Stepping in

Written By: - Date published: 1:45 pm, March 11th, 2008 - 8 comments
Categories: economy, labour - Tags: ,

No Right Turn makes a good point about the government’s $700 million innovation fund for the agricultural and food sector:

I’m a little surprised that its the government doing this. We have a number of large companies involved in these sectors, and under competent managers, they’d already be making these investments themselves. Unfortunately, corporate management in New Zealand is notable for its short-term thinking and reluctance to invest for the future; they’d rather just clip tickets than innovate, and run things down rather than build them up. If the government has to put up effectively a $700 million subsidy before they’ll get off their arses, then it suggests they’re not doing their jobs properly.

Once again the government has to step in to make up for the short-term thinking of New Zealand business.

8 comments on “Stepping in ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bryce Edwards 1
    11 March 2008 at 2:09 pm

    So, Tane, you’re agreeing that the Labour Party are yet again just involved in supplying Corporate Welfare?

    I’m just trying to work out whether you guys are in favour of Labour’s latest corporate welfare announcement or against it. It sounds like you are against it and all_your_base is favourable towards it?

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

  2. Tane 2
    11 March 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Bryce, I think it’s a good policy but we should recognise that it is a transfer from the taxpayer to farmers.

    I’d rather see business pay for its own r&d, but short of nationalising the farms I’m not sure what else you can do other than tax them and use the revenue to pay for it. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

    (And again with the ‘you guys’, as I’ve already explained to you Bryce we’re a collective with shared values but we do differ from time to time.)

  3. Steve Pierson 3
    11 March 2008 at 2:18 pm

    I can’t speak for the others. but I am for investment in R & D and someone’s got to pay for it – business ought to but if they fail to it’s right for the State to step in.

  4. Robinsod 4
    11 March 2008 at 2:23 pm

    I’ve gotta say I was a bit pissed off about this at first but if business have to match dollar for dollar that’s not so bad. We need to do this research for the good of the nation but if business are too shit to get it sorted the government should step in. I agree with NRT that IP (and any other tangible benefit) should be shared but I’m not holding my breath.

    Oh and Bryce, try to debate the topic rather than trying to use it to wedge the standard. Fuck you righties are all the fucken same…

  5. roger nome 5
    11 March 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Bryce Edwards:

    Corporate welfare? If the productivity of agriculture increases then so does the tax revenue of the government. So from this perspective it may be argued that it’s a logical investment by the government – not simply a “handout”.

    Really it’s hard to see what angle you’re coming from some times with this kind of post. Are you turning into a troll?

  6. James Kearney 6
    11 March 2008 at 3:05 pm

    He’s turning into a right-wing troll Rog.

  7. Draco TB 7
    11 March 2008 at 3:06 pm

    Failure of the capitalist free-market to invest in R&D – Why am I not surprised?

    In cases like this, where the government makes a significant contribution to the R&D, then it should get to keep the IP or, at least, some of them. It should never sell them off either because if someone is willing to buy them then it means there’s even more money to be made.

  8. Idiot/Savant 8
    11 March 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Funding public good scientific research is a core business of government. But this isn’t public good; it’s private good and applied. It should be funded by those who benefit from it (Fonterra etc), but it isn’t, because they think too short-term.

    There’s a name for this: market failure. And it is one of the things we have government to solve. Ideally, it should be funded by levying the beneficiaries, but if they kick in 50% of the cash, it’s probably good enough – provided they don’t get to privatise the benefits having socialised the costs.