't have the time or money for projects like this. However, it's just a PROPOSAL, and one that is designed to recover costs over time. It's not meant to be a flash in the pan type of system but something that can be enhanced over the long term. That won't be cheap, but if it's capable of reclaiming money the way Obama says it should then the ESTIMATES of the plan's costs may be justified in a few years. For crying out loud, this is a plan for 300+M people, it's not going to show positive results over night.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 4:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
ONLY $300B of TARP was spent in three months?

Yeah, only... I mean we are talking Trillions under BO. Whats Billions these days anyway?
quote:
Programs like that are supposed to last years and it was in danger of being spent in less than one year.

Which is less than most of it as you described previously.

And it did last years by the way. They spent half in a few short months sure, but the rest has been sitting at the Fed untouched until just a few months ago when guess what happened...
BO just discovered there is 350B left over from the first TARP that hasn't been spent yet. Oh Goodie!!!
quote:
The list goes on, but at less than 10% business bailouts were not a significant part of the stimulus.

What stimulus? GW saved the financial institutions. It was never intended to be stimulus. You are mixing your presidents here.
quote:
For crying out loud, this is a plan for 300+M people, it's not going to show positive results over night.

Because its being spent incorrectly on buying out companies that haven't turned a profit in a decade, or that we have no idea where most of the money is going under BO? Lets be honest here, do you expect it ever to show a positive result?

It didn't take this long after WWII for things to show positive influence. There is NO positive influence at this point at all!!! I mean we just made it through what is usually the most product quarter of the year for almost every company and what did we get... Another 50,000 jobs lost.
quote:
That won't be cheap, but if it's capable of reclaiming money the way Obama says it should then the ESTIMATES of the plan's costs may be justified in a few years.
What does he know! He was a teacher of the constitution, not business theory. And what if he's wrong? Have you contemplated that? With the national debt at nearly 100% of GDP, there are no second chances!!!!!


By SandmanWN on 1/8/2010 10:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another 50,000 jobs lost.

Self correction...
Another 85,000 jobs lost.


By amanojaku on 1/9/2010 8:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, only... I mean we are talking Trillions under BO. Whats Billions these days anyway?
Obama hasn't spent trillions of dollars on anything. The trillions you're complaining about is what some people ESTIMATE Obama's health care reform plan to cost over the long term IF PASSED. It has not even been passed, therefore no money has been spent.

You are ignorant of the details of the 2008 bailout. Of the $700B, $220 was set aside for small businesses, affordable housing, and private investments. That means the big bailouts took $356B of the allocated $480B, a whopping 74%. In four months. Most of the left over money came from the $220B that was NOT allocated to big business.

quote:
What stimulus? GW saved the financial institutions. It was never intended to be stimulus. You are mixing your presidents here.
You mixed your presidents. I was talking about Obama's $787B stimulus plan, known as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Less than 10% of it was for corporations.
quote:
It didn't take this long after WWII for things to show positive influence.
Well, we aren't at the end of WWII. WWII was preceded by the Great Depression, so the economy was moving in a positive direction. A great deal of technical innovation went into fighting the war that resulted in the creation of the computer, advanced weapons and vehicles, and energy sources. With most of Europe in shambles and Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America still underdeveloped the US was the de facto king of the world. Most of the world relied on our assistance, and paid through the nose for it over the next four decades. We got lucky; if we had lost our economy might not have recovered until who knows how long.

We're still fighting our wars, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was nothing to gain in either war and everything to loose. And we're fighting against guerrillas and terrorists; few American companies are prepared to combat that type of enemy, much less profit from it. Go figure the economy hasn't benefited from either. But that's Obama's fault, because he started the wars and runs all businesses. *rolls eyes*
quote:
I mean we just made it through what is usually the most product quarter of the year for almost every company and what did we get... Another 50,000 jobs lost.
And that's Obama's fault if a company is run into the ground by mismanagement? On the one hand you say you don't want the guy bailing out companies, on the other hand you're blaming him for the jobs lost when even MORE would be lost without the bailouts. You can't have it both ways, so what do YOU suggest? Government jobs? It sounds to me like he's doing the best he can by providing financing, the same as Bush.
quote:
What does he know! He was a teacher of the constitution, not business theory. And what if he's wrong? Have you contemplated that? With the national debt at nearly 100% of GDP, there are no second chances!!!!!
That's why the guy, and everyone president before him, has advisers. It's not like Obama writes a plan on toilet paper in the john, then pushes it onto the public. And with groups like Congress, lobbyists, etc... there are plenty of people capable of stopping him before we go over the brink. And if you really want to get pissed at someone yell at Bush. The US debt as a percentage of GDP has gone up steadily since 2001, after eight years of decline. The decline was during Clinton's administration, while the increase was during Bush Jr.'s administration. I don't hear you busting BUSH'S balls over what he DID, but you have plenty of fire for Obama and what he has not yet done.


RE: You gotta be %^&* kidding me
By hmurchison on 1/8/2010 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 3
Reclaimer77

Nice rebuttal.

Classic "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Next time try actually "thinking" in your response. Wait a minute ..you probably don't understand what I mean. Let me dumb it down for you.

Shapiro being a CEO or a President doesn't make his comments any more valid than yours or mine unless his statement can be supported well enough with logical reasoning.

Stating that Obama is hampering innovation by enforcing antitrust laws is pure conjecture and poor conjecture at that.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/8/2010 11:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
He's not an authority figure unless you happen to be working under him.

The people who proclaim everything Obama does is right are the ones operating under that premise. The "Cult of personality" crowd as well.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki