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

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.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














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