The IBM PC was a response to the rise of home computers and in particular, the Apple II.
Something to note is that IBM didn't build the IBM PC to go up against their mainframes. They saw it as new revenue. They deliberately stopped their PC people from going after sales in companies where they saw the PC as a threat to lucrative mainframe sales.
I wonder if Inman could explain Hayek's main contention. Not asking him to agree with it this year or anything, just wondering if he could at least explain what it is and why he thinks it's wrong. If he has a physical address I suppose I could write to him.
I’d be interested in your view of the State providing subsidy, via the 30% tax relief on investments in VCTs or through the EIS scheme, in entrepreneurial startups and early stage businesses (not lifestyle operations), while avoiding the pitfall of “picking winners” or being in any way involved in management.
Is this an acceptable way of the State promoting entrepreneurs? Or should it keep out altogether and let them raise capital on their merits without subsidy for their investors, recognising that far fewer would even get off the ground?
My view is very fundamentalist. Which is that the moment the state tries to favour, in any way, one style of investment over another then they'll end up picking losers. But that's belief on my part, not something I can prove. I'm greatly more in favour of no CGT - a very extreme position - at all, for example. But that's because I'm an extremist....
There is no doubt that if the State has any involvement in picking it will inevitably pick losers. The difference in both the VCT and EIS scenarios is that it isn’t involved in picking at all; the picking is all done by fund managers (VCTs) or individual investors (EIS) who are putting their own capital at risk, albeit only 70% rather than 100% is at risk.
The IBM PC was a response to the rise of home computers and in particular, the Apple II.
Something to note is that IBM didn't build the IBM PC to go up against their mainframes. They saw it as new revenue. They deliberately stopped their PC people from going after sales in companies where they saw the PC as a threat to lucrative mainframe sales.
I wonder if Inman could explain Hayek's main contention. Not asking him to agree with it this year or anything, just wondering if he could at least explain what it is and why he thinks it's wrong. If he has a physical address I suppose I could write to him.
I’d be interested in your view of the State providing subsidy, via the 30% tax relief on investments in VCTs or through the EIS scheme, in entrepreneurial startups and early stage businesses (not lifestyle operations), while avoiding the pitfall of “picking winners” or being in any way involved in management.
Is this an acceptable way of the State promoting entrepreneurs? Or should it keep out altogether and let them raise capital on their merits without subsidy for their investors, recognising that far fewer would even get off the ground?
My view is very fundamentalist. Which is that the moment the state tries to favour, in any way, one style of investment over another then they'll end up picking losers. But that's belief on my part, not something I can prove. I'm greatly more in favour of no CGT - a very extreme position - at all, for example. But that's because I'm an extremist....
There is no doubt that if the State has any involvement in picking it will inevitably pick losers. The difference in both the VCT and EIS scenarios is that it isn’t involved in picking at all; the picking is all done by fund managers (VCTs) or individual investors (EIS) who are putting their own capital at risk, albeit only 70% rather than 100% is at risk.