|
Mitt Romney on Technology
Former Republican Governor (MA)
|
China must respect intellectual property if they want trade
Q: China is using cyber-attacks to steal billions of dollars of intellectual property. Are we engaged in financial warfare with China?Perry: This whole issue of allowing cyber security to go on, we need to use all of our resources--the private sector
working along with our government. To really stand up the cyber command in 2010 was a good start on that. But fighting this cyber war, I would suggest, is one of the great issues that will face the next President.
Romney: To continue to have free and
open access to the thing they want so badly, our markets, they have to play by the rules. They can't hack into our computer systems and steal from our government. They can't steal from corporations. They can't take patents and designs, intellectual
property, and duplicate them and counterfeit them and sell them around the world. And they also can't manipulate their currency in such a way as to make their prices well below what they otherwise would be.
Source: 2011 debate in South Carolina on Foreign Policy
, Nov 12, 2011
Two-part innovation: improve the old; invent the new
Raising the productivity of a nation and the prosperity of its citizens depends on two types of innovation--one that improves existing goods and services and another that invents new ones.
The former may result in reduced employment; the latter generally adds employment. It's a two-part system; improve the old, invent the new.
In an effort to make existing products better and to make them more efficiently, innovation in the use of capital has long been major source of productivity growth. A great deal of what had previously done by hand was now performed by robots.
Capital innovation had led to fewer workers, better product quality, and greater productivity.
Innovation may also improve the way in which labor is organized and utilized.
Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p.104-105
, Mar 2, 2010
National R&D spending OK; picking winners not OK
Government funding for basic science and research in universities and research laboratories has been declining for years. It needs to grow instead, particularly in engineering and the physical sciences. Research in energy, materials science,
nanotechnology, and transportation are vital to the economy and to our nation's competitiveness. Government should not, however, attempt to pick winning ideas or technologies in which it would invest funds for development and commercialization.
The realities of that marketplace sort out those that have potential for growth and sustainability and those that do not.
Attempting to substitute government for the roles carried out by entrepreneurs, angel investors, and venture capitalists while also bypassing the unforgiving test of the free market is a very bad idea indeed.
Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p.124-125
, Mar 2, 2010
A road project isn’t going to stimulate the economy now
There’s no question but that investment in infrastructure makes enormous sense for our country. It’s good for business, it’s good for the economy, and as the governor that watched almost the completion of the big dig, I don’t know how many governors
watched that $15 billion project. They do create a lot of good jobs and they help our economy. They’re great things. But, unfortunately, a road project isn’t going to stimulate the economy to the timeframe we have right now at the tipping point.
Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley
, Jan 30, 2008
The Big Dig solved a problem, but cost way too much to do
Q: Was the Big Dig good?A: Someone has remarked that the biggest cars [are made] in the US and most expensive, too. It’s solved a problem, but it cost way too much money to do. It was very badly managed.
Building a road project, you have to get designs, you have eminent domain, you get the engineers to approve it. It takes years and years and years to get a road project. So it’s a wonderful idea, but it’s not related to the short-term economic stimulus.
Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley
, Jan 30, 2008
AdWatch: More change in next 10 years than in 10 centuries
Romney TV ad in NH:
ROMNEY: No one votes for yesterday. We vote for tomorrow. Every election is about the future. Many are pessimistic. I’m not.
In the next 10 years, we’ll see more progress, more change than the world has seen in the last
10 centuries.
Our next president must unleash the promise and innovation of the American people.
I’m ready for that challenge. The future begins now.
I’m Mitt Romney and I not only approve this message, I’m asking for your vote
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2008 campaign ad, “Tomorrow”
, Jan 2, 2008
FactCheck: Ludicrous exaggeration to compare 10 centuries
Romney says in a TV ad that the US will see more change in the next 10 years “than in the last 10 centuries.” More than since the Dark Ages? More changes than the advent of the printing press, railroads, constitutional democracy, penicillin, electricity,
telecommunications and the Internet all put together? We don’t think so.The ad features Romney talking straight to the camera, exuding confidence and optimism and saying “I’m ready” to “unleash the promise and innovation of the American people.”
We have no quarrel with that; any candidate is entitled to lay out goals.
A Romney spokesman said he didn’t mean what he said as fact, calling the statement “a metaphor.” We call it a ludicrous exaggeration.
Lacking a crystal ball or time machine, we can’t predict the future. But based on available evidence we judge Romney’s claim to be so far beyond the usual bounds of campaign exaggeration as to be worthy of ridicule.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2008 campaign ad, “Tomorrow”
, Jan 2, 2008
To compete globally, invest in education and technology
“We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse.
And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future.
What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government.
We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in; you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.“
Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p.114
, Aug 31, 2007
Invest in nanotech and materials science
- On investing in technology: “Our national investment in technology comes from both the private and public sector. However, corporations today spend more on tort liability than they do on research and development.
While the government already invests heavily in defense, space, and health technologies related to power generation, nanotechnology, and materials science.”
- On the rate of profit on technology investment: “In technology we as a country already invest
an enormous amount--for instance, in defense technology, space technology, health--but we also need to invest in some of the emerging technologies that are important at a basic science level, such as fuel cell technology, power generation,
materials science, automotive technology. We have to recognize that where we invest as a nation, both from a government standpoint but also from a private standpoint, those are the areas we’ve been most successful.“
Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p.114-115
, Aug 31, 2007
Invest in infrastructure from growing economy by lower taxes
Q: Do you want to raise taxes to fix more bridges? Or can we cut taxes to fix more bridges? A: There’s no question--if you really want to make some money in this country, really get some money so we can repair our infrastructure and build for the
future, the biggest source of that is a growing American economy. If the economy is growing slowly, when tax revenues hardly move at all, and, boy, you better raise taxes to get more money for all the things you want to do. But if the economy is growing
quickly, then we generate all sorts of new revenue. And the best way to keep the economy rolling is to keep our taxes down. Our bridges--let me tell you what we did in our state. We found that we had 500 bridges, roughly, that were deemed structurally
deficient. And so we changed how we focused our money. Instead of spending it to build new projects--the bridge to nowhere, new trophies for congressmen--we instead said, “Fix it first.” We have to reorient how we spend our money.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate
, Aug 5, 2007
Page last updated: Nov 23, 2011