You, coaster brake, wrote:

>you've been duped.
I don't think so, and you offer no evidence to the contrary.
>i'm really sorry.
I doubt it.
>most people _can't_ afford
>computers.
A perfectly serviceable Mac (second hand) costs less $500. That's about
what alot of people living in mobile home parks spend on their TVs. It's
less than a large refrigerator.

>did you really think they could?
Yes. See above.
>corporations reap huge
>profits from the manufacture of computers.
Not true. See Apple.
>andy grove is a RICH
>MOTHERFUCKER.  he is a RICH MOTHERFUCKER because massive amounts of tax
>dollars went toward the development of computers.
I doubt Andy Grove was even alive when taxes were subsidizing early
computer technology. Andy Grove is a RMF because hundreds of millions of
computers carrying Intel chips have been sold in the last 17+ years. That
fact alone tends to undercut your position about who can afford
computers. You also don't seem to grasp the distinction between profit
and profit margin. I can still become a RMF with a modest profit margin
of 15% if I sell alot of widgets.
>only the well-off can
>afford these things.
So you are a class traitor then?
>the poor's taxes got spent just like everyone
>else's.
Actually, back in the 50s when computer high-tech was being subsidized,
the tax system was steeply progressive (90% top marginal rate).
Furthermore poor people don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes go to the
states, not the feds. So, wrong again.
>if computer chips are cheap, it's because the government is
>giving intel big money.
You cite no evidence for this proposition. Computer chips are cheap
because they are made out of a readily available susbstance (sand) and
can be knocked out cookie cutter style with very little marginal cost.
Upfront costs are high, but rapidly dwindle to insignificance, as the
price history of microchips demonstrates.
>bleagh.  i'm stupid and you've been tricked.
>it works out to a terrible argument.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Finally if you are going to waste bandwidth quoting my entire post, at
least do your readers the favor of justifying doing so by responding to
the points contained in it. To repeat: govt intervention was necessary to
kickstart the computer industry (unrebutted); the subsequent development
in the 60s and 70s was in effect subsidized by the business market
(unrebutted); and computers are now effectively appliances, and getting
cheaper (as obvious as the sun rising in the East). Conclusion: whatever
its other evils, govt-subsidized computer R&D during the Cold War did not
act as "socialism for the rich."

_________
Tresy Kilbourne, Seattle WA
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken