We got some exciting news this week about IBM's intiative in Rochester to build a super-super-super computer, a monster that could quintuple the capacity (measured in "petaflops,'' love that word) of China's latest effort. I was thinking as I read the article how lucky we are to have a corporate citizen like IBM in Minnesota, when I noticed, just before the jump in the Star Tribune article, that the federal Department of Energy also was a key partner and investor in the project. PC World has more detail on that relationship. The magazine notes that "in his annual State of the Union address last month, President Barack Obama highlighted the use of supercomputing as a way for the U.S. to maintain its competitive economic edge. He alluded to the progress that other countries, such as China, have made in building their own supercomputers.'' And the article elaborates on how the federal government and public universities have been a vital partner in technology and computer research for decades. We need to encourage and celebrate investment like this, wherever it happens, in the private sector or the public sector. And those who persistently denigrate taxes and governments on every front need to be reminded that it's actually our good and effective federal, state and local governments that often have led the way with investments that provide a foundation for job growth and prosperity.
Dane Smith
"IBM did not reveal the price for Mira, though it did say Argonne had purchased it with funds from a US$180 million grant."
I am very much in favor of this type of demonstrated (or soon to be) innovation effort. $180m is a lot of money--I think we can all agree on that. Though I am incredibly suspicious of most efforts by the government as being net-efficient (think Medicare). In this case I am proud to think that my tax money was not profoundly mis-spent.
Posted by: Sully | February 08, 2011 at 10:09 PM
When so much of what government does spend our money on is wasted on bloated bureaucracy, the erection of regulatory roadblocks to private-sector growth, and transfer payments that relieve individuals of personal accountability, then companies like IBM don't have access to the capital needed to invent and innovate. That they needed government money is another symptom of the bigger problem. Just because the end product is worthwhile does not justify the use of public tax dollars on a private business's R&D. Ask HP; should their corporate tax dollars go to IBM to create a product that competes with HP?
Posted by: Bill Gschwind | February 10, 2011 at 08:38 PM