Why Isn't What's Good For Microsoft (or Google or Amazon or...) Good for the Country?

No enterprise - or nation - is going to remain competitive in the technologically-driven global economy by collecting interest on cash. 

Advantage is only gained and maintained by investing in the future. The rentier strategy is the functional equivalent of playing not to lose.

That lesson does not always appear evident to high speed algorithmic investors whose computers may 'hold' a stock for nanoseconds, or to ideologically motivated officials determined to 'prove' government is the problem, or most inexplicably to executives and their boards of directors who seem to worry more about the implications of what won't work than by that which will.

All of these are united by their fear of the future. There appears to be a sense that the Chinese are going to win so why bother. Just don't squander what you have now because there may not be a next time. What's strange about this is that the same fear gripped corporate America and Europe in the 1980s when Japan seemed the unstoppable juggernaut. A period followed by a prolonged decline in commercial success; what became known to the Japanese as their lost decade.

Tech companies are investing in the future: Amazon, Google, IBM, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and yes, even some of those algorithmic traders, are still putting good money into corporate research and development. Their stock prices suffer for it when returns are not instantaneous - as they never could or were intended to be. But the future, as the following article explains, will only belong to those who are willing to invest in it. JL

Greg Satell comments in Digital Tonto:

 If we’re going to win the future, we have to invest in it.  Or, put another way, why isn’t what’s good for Microsoft good for the country?
It used to be said that what was good for General Motors was good for the country.  The thinking was that by supporting the engines of prosperity, we’re all be better off.  Yet it would also seem that, in many cases at least, what makes industry successful can also improve the public sector.
If private, profit-seeking organizations see value in making investments, then it’s likely that making similar public investments could improve the country as a whole.  So it is curious, to say the least, that American businesses are increasing capital investment while our public infrastructure is crumbling.
The situation is even more marked in basic science, which has become a convenient punching bag for many politicians, while at the same time, firms like Microsoft are increasing their commitment to making new discoveries.  If we’re going to win the future, we have to invest in it.  Or, put another way, why isn’t what’s good for Microsoft good for the country?
The American Century
At the turn of the 20th century, the United States was still mostly a backwater nation.  Although an emerging industrial power (much like China today), American universities were considered somewhat less than world class.  Promising young students often travelled to Europe to get advanced degrees, especially in the sciences.
That all changed in the early 1930’s, when Louis Bamberger, along with with his sister Caroline Bamberger Fuld, established the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) at Princeton University.  The combination of high salaries, unparalleled working conditions and the plight of Jewish scholars in Europe proved a powerful draw.
The impact was enormous.  In almost one fell swoop, American was on the way to becoming the epicenter of the scientific world.  Top European minds like Albert Einstein, John von Neumann and Kurt Gödel soon came and helped to catalyze science in the US.  By the time World War II broke out, America had some of the best scientific talent on the planet.
That brain power was put to good use by Vannevar Bush, who as head of the OSRD organized the wartime scientific effort.  Later his report, Science, The Endless Frontier developed the blueprint for government support of basic scientific research and led to the establishment of the NSF, DARPA, the NIH and other agencies.
The War On Science
The scientific architecture that Bush designed has been an unparalleled success and the envy of the world. The Internet, GPS, and the Human Genome Project—just to name a few—are the direct result of publicly funded research.  Surely, our lives would be a lot different without it.  Even from a purely financial standpoint, returns have been estimated at 25%-40%.
You would think that we would want to build on this legacy, but the opposite seems to be true.  In fact, there is a veritable war on science, with politicians eagerly pandering by questioning the age of the earth, crusading to cut scientific budgets and calling evolution and the Big Bang  lies from the pit of hell.
Part of the problem is that scientists work on our behalf in the background.  Retailers use genetic algorithms to run their logistics, but that doesn’t make the “attention Wal-Mart shoppers” announcements.  People enjoy the low prices they help create anyway.  Who cares about the quantum physics behind smartphones as long as they can Instagram and tweet?.
Yet while politicians may see advantage in kicking science to the curb, many of our best companies are increasing their commitment to research and innovation.  While not alone, Microsoft stands out in this area.
How Microsoft Invents The Future
Microsoft created it’s research division in 1991 to explore horizons 5, 10 and 20 years out.  It currently employs 1000 PhD level researchers, including some who’ve won Turing awards, Fields Medals and Macarthur Fellowships.  So it’s no ordinary engineering factory, but much like IAS, a place where great minds can work on problems that interest them.
One of the things that makes Microsoft different than most corporate R&D operations is its commitment to basic research, which outside experts estimate to be about 5% of its total R&D budget of $11.3 billion (about the same as NASA spends on research).  What’s more, many are not computer scientists, but experts in a variety of fields, including social sciences.
Much like public research, Microsoft sees healthy returns from its research budget (which is probably why, unlike the government, they continue to increase it).  To ensure that return, they have an extensive technology transfer program, including a dedicated liaison team.  Kinect, Cortana, Azure and Skype Translator have all benefited from Microsoft Research.
And, while many don’t consider Microsoft has to be a great performer, as I pointed out a while back, it is, in fact, extraordinarily successful.  The company currently achieves 30% operating margins on $86 billion in revenue and is today the world’s second most valuable company.  Unlike Apple, it has never had an unprofitable operating quarter as a public company.
That’s not just a good business.  That’s a fantastic business.  And Microsoft’s commitment to exploring new frontiers is a big reason why the company has been so successful over such a long period.
Taking A Cue From The Private Sector
It’s become fashionable to say that government should work more like the private sector.  We privatize basic functions like prisons and schools.  Many like to say that we should run the federal budget like a household budget (which would actually be a very bad idea).  Yet when it comes to scientific research, government fails to do what business has shown to be profitable.
Microsoft, for one, has shown that a commitment to basic research makes financial sense over the long haul, but politicians use it to take cheap potshots. Google sets its sights on moonshots, but the federal government cuts NASA’s budget.  IBM breaks new ground in solar energy, but politicians deny climate change.

Many would say, “fine, let the private sector take up the slack,” but as I noted in Harvard Business Review, that’s a red herring.  Private and public research play vastly different roles and few companies other than Microsoft have the footprint to benefit from broad based discovery.  There are certain things that only the federal government can do well at scale.

So the question remains:  Why isn’t what’s good for Microsoft good for the country?  If a successful, profit driven company can see the value in scientific investment, why can’t the rest of us?  Why can’t we be as wise in our public lives as we are in our private industry?