I rattled off a long list of historically and contemporarily recognized politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and the common thread is leadership.
Bringing technology to market has incredibly high barriers to entry. I think the Tesla story more than proves that. The revolution would have happened eventually, but still led by the first technologist able to acquire funding.
Leadership is intangible but you can measure the results. At a localized level, metrics like employment, homelessness and budgetary goals come to mind. At a national level, GDP, deficit and others come into play. The only politicians able to navigate the partisanship in our political system are the ones able to play the role of great compromiser, which to me is a function of leadership.And how do you operationalize leadership? That's why I was asking you for inputs and outputs.
Tesla originated from Series A round venture capital funding.Funny you were throwing out accusations of moving goalposts. There were 3 main components to the revolution, the semiconductor chip, the gui type interface, and the internet. Pray tell which of these were dependent on VC capital?
Also, Tesla got off the ground with a government loan.
Tesla paid for the development & manufacture of the S with their doe loan. Look up the sales of what they had before.Tesla originated from Series A round venture capital funding.
I already provided an excerpt on the history of Silicon Valley.
Leadership is intangible but you can measure the results. At a localized level, metrics like employment, homelessness and budgetary goals come to mind. At a national level, GDP, deficit and others come into play. The only politicians able to navigate the partisanship in our political system are the ones able to play the role of great compromiser, which to me is a function of leadership.
I rattled off a long list of historically and contemporarily recognized politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and the common thread is leadership.
I've provided content from sources that support what I've written, provided by people who admittedly are far more knowledgeable on the history than I am. I actually had to double check to make sure I was not incorrect and was willing to concede the point if I was wrong. The problem is that most of the historical accounts I am finding support what I wrote.Tesla paid for the development & manufacture of the S with their doe loan. Look up the sales of what they had before.
It's pretty obvious you have zero insight on the development of tech in the valley.
You moved the goal posts
The left elevates Clinton and Obama, and the right idolizes Reagan...I would counter the great man theory is far from out of fashion.Leadership and all such things are a product of circumstance. Seems you subscribe to the great-man theory of history which has rather fallen out of fashion a century ago.
The left elevates Clinton and Obama, and the right idolizes Reagan...I would counter the great man theory is far from out of fashion.
I've provided content from sources that support what I've written, provided by people who admittedly are far more knowledgeable on the history than I am. I actually had to double check to make sure I was not incorrect and was willing to concede the point if I was wrong. The problem is that most of the historical accounts I am finding support what I wrote.
The left elevates Clinton and Obama, and the right idolizes Reagan...I would counter the great man theory is far from out of fashion.
Leadership is intangible but you can measure the results. At a localized level, metrics like employment, homelessness and budgetary goals come to mind. At a national level, GDP, deficit and others come into play. The only politicians able to navigate the partisanship in our political system are the ones able to play the role of great compromiser, which to me is a function of leadership.
I was commenting more to agent's assertion that the great man theory is a relic of the previous century, when there are contemporary examples.Idolization = leadership? There are plenty of successful fascists that are hated more in retrospect than they were at the peak of their success. Or even non-fascists; Nixon was a leader of the Republican's conservative wing for about twenty years, one of the nation's most powerful VPs under Eisenhower and enjoyed a landslide re-election in 1972. He was a great man in the public eye, now he's just that corrupt Watergate dude with the funny hairline that gets a little credit here and there for the EPA and a couple other decisions.
Clinton's term was defined by division, btw. Republicans had a massive victory in the house and senate under his leadership, he didn't really unify as much as he did compromise (and fwiw I think said compromise was largely a great success).
EDIT: Maybe you could argue that Gingrich represented great leadership on the right and somehow it was complementary, but you can really start stretching what makes a "leader" if we go down that route.
That is a more fair and reasonable assessment. There was definitely something magical or at least historical about the culimination of intelligence, vision and technology that dawned the Information Age. However, I still stand by my assertion that without the injection of capital, market forces and the commercializations of technology it was primarily a bunch of geniuses tinkering with technology.The entire crux of their magic was tech instead of money-driven business, and if anything the prominence of VC have only made the place worse for that reason. You can look into the development of those central technologies, the culmination of which (btw, Tim Berners-Lee worked for CERN) was a forgone conclusion, and check how much they depended on VC money. I suppose any historian writing on the matter is obligated to include venture capital somewhere in there and someone can cherry pick that part instead of the rest.
Just because leaders are held as symbol representations doesn't mean they're literally responsible for everything, or even seen that way, except maybe by folks who consider Reagan the second coming.
That is a more fair and reasonable assessment. There was definitely something magical or at least historical about the culimination of intelligence, vision and technology that dawned the Information Age. However, I still stand by my assertion that without the injection of capital, market forces and the commercializations of technology it was primarily a bunch of geniuses tinkering with technology.
No argument from my end on how the current influx of venture capital is polluting Silicon Valley and the larger Bay Area relative to what it used to represent. I wish I had been old enough to be a part of the climate of the late 70s and early 80s. There is no dollar figure I would entertain to work there now.
So then we are both in agreement that spreadsheets are the root of all evil.As an example, if you've ever try to imagine what it's like to work on a spreadsheet with pencil/eraser & a calculator (yes, that's how it used to be done), it becomes pretty obvious that it didn't really matter who built it before everybody came. Maybe widespread adoption would vary by a few years, but it's hardly worth what money has turned the place into.
You are simplifying something that is very complex to fit your worldview. The economy of today is far different from the economy of 35 years ago. The same can be said for the Democrats and Republicans in terms of their respective coalitions. Sure the base may be largely unchanged, but you need more than the base to win elections.
Trickle down in the form of venture capitalism is why we have a Silicon Valley and has been the driver of the Information Age.
Trickle down does not work so well for traditional machinery based manufacturing regions of the country.
There was a time when someone could enjoy a comfortable middle class life without a college degree. Now you have millions of people getting worthless degrees instead of learning trades or practical skills for the new economy.
A large swath of America got left behind. They were betrayed by both Republicans and Democrats. Trump capitalized on it.
I thought the idea of trickle down is that you provide tax breaks to the wealth because they are supposesly more responsible with their money which causes banks to swell which lowers the cost to borrow money which then becomes the catalyst for economic growth, where venture capitalism becomes one of many investment vehicles?Venture capitalism is not trickle down.
Different critter entirely.
Maybe I've come to understand the terms incorrectly, although I've seen th
I thought the idea of trickle down is that you provide tax breaks to the wealth because they are supposesly more responsible with their money which causes banks to swell which lowers the cost to borrow money which then becomes the catalyst for economic growth, where venture capitalism becomes one of many investment vehicles?
Not saying I agree with it but that's been my working understanding?
I thought the idea of trickle down is that you provide tax breaks to the wealth because they are supposesly more responsible with their money which causes banks to swell which lowers the cost to borrow money which then becomes the catalyst for economic growth, where venture capitalism becomes one of many investment vehicles?
Not saying I agree with it but that's been my working understanding?
"They were saying this is practice for Sunday. This isn't practice," Trump said. "We're just here because we wanted to be here."
And with a touch of bravado, he repeatedly mocked Clinton for taking time off the campaign trail to prepare for the debate, stating multiple times that she was "resting," in keeping with his past critiques of Clinton's health and stamina.
"Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is debate prepping for three or four days?" Trump asked mockingly. "It's not debate prep. She's resting, she's resting. She's resting and I want to be with the American people."
after fielding a dozen softballs for just a half-hour from a hand-picked group of voters inside the small, sweltering wood-paneled room, it seemed Trump was right: the forum had "nothing to do" with the upcoming debate, despite Trump campaign sources telling CNN earlier Thursday that the evening's town hall event would serve as a practice run.
If it did, Trump's performance Thursday night and his repeated mocking of the importance of debate prep raised serious questions about how Trump will perform at the debate Sunday
The format of Sunday's debate plays against Trump. In townhall formats people expect answers to their questions. Not restatement of the issue which was raised which is all Trump seems capable of doing. Last night showed that.OP you should change the title to Sunday Night
Also oh boy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/donald-trump-town-hall-new-hampshire/index.html
The format of Sunday's debate plays against Trump. In townhall formats people expect answers to their questions. Not restatement of the issue which was raised which is all Trump seems capable of doing. Last night showed that.
I don't see Sunday going well for him at all as he doesn't grasp the basic idea that at this point people want answers and specifics to the issues. Not talking points and attacks.