5 ms·

You may be interested in Mariana Mazzucato's TED talk, where she calls into question tropes about the "sluggishness" or "innovation deficit" of government and h

by candu 9y ago

You may be interested in Mariana Mazzucato's TED talk, where she calls into question tropes about the "sluggishness" or "innovation deficit" of government and highlights its central role in making high-risk technological investments. After all, when it's not seized by a spasm of science denialism, the government is a chief backer of basic research, which is then often licensed on extremely generous terms to make a wide range of industries and products viable. One could argue that the government is, in fact, uniquely positioned to fund truly basic research, for which risk is often too high - and payoff too uncertain or delayed - to be fundable in a corporate environment. Put another way: the government is often, contrary to belief, much less risk-averse than private enterprise when it comes to research of this sort. For instance, take this Internet thing we're all communicating over. Without R&D efforts by ARPA in conjunction with several prominent universities, or the willingness of CERN to place key Web protocols in the public domain, we might very well have had non-interoperable AOL-style fiefdoms. But what company would, in the 70s, have funded an unproven telecommunications network just to connect a handful of universities?

lomnakkus 9y ago
Indeed and I find it an absurd false dichotomy to suppose that it's either/or. Why can't both government and private enterprise both be discovering the future at the same time? Granted, some enterprises/initiatives will fail, but that's kind of par for the course since nobody can predict the future.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & build. When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. The sole counterexample is probably roads, and even then there's an argument that the public administration of roads has many systematic issues that could be blamed on governmental factors.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    > The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & actually building out infrastructure. What you mean by "long view" here? I also don't particularly see why private companies would (in principle) be better than government-run institutions. I mean, in most of the world universities are government-funded institutions, and I think they produce quite a bit of innovation? The key here is independence from the direct source of funding. There's nothing magical about private enterprise that means it'll be more "innovative". You just need independence[2]. > When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. I can't claim to know much about Australia, so can you explain what went wrong with NBN? I can tell you that e.g. Sweden is among the top[1] of the world when it comes to Internet speed, and I believe that was mostly done by government mandate. (Not sure who actually laid the fiber, but that's pretty much beside the point.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_... [2] As in: Your funding is guaranteed for X number of years, regardless of political whims, popular opinion, etc.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Especially because government is in the unique position to fund technologies for the public good, regardless of whether they can be profitable or not. They can also balance those technologies to have the greatest accessibility so it doesn't end up centralizing in expensive high tech hubs.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    But we have become so divisive that it's all but impossible to agree on "common good." Geez, healthcare is pretty obvious as to being for the public good. And we can't agree on that. Now just imagine something less obvious. We wouldn't be able to get out of our own way.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      That's fair, we are in a bad way politically right now. I don't think we'll be that way forever, though. And it's best if people who support projects for the public good come up with projects that make the proper case.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        I'm not so sure political captures the depth and breadth of the problem. Sure that's how it most commonly manifests itself. But we as a culture / society / species having less and less shared experiences. That is adding up, and seemingly making more people less empathic. The instantness of things is also making us less patient, less understanding. Politics, I believe, is a symptom (of a much bigger problem).
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Why? Because we don't reelect politicians who are tied to programs that have "failed." That's why. We, the electorate, are easily manipulated and on average have no tolerance for "failure." As a result, few elected officials attempt to push for things that might end their career. In short, We get what we ask for.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
The question I would ask is: What is Uncle Sam funding that we are likely not aware of? I think the answer to that is: plenty. There are plenty of reasons for Uncle Sam to be covert. Obviously, national security comes to mind. The other is the Constitution, as well as other things that are supposed to limit the gov's. If history is any indication, when it comes to Uncle Sam: just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

by candu 9y ago

lomnakkus 9y ago

Indeed and I find it an absurd false dichotomy to suppose that it's either/or. Why can't both government and private enterprise both be discovering the future at the same time? Granted, some enterprises/initiatives will fail, but that's kind of par for the course since nobody can predict the future.

inopinatus 9y ago
The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & build. When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. The sole counterexample is probably roads, and even then there's an argument that the public administration of roads has many systematic issues that could be blamed on governmental factors.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  > The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & actually building out infrastructure. What you mean by "long view" here? I also don't particularly see why private companies would (in principle) be better than government-run institutions. I mean, in most of the world universities are government-funded institutions, and I think they produce quite a bit of innovation? The key here is independence from the direct source of funding. There's nothing magical about private enterprise that means it'll be more "innovative". You just need independence[2]. > When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. I can't claim to know much about Australia, so can you explain what went wrong with NBN? I can tell you that e.g. Sweden is among the top[1] of the world when it comes to Internet speed, and I believe that was mostly done by government mandate. (Not sure who actually laid the fiber, but that's pretty much beside the point.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_... [2] As in: Your funding is guaranteed for X number of years, regardless of political whims, popular opinion, etc.
michaelchisari 9y ago
Especially because government is in the unique position to fund technologies for the public good, regardless of whether they can be profitable or not. They can also balance those technologies to have the greatest accessibility so it doesn't end up centralizing in expensive high tech hubs.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  But we have become so divisive that it's all but impossible to agree on "common good." Geez, healthcare is pretty obvious as to being for the public good. And we can't agree on that. Now just imagine something less obvious. We wouldn't be able to get out of our own way.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    That's fair, we are in a bad way politically right now. I don't think we'll be that way forever, though. And it's best if people who support projects for the public good come up with projects that make the proper case.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      I'm not so sure political captures the depth and breadth of the problem. Sure that's how it most commonly manifests itself. But we as a culture / society / species having less and less shared experiences. That is adding up, and seemingly making more people less empathic. The instantness of things is also making us less patient, less understanding. Politics, I believe, is a symptom (of a much bigger problem).
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Why? Because we don't reelect politicians who are tied to programs that have "failed." That's why. We, the electorate, are easily manipulated and on average have no tolerance for "failure." As a result, few elected officials attempt to push for things that might end their career. In short, We get what we ask for.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

The question I would ask is: What is Uncle Sam funding that we are likely not aware of? I think the answer to that is: plenty. There are plenty of reasons for Uncle Sam to be covert. Obviously, national security comes to mind. The other is the Constitution, as well as other things that are supposed to limit the gov's. If history is any indication, when it comes to Uncle Sam: just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.