Reddit Reddit reviews The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Other Canon Economics)

We found 17 Reddit comments about The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Other Canon Economics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Economic Policy & Development
The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Other Canon Economics)
Check price on Amazon

17 Reddit comments about The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Other Canon Economics):

u/modulus · 20 pointsr/socialism

On the economic side, there's a fair amount to choose from:

u/DJBJ · 15 pointsr/ShitLiberalsSay

Oh it absolutely does, I just gave the iPhone example for it's relevance.

There's a book I want to read, The Entrepreneurial State that seems to go through this industry by industry. Basically, private corporations only invest once the government/public have taken the large initial risk.

u/xNuckingFutz · 8 pointsr/socialism

I used to call people out on their preconceptions and bullshit. I tend not to anymore, unless they seem capable of seeing something from another point of view. Holding firm to your views and using facts to quash counter arguments is your best bet. If that doesn't work you need to give up, no amount of logic is going to sway them.

I also copy and paste previous comments I have made, 9/10 I can get them to fit into a counter argument and you don't get emotionally drained by typing up a response.

But if you insist on being a masochist here are my go to rebuttals....

My top three most annoying things capitalists say to me.

At number three we have the classic:

"Face it socialism failed get over it"- my go to response is this. No system is implemented overnight the transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't spontaneous it took years of struggle for capitalism to win out. the capitalists took ground and lost ground, learned from their mistakes and eventually overcame the system that came before.

Coming in at number two:

"look how successful capitalism is compared to socialism "- you can use various arguments on this one.

  • 8 economic downturns in the past century suggest that capitalism isn't as successful as you are being led to think.
  • higher wages are a thing of the past. The computer, the ever increasing automation of production, the transferal of jobs overseas, the introduction of women into the labour force all mean that there is a huge surplus in the workforce now. These well paid jobs were only ever there because of the demand for labour, this is no longer the case
    a capitalist can pay what ever he wants as there are a 100 people waiting in line for your job.
  • when 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth that isn't a success.
  • most of the great inventions trumpeted as huge successes of capitalism are due to huge funding from the government. Huge advancements made in technology are down to public funding, capitalists hate risk the only way to get them to innovate is to make sure it's not their money being spent. The internet, the algorithm Google uses etc were all created using government funds. Read this book and you will have plenty of counter arguments http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0857282522?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00

    And finally, you guessed it folks, number one:

    "why do you want to take all my stuff and put me in a gulag"

    If you can manage to unroll your eyes a direct quote of what socialism actually is, is a good start.

u/LucienReeve · 7 pointsr/unitedkingdom

Sometimes the state or government just provides the best service. Economist Mariana Mazzucato is really good on this: basically, the state is far, far more innovative and creative than the private sector.

u/Skepticizer · 6 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> But true neoclassical economics has actually never been tried.

Yes it has, and it sucks every time.

>Keynesian economics is bad enough

It created the greatest rise in living standards in Western history. It was called the "golden age of capitalism" for a reason.

>on what possible basis can you really believe that a state acting on national interests can make a better choice than a system which automatically reacts to market forces?

Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

>See China. Our state managed economy only really grew after they relaxed their control.

No one here is arguing for communism. By the way, China has more state-owned enterprises than Venezuela.

u/zyx · 5 pointsr/Suomi

> Valtiolla ei ole tähän juuri osaa eikä arpaa vaan kehitys on 99% tapahtunut itsestään.

Pitäisin tätä väitettä vähintään kyseenalaisena. Hyvin paljon siitä infrastruktuurista jonka päälle tietoyhteiskunta perustuu, on yhteiskunnan tukemaa. Esimerkki tästä on iPhone, jonka kaikki perusteknologia perustuu julkisen sektorin kehitystyöhön (eikä iPhone ole ainoa tapaus).

u/BoilerButtSlut · 5 pointsr/energy

Well the private sector didn't think the 70s oil embargo would happen and were caught completely off guard, so I would say no.

Many of these projects and programs took 30+ years to pay off and required resources that have no profit motive. I can't name a single private sector company that plans that far ahead.

If you still disagree with that, just remember things like the Internet you use were government programs as well, and again, I don't recall any private companies stepping up to the plate

More info

u/mrxulski · 4 pointsr/socialism

>And why the hell do we keep on ignoring government ineffectiv and wasteful spending?

Who is "ignoring" this and why not "go after" wasteful spending in the private sector? Why stop there? Maybe we could establish more democratic forms of workplace management. We can hold the "private sector" more accountable if workers have unions to bargain with corporate. Unions lost bargaining power. It needs to come back in a radical way. Only socialism can do it. A revolution needs to occur.

The Hackers, a book by Walter Isaacson, details how public funding helped Google and Microsoft get established. Bill Gates stole tens of thousands of dollars of tax payer dollars to learn to code BASIC. The founders of Google stole millions of dollars worth of internet bandwidth from Stanford.Computers, the internet, and even phones have all benefited from substantial public funding.

​

>And of the top 88 innovations rated by R&D Magazine as the most important between 1971 and 2006, economists Fred Block and Matthew Keller have found that 77 were the beneficiaries of substantial federal research funding, particularly in early stage development.

Funny how corporations always steal from both the government and people, but then when Bernie Sanders holds them accountable, people have backlash and want to protect billionaires like Zuckerkorn.

u/multihatmaster · 4 pointsr/ireland

States create the conditions, when balanced correctly with markets they can continue this for longer. When co-opted by the market (Neo-liberalism is an ideology after all), states function fails. Innovation fails also. e.g. This iphone is built on university patents.

http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/

https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

EDIT: And we know apple dont pay their taxes back, thats why they are stationed here.

u/Ethnocrat · 4 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> would have to compare standards of living across North Korea and subsaharan Africa to get an idea.

North Korea can make nukes.

>That was demography.

No, you need some sort of planning. The Soviets industrialized much faster than the more market-driven system that industrialized the West.

>Still, the outcomes speak for themselves.

Except that the West, especially after WWII, had much more state-driven capitalism than most people know. This book explains beautifully why the state is the biggest innovator by far, and why neoliberalism is a sham. Here's a great picture from the book that perfectly demonstrates the main thesis.

>Would broadly agree with that sentiment. We're supposedly going to be seeing Nigeria (or was it Niger?) develop rapidly in the coming decades due to foreign investment and a favorable demographic profile, but until that happens, we don't really have anything disproving the rule.

It's Nigeria, and that country is already failing. They've lost 96% of their forests...

u/mutualSuede · 3 pointsr/IndividualAnarchism

Here watch this, Chomsky (who worked at a military university his entire life) talking about it.

Check out this book. Here is a blog post about it in relation to the iPhone.

Capitalist innovation is largely a capitalist myth. You wouldn't have most of the shit you do without the State. Of course innovation does happen in the private sector, but it's nowhere near that clear-cut, and the conclusions of this article are moronic and uninformed.

u/orwellissimo · 3 pointsr/france

>c'est pas les plans d'investissement dirigé qui font progresser les pays.

Donc les politiques keynésienne d'investissement publique durant les trente glorieuses on était un échec ?

>Un exemple :pas sur qu'une commission aurait donne des sous à Apple pour son Iphone surtout au prix de vente. Alors que c'est un succes majeur.
Qui aurait cru que n'importe qui aurait envie de mettre 600€ dans un telephone ?

Avant de faire Apple, il a fallu développer plein de technologies de miniaturisation de l'informatique. Et là, la recherche publique et l’investissement publique notamment par le secteur de la défense ont beaucoup joué. Je te renvoie à ce livre sur le sujet.

u/amnsisc · 1 pointr/boston

My point is simply that the claim that contracting to a private company would necessarily save money is false. You seem to be acknowledging that so I don't see what the issue is.

Tech derives its value from publicly funded research, government protected intellectual property, rent extraction of data, an iron triangle between firms, governments & universities, often using public or privileged information and then placing it under non-compete clauses.

As such, rather than farm it out to a tech firm why not produce a commonly held form that can be used over and over and isn't under privately held lock and key?

Sources for Further Reading if this subject interests you:

Mazzucatto:

https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

Article form:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2014-12-15/innovative-state

Boldrin & Levine:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

Stiglitz:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/slides/20120628_1830_creatingALearningSociety_sl.pdf

(Also a book)

Saxenian:

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech521.pdf

(Also, also a book)

Shapin:

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Life.html?id=KSQJ1m9VsxEC

u/IamWithTheDConsNow · -1 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

Yes, it is a plain and simple fact. The vast majority of funding for research comes from the government. Call me when a private company builds something like the LHC.

Good book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

u/st3roids · -3 pointsr/greece

Ισχυει , υπο προυποθεσεις , ειδικα στις επενδυσεις πρωτα ξεκινα ο δημοσιος τομεας και μετα ακολουθει ο ιδιωτικος

https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

https://newint.org/features/2015/12/01/private-public-sector/

http://www.alternet.org/economy/government-more-efficient-private-sector-biggest-social-services-contrary-right-wing-claims