Innovation success like natural evolution requires a huge amount of failure (death) and his government-driven innovation only bets everything on one dream technological direction and shortchanges all alternative approaches. Having watched this gov't approach either achieve small safe incremental technological progress or remain alive as a funding sink, the net result is very inefficient and not very innovative (I have been on a lot of funding committees). I don't think he really understands what he is talking about. Having spent my life in a technology area with a lot of independent companies and a few larger government-funded non-profits, I found that small companies can maintain technological superiority over government organizations with much more money available. The gov't would plan its projects and experiments in extreme detail and follow through for years before pulling the plug on something that isn't working. I would search for new ideas and spend my effort killing the walking dead. I have also seen all that government money following second-rate ideas suck talent and harm the rate of innovation. A good example is to note that the government-funded and directed rocket program does not have reusable boosters like SpaceX developed. This obvious innovation wasn't in NASA's interest in bigger budgets when reusable boosters cut costs. This little observation exposes all of his nonsense as false.
"Efficiency is the enemy of innovation." -- Bill Janeway
As a young researcher, this rings very true to me.
as well as outsourcing jobs to countries with cheap labour has increased efficiency and has destroyed the need for innovation
This is the most wonderful channel I have found in UA-cam! Thanks for these great contents.
Why?
Are you a keynesian?
What books on Economics of Innovation do you recommend?
This guy's good!
I guess if you like to kiss rich peoples ass
We Should Be Eisenhower Interstate Advanced. Digitally, Economically. Visiting our Country.
Innovation success like natural evolution requires a huge amount of failure (death) and his government-driven innovation only bets everything on one dream technological direction and shortchanges all alternative approaches. Having watched this gov't approach either achieve small safe incremental technological progress or remain alive as a funding sink, the net result is very inefficient and not very innovative (I have been on a lot of funding committees).
I don't think he really understands what he is talking about. Having spent my life in a technology area with a lot of independent companies and a few larger government-funded non-profits, I found that small companies can maintain technological superiority over government organizations with much more money available. The gov't would plan its projects and experiments in extreme detail and follow through for years before pulling the plug on something that isn't working. I would search for new ideas and spend my effort killing the walking dead.
I have also seen all that government money following second-rate ideas suck talent and harm the rate of innovation. A good example is to note that the government-funded and directed rocket program does not have reusable boosters like SpaceX developed. This obvious innovation wasn't in NASA's interest in bigger budgets when reusable boosters cut costs. This little observation exposes all of his nonsense as false.
the digital revolution has left us worse-off
LOL
Oh yes, the SEC is all about innovation.