After reading Sicilian Notes today I started thinking about the contrasting ideologies of socialism and capitalism. Generally I believe in free market capitalism but I’d like it to have a caring and compassionate side where the haves assist the have-nots through direct (charitable work and donations) and indirect (redistribution of wealth through taxation) means. I think this is compatible with a free market and it is suitable democratic and egalitarian that altruism should be greatly and freely practiced.
I think most socialists secretly aim for such a society but are wary that with capitalism comes the most dangerous set of beliefs ever conceived; meritocracy…
A meritocracy is an organisation or society where rewards and status are achieved through open competition and where the achievements of the individual are therefore deemed to be deserved. The term was originated by Michael Young in his 1958 book the “Rise of Meritocracy” about a dystopian future in which a controlling elite are overthrown by the masses who feel that their lack of merit directly correlated with IQ and effort has rendered their opinions and lives meaningless. Much of altruism action is possibly based on guilt and a belief that someone is fortunate to be in the position to help others. Meritocracies denounce fortune so guilt and hence altruistic actions are greatly reduced. Indeed, the US which firmly believes itself a meritocracy tolerates a massive divide between rich and poor as, with effort and application, there shouldn’t be any poor , right? Wrong, social inequality is a fact of life and needs to be addressed in every society to ensure that opportunity is truely equal. Something that in the land of the free, it most certainly is not. Alexander de Tocqueville pointed out in his hugely influential work “Democracy in America” that associationalism spreads democracy. Unfortunately, it also spreads meritocracy and the very things which empower and inspire people to achieve their dreams, make it so hard for them to be achieved. As someone is always richer, smarter, more attractive etc., judging people on merit goes against Kant’s humanist principles and makes them into means rather than an end in themselves. For those living in the suburban slums of Paris, it’s a moot point whether unthinking socialism is worse than uncaring capitalism but you can be sure that it will take the compassion and altruism of both individuals and societies to improve matters.
Ire-com
My new name for eircom. Last friday (24th Feb 2006) my business had no broadband all day long. It was unannounced, unwarranted and unacceptable. When we tried to complain we couldn’t get through and I was eventually told by someone in another business) that they’d talked to eircom this morning and it would probably take all day to fix the problem. I was then informed that we weren’t alone. Every ire-com ADSL customer in WAterford and Kilkenny was affected. Never mind selling on this company again, it’s time COMREG did their job and unbundled the network from the service or we’ll be singing the same sorry tale for the next 20 years.
Tipping the scales
I was reading Peter Zotto’s interview in the Business section of Irish Times on Friday and pondering his description of Iona Technologies as a “national treasure”. As a former employee of this company and onetime signifigant shareholder (the family piled into IONA at around 6 dollars a share, they reached a peak of over 100 dollars) I can’t help but feel this is entirely correct but unfortunately so. It was there that a I got my first taste of real software development while still at college and I’ve never forgotten the wealth of intellectual talent the company had at its disposal. With a sense of nationalistic fervour many of the best and brightest of Irish technology graduates made the trip to Stephens Green, then Ballsbridge to help Ireland’s most successful indigenous technology company take on the world. For a while at least, it actually worked. The cliched stockquote web service in the corner of my screen told me just how well it was working and I considered life on a never-ending series of tropical beaches. Alas, it was the company’s ill-fated and perhaps premature move into corporate web services that signalled the end of the good times.
Or was it? IONA had always suffered from being the first to market with a product that wasn’t quite ready, mainly due to ever evolving standards rather than to any lack of talent in their quite extraordinary engineering department. In the early days, they hit the market with an application interoperability product coded against a loose standard which left key interoperability questions unanswered. The product was all that mattered to the commercial customers and the company became an overnight success. When the underlying standards solidified and then plasmified repeatedly into something vastly complex the company struggled to adapt to the difficulties of fulfilling a standards specification and appeasing a customer base. Now, with many years more experience under my belt I understand clearly that this is simply how software development works (and often doesn’t). Engineers build bridges based on mathematical calculations. These mathematics don’t change based on commercial imperatives although the construction of the bridge might. Software bridges are constantly shaped by political and often malevolent commercial imperatives designed to create a state of chaos in the industry from which only behemoths like Microsoft can consistently survive. People will cite Google as a contradiction to this theory but they have a lot to prove as they have only a fraction of Microsoft’s longevity and despite their proliferation of new beta technologies, a domination of search algorithms may be more fragile than many market analysts predict. Code that works perfectly well in theory, often doesn’t survive the transfer to commercial product as software logic is discarded in favour of commercial forces. The point of all this is that it’s difficult to create a very successful software company. Now that market valuations have a more realistic basis than an almost entirely mystical “market potential” it’s more difficult than ever for an investor to make a software play work.
IONA will recover. The management team understand the mistakes of the past and they have a substantial cash pile with which to help carve out a successful niche in the future. Technologies change and they’re well placed to take advantage of that. Their support for the open source movement is a clever strategic move and yet another indication of an evolved management. The real problem is that they’re regarded as a national treasure because we’ve have largely failed to produce high profile technology companies despite the massive, if misleading, percentage of our GNP contribution from software and IT services.
I think the fundamental problem is investment. Ireland’s need for capital investment in infrastructure projects has been met in a number of ways. The continued boom and the resulting low interest rates have made debt cheap. The positive attitude of all lending agencies to real estate has encouraged investors to devote the majority of their portfolios to land and buildings. Last but certainly not least the massive tax incentives available for constructing hotels, car parks, student accommodation, inner city apartments etc. has made investment near foolproof. In another article in the Times on Friday I read that there were potentially 30 billionaires in Ireland and the majority were property developers who’d made the bulk of their money over the past 5 years.
So why would anyone invest in software when property has been so steady, well-understood and lucrative for so many? You wouldn’t and that’s the problem. If we really want an indigenous technology industry we don’t just need to support R&D through funds such as Science Foundation Ireland, we need to incentivise through reduced taxation for all technology investments, NOT JUST FOR MULTINATIONALS.
From past experience it’s easier for a foreign university to waste over 35 million of Irish taxpayers money on pipedreams than for an Irish company to get a fraction of that investment. We need to coldly ask ourselves why this is the case? Unfortunately, Brian Cowen seems to have signalled the end of many of the tax breaks that drove the construction industry to such heights.
Here’s a simple proposal that would encourage investment in Irish Technology companies.
- Enable investors to write off 50% of the value of all investments in privately held Irish technology companies against all other personal taxation over 5 years.
- Reduce the CGT on investments in all Irish privately-held technology companies to 5%, for all investments made within the next 10 years
I know these are very rough and ready rules and require refinement to be put into practice. Any such refinement should ignore the possibility of selection processes to determine the potential of a technology company. Let market forces do that as if the existing selection bodies knew what they were doing, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. Technology will always be an uncertain bet, a “punt” as they say. The punter needs to be unambiguously rewarded or they’ll continue to put every last penny into real estate.
Thought for the day
“You can’t get to overexposed, without going thru filthy rich first.” – Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert)