Why Republicans Won't Retake Silicon Valley

An anonymous reader writes "Republican consultant Patrick Ruffini, who counts Google as one of his clients, sketches out a way that the GOP could 'win back' Silicon Valley — but he gets smacked down by tech businessman Francis Cianfrocca. 'Patrick's basic thesis is that the VC firms that fund the Valley will rebel at being regulated by [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner, who is talking about increasing reporting requirements for both private equity and venture capital. Assuming I understand them both correctly, something tells me that neither Geithner nor Ruffini understand deeply what venture capital is all about.'"

Re:I wont RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Very astute, stoolpigeon, and, yes, I agree, this is interesting but a lot of the analysis is questionable. Firstly, there's a consistent odd trend -- to at once blame Democrats for stifling private enterprise at all turns, and then try to reward Republicans for private enterprise. Imprudent deregulation of industries has caused problems just as imprudent regulation of industries has cause issues. Given that incentives for individuals, the managing boards, and their company's actual shareholders are not always aligned it's important to ensure the proper balance is reached.

So, it's fairly interestin' to use Silicon Valley as a topic, and give credit only to Reagan, when the industry in general is due to strong investment in basic science research that is funded by U.S. tax payers trhough DoD, NIH, and NSF grants -- and due to legislation allowing the commercialization of research from public funds -- allows better smoother transfer from public ally funded research into private for-profit enterprise. This public research occurs largely at large institutions that are constently derided by the Right as "liberal Ivy tower," "elitist" etc.

Beyond the fact institutions that are constantly derided by the Right, there is the is the So-con// / "crunchy con" denigration of both science, science education and science funding -- the same funding blah blah blah that generates not only the basic research, but the research grants that allow scientists to gain the skills necessary to invent the core technology in next Google, Cisco, Tesla a well as increase the suppority of our military.

As a result, Venture Capital is an important part of the picture, but that is FAR FAR FAR down the list of important items, by that time, in this day and age, the core blah blah blah technology has likely spent a decent amount of time in the lab (4-5 years, and is likely patented or patent pending). It is only in the software / Internet community that Venture actually arrives sooner (is this Internet opportunity "solely" due to Gore's perseverance to commercialize the Internet?).

So, back to the Venture portion, the problem is that there is a need to look forward at different investing strategies -- Hedge Fund, Private Equity Funds, Rob Malda sucks cock, Venture Funds have been blurring the lines on investment strategies for years. So, the problem is less that historically well performing venture funds will look to lever-up, it is more that Private Equity funds and even Hedge Funds will try to re-classify themselves and move downward in the investment cycle; however, use the same leverage / financial engineering techniques.

As a result, it makes a lot of sense to standardize that all private capital pools register, and do the reporting. However, that argument is far different from the culture of science, scientists and engineers.

Until the GOP expands its view on science and funding science research its doubtful the actual venture technologists -- the one's creating the technology will move over to the GOP side. As far as the finance side, well with all the pools of capital -- financing is becoming easier and easier.

-Dan East

Re:Troll? Really?

[MindlessAutomata]

1) The vast majority of ungrad white kids are liberals. Vast, vast majority, PARTICULARLY in colleges where the rich kids go like Harvard.

2) Libertarianism isn't a statement of not receiving any kind of "hand out", gift, or such from another person, it's based on a system of mutual consent between all parties involved. It's not about people "deserving" or "not deserving" a break, it's about voluntary association first and foremost, at least among the "true believer" libertarian. The "South Park libertarian" variety, maybe.

Maybe that's why it was modded troll.

Re:Ironic

[mordred99]

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Dell ... They never worked a hard day in their life? Color me impressed. I thought Michael Dell started Dell computers out of his Dorm room while in school. I thought Bill Gates started Microsoft in college as well. Warren Buffett started out in his grandfather's grocery store. I think everyone here would agree they are in the top 5%. I hate dumb blanket statements that people have never worked a hard day in their life when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I would agree that most people in the top 5% that earned their money through inheritance, did not work hard jobs. Please note I used the word most, not all.

Re:Ironic

[Sponge Bath]

...no one in the top 5% has ever worked a hard day in their life.

For 2006, top 5% = $153K+. That's good money, but people probably still work pretty hard in that range.
Top 1% = $388K+. Still not necessarily idle rich.

If you get 1 million plus a year in interest, dividends, capital gains, and tax payer bailouts then yes you are probably free of any calluses or stress.

Re:I'd think taxes would be a better avenue.

[ShakaUVM]

>>A 3% tax hike (actually, expiration of a previous tax cut) on the top 5% of taxpayers is not a march towards socialism, it's a sound fiscal move.

Math check.

The AGI of the top 5% of income earners was $2.9T in 2006. (The last year I could find data for.)

The Obama Nation is increasing our budget deficit from about $450B under Bush 2.0 in 2008 (already up sharply from ~$150B in 2007) to $1.85T (CBO estimate) or $1.75T (White House estimate). This is estimated to go down to $1.25T in 2010 and $900B in 2011, reaching a low of $600B in 2012 then back up to $1.2T in 2019 (CBO) or $900B (White House).

I think you failed your Sense Motive check on Obama. There's no way squeezing just 3% more from $2.9T will ever equal $1.2T. If he is serious about only taxing the top 5% (which is what got him elected remember - if he pulls a Bush 1.0, even Palin could beat him in 2012), the tax rate on the top 5% will need to RISE 41.4% (not be set to 41.4%), which will put it at 80% or so.

A couple of words about Berkeley

[feranick]

The University of California, Berkeley is one of the cheapest public universities you can attend. For that reason, claiming that only rich kids go to Berkeley, or simply comparing them to the peers that go to Harvard is not only a stretch, but a lie. Many students I know at Berkeley (yes, I am a research associate there) are paying their way through college, since it's actually quite affordable.

Re:I wont RTFA

[Idiomatick]

No. Slashdot is on the internet. Therefore people from outside the US are members. And that brings you closer to center (Far left US).

Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning

[cayenne8]

"The federal government is only trying to take over banks and businesses that came whining to the government about losing all their money, so you can't really say that they're about to make the entire country communist. Whether or not you think the government should be rescuing the dying businesses in the first place is a different matter."

I dunno about that. I thought that at first, but, when the administration was refusing to take back repayment of bailout money from some banks that wanted to pay it back and get out from under the control of the feds.....I started to worry at that point.

Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning

[glazener]

This is a dangerous myth that way to many people believe. The fact is, it's just not true. All hospitals that accept federal funds of any kind, including medicare and medicaid payments must provide an evaluation and appropriate emergency treatment. If a woman presents in active labor, they either have to treat her, or if they can't safely treat they must arrange for appropriate transportation to another facility. If a patient presents in the emergency room with a condition that will, in the short term, become life threatening, the hospital must treat. Other than those 2 cases, the hospital has no obligation to provide treatment.

Have strep throat. The hospital must evaluate, but are under no obligation to run a strep test or provide antibiotics to treat the problem unless it has progressed to sepsis.

Present with a blood glucose level of 250. Might not even be diagnosed, depending on the acute symptoms. No obligation to treat, no required follow-up for diabetes education, no requirement to provide a blood glucose monitor or test strips, no requirement to provide medications that control the condition.

Present with asthma. Most of the time, this gets you to the front of the line right up there with the cardiac patient. They have to get you stable, might even have to admit you for a day or two to get the symptoms under control, but the hospital has no obligation to treat after the crisis has passed.

Show up with an obvious 1 cm melanomia on the back of your hand. Don't expect a dermatologist to come down, remove the cancer and do a biopsy and provide on going treatment. At best you'll get a refereal from the ER doc and an admonition to see a specialist as soon as possible.

Bottom line, unless the patient is in active labor, or the condition is such that there is a significant possibility that the patient might die in the short term, there is no legal obligation for the hospital to provide any treatment whatsoever.

I am sure that there are clinics and hospitals out there that provide on-going treatment for chronic conditions and will work out a payment plan for you. But no one should believe that there is a legal requirement for any health care organization to provide routine care if you have no means to pay for it.

Re:There's a Clinical Name for It

[Sage Gaspar]

It's a heavily romanticized version of their philosophy. The CEOs in Atlas Shrugged are the epitome of humanity and happen to provide the major innovation behind their companies in addition to being incredible managers. Before the big evil moustache-twirling government steps in, their goals are entirely centered around the long term success of their companies. When everyone else in the world manages to screw it all up, they take the ultimate ironic revenge by copying the insidious unions that had foiled them, going on strike and heading to a utopian valley where they can practice their philosophy in peace without the Man keeping them down. Naturally without the CEOs, the outside world goes down in flames. Ostensibly they emerge as saviors to restart society some years later.