7 ms·

There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector. "We pretend that the

by k99x55 3y ago

There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector. "We pretend that the government was at best just in the background creating the basic conditions (skills, infrastructure, basic science). But the truth is that the involvement required massive risk taking along the entire innovation chain: basic research, applied research and early stage financing of companies themselves.” https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/ https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/

ruairidhc 3y ago
>"There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector." Is there any evidence for this other than opinion pieces? Asking sincerely. I see arguments for both sides being the source of most innovation, but haven't seen real, valid, data-driven evidence. Granted, I haven't looked much. I have my own opinion, but want more evidence, for both arguments.
- picadores 3y ago
  Private sector works as soon as there is demand, but the problem is that its not able to traverse large "deserts" towards new technologies. The state is better at long range exploration of not "colonizeable" capabilities pushing roots and tendrils over the deserts and mountains into new valleys.
- simne 3y ago
  >"There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector." This is just logical consequence, from erroneous foundations, to be strict, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism Idea, that when somebody become authoritative with power, Statists think, such people should automatically gather wisdom and Universe knowledge, to make much better decisions, than free market. Unfortunately, in reality, authoritative with power, usually use their power for some silly things, not for people good, and usually, power are not effective. But sometimes, in very special conditions, have so obvious things to do (and these things just impossible to do on free market, like Manhattan project, or trans-American railroad), that even with very bad efficiency, just huge resources investments are enough to make huge leap. For example, now we don't know "Manhattan project" way to achieve GAI, so even if somebody will decide to throw government resources we will not achieve GAI, will just convert resources to waste. And such things happen lot of time before, but Statists prefer to ignore such examples, they show only good examples to convince people.
  - simne 3y ago
    To be strict, free market decision efficiency now considered at about 70% (30% of resources wasted, or one third of invested). But authoritarian power decision efficiency, from experience of late Soviet Union, was about 5-30% (so 70-95% wasted, or from 2/3 to near all invested).
picadores 3y ago
DARPA - and europe just does not do those challenges..

by k99x55 3y ago

ruairidhc 3y ago

>"There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector." Is there any evidence for this other than opinion pieces? Asking sincerely. I see arguments for both sides being the source of most innovation, but haven't seen real, valid, data-driven evidence. Granted, I haven't looked much. I have my own opinion, but want more evidence, for both arguments.

picadores 3y ago
Private sector works as soon as there is demand, but the problem is that its not able to traverse large "deserts" towards new technologies. The state is better at long range exploration of not "colonizeable" capabilities pushing roots and tendrils over the deserts and mountains into new valleys.
simne 3y ago
>"There is a misconception that innovation comes mainly from the private sector. Its the opposite: innovation comes from the public sector." This is just logical consequence, from erroneous foundations, to be strict, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism Idea, that when somebody become authoritative with power, Statists think, such people should automatically gather wisdom and Universe knowledge, to make much better decisions, than free market. Unfortunately, in reality, authoritative with power, usually use their power for some silly things, not for people good, and usually, power are not effective. But sometimes, in very special conditions, have so obvious things to do (and these things just impossible to do on free market, like Manhattan project, or trans-American railroad), that even with very bad efficiency, just huge resources investments are enough to make huge leap. For example, now we don't know "Manhattan project" way to achieve GAI, so even if somebody will decide to throw government resources we will not achieve GAI, will just convert resources to waste. And such things happen lot of time before, but Statists prefer to ignore such examples, they show only good examples to convince people.
- simne 3y ago
  To be strict, free market decision efficiency now considered at about 70% (30% of resources wasted, or one third of invested). But authoritarian power decision efficiency, from experience of late Soviet Union, was about 5-30% (so 70-95% wasted, or from 2/3 to near all invested).

picadores 3y ago

DARPA - and europe just does not do those challenges..