This was edited from the Bipartisan Bridge: Think Global (Competition); enact Local (Innovation). http://bipartisanbridge.org/S2C7.html . For the U.S. to be more competitive with our exports a CAUSE (Competitive Advantage for US Enterprise) Panel should be convened of leading scientists, industrialists, venture capitalists, economists, labor unions, state and federal officials, universities, and other leaders/stakeholders to identify areas in which further innovation would satisfy social objectives as well as provide new business opportunities.
Think of it as a five year plan for the most major of societal initiatives.
The CAUSE Panel would identify markets where a coordinated effort would make us more competitive on the world stage. Where collaborations in areas such as research, regulation easing, fast tracking, capital access, coordination, technology transfer, patent protection, job skills training, data, and leadership would achieve advantages in world markets.
There would be negotiations between stakeholders based on what they bring to the table for what percentage of ownership they would have in resultant patents. Government would also have a percentage of ownership rights in these patents, which would benefit all Americans by creating new broad-based opportunities for employment and debt reduction.
As well as in existing industries, the product areas could also include entirely new horizons such as the creation of environmental remediation devices, "clean tech" renewable energy technologies that will enhance our energy independence, and the further development of occupational and automotive safety equipment, where there is currently predominantly private sector activity.
In these new arenas, government could team up with the venture capital community on leading-edge technologies which have the potential to solve societal challenges and position the US as the worldwide leader in a particular industry for years to come. Long-term competitive advantages would accrue in terms of job creation, wealth creation, accelerating our technological leadership, and generating demand for support services.
At a minimum, anti-trust rules concerning research and development collaborations should be promptly and severely restrained, whether or not governmental involvement is present in the R&D activities. Additional exceptions to the anti-trust prohibitions should also be made when it is in the best interests of the U.S. economy to do so, even when there is not governmental coordination.
It's time to coordinate and mobilize all of our collective national intellectual and capital resources, and aggressively compete as a unified nation for success in today’s increasingly competitive global economic environment.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).