12 ms·
Permissionless innovation
- pascalxus 9y agoThis is a very important point the author is making. There are so many areas that are by default, non-innovation tolerant: for instance housing and transportation. If you dictate the size and placement of every last nut and bolt, it leaves little/no room for innovation, making it impossible to make progress.
- mmrezaie 9y agoThe author has a great interview on econtalk about this which I found very interesting.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoAs a long time econtalk listener I am kind of disappointed with this week's episode. I don't feel like they really elaborated beyond "we should have permissionless innovation"
- buzzdenver 9y agoMy thoughts as well. They were basically saying that too much regulation/central planning is bad and a central authority cannot decide whether something is a good business idea, then talk for a long time about this fuzzy metaphor about dancing.
- cbayram 9y agoSame here. It was my first episode of econtalk. There were thought provoking points; i.e. focusing more on systemic mistakes rather than small ones as a result of permitting decision making at the local level (a la N. Taleb). However, it could've been told in 1/3rd the duration. I'll give it another go given this episode might have been one off.
- icebraining 9y agoDefinitively don't judge Econtalk by the episodes with Mike Munger, they're more informal and less structured, since he's a friend of the host.
- travmatt 9y agoHe’s even hosted an episode
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoI love econtalk, but there are def some duds. Usually the problem is that they just drag on with Russ and the Guest agreeing upon something. Here are a few that I enjoyed recently: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/megan_mcardle_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/10/megan_mcardle_o.htm... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/07/sally_satel_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/07/sally_satel_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/07/chris_blattman_2.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/07/chris_blattman_2.ht... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/christy_ford_ch.htm... http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/sam_quinones_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/sam_quinones_on.htm...
- lunchladydoris 9y agoAnd if you do check out EconTalk, make sure to browse through the archive. They've had a lot of technology folks on the show over the years [0]. [0] http://www.econtalk.org/archives.html#guest http://www.econtalk.org/archives.html#guest
- ChristianBundy 9y agoPro-capitalist propaganda disguised as "freedom".
- fao_ 9y agoI was going to disagree, then I read the paragraph against regulation.
- merpnderp 9y agoThe author is obviously not against regulation - deregulation is the crazy idea that there can be too many regulations that end up being harmful to progress and safety, but that some lesser level of regulations are still necessary. Think this is obviously untrue? In some places you can't wash someone else's hat without being certified and bonded. Maybe you think that's a good regulation, but you'd be in the minority.
- mmrezaie 9y agoI don't think he was against relation but he mentions in the interview what kind of regulations actually stops even starting businesses like building a hospital only if other hospitals sign that city needs another one. He had other examples too.
- merpnderp 9y agoHow dare anyone promote the most successful anti-poverty economic tool ever invented - letting people freely exchange labor and goods in a system of laws and contracts. Don't believe me? Look at when China implemented free market reforms then look at when their economy began decades of massive growth. China used to have 500 million people who had never owned a toothbrush. Now all the toothbrushes in the world are made there.
- sp332 9y agoRight so there's a difference between the dictionary definition of capitalism, and the current system in the USA where money has replaced democracy and you can get away with anything as long as you're rich enough. Look at AirBnB, Lyft, Uber, Carl Icahn, oil companies, etc.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIs this actually saying anything other than that government should get out of the way?
- namuol 9y agoLearn Liberty is a project of the the Institute for Humane Studies, which is a libertarian-focused nonprofit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies
- hawkice 9y agoIt's more specific. It's saying regulation should be largely post-hoc or with clearly defined before-hand rules. Instead, many people need permits (&c) for things where they're already following the rules. That creates a procedural barrier to change of any kind, and therefore is a massive handout to incumbents and crushes the most valuable part of a competitive market.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThen he should have expressed it that way. To me it sounded like the usual "government is bad" rant.
- KODeKarnage 9y agoThat doesn't sound very open-minded. How many great arguments are you ignoring because they don't support larger, more intrusive governments? The point is, you don't know.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI don't support larger, more intrusive governments. But I think his Twitter example is bad. Twitter has no externalities so it shouldn't need government approval which it actually didn't need. So there was no problem. The only permission needed was from investors who had to cough up the money. Instead of railing against solar power maybe he should also rail against the massive subsidies the oil industry gets through decades long military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He also doesn't touch more complex areas such as nuclear energy for example. Is it OK for everybody to do "Permissionless Innovation" on reactor designs and from time to time one of them blows up? I hope the author will move close to one of these innovation paradises.
- eecc 9y agoHaven’t read the article, but will. Just wanted to share with the world ;) this brilliant insight i has while showering: this permission to innovate is the only redeeming factor - it there’s any - to Capitalism. All other systems of the past tend to stifle this (Real Socialism, Absolute Monarchies, Bureaucratic Fascism, etc...) and even Capitalism itself in its later stages. Devise a social organization that focuses on protecting and encouraging this freedom
- muxator 9y agoI think this applies not only at large (government) scale, but on a smaller scale, as well: from single companies to whole industrial sectors. I personally witnessed various (non tech) companies that self-organized their tech arm in a way that was for every practical purpose impossible to innovate: "You can certainly go on with your proposal, provided that you get the authorization from depts A, B and C, and that your changes have absolutely no impact on how they operate".
- namuol 9y agoFor those who care about this sort of thing (NOT trying to bring up any political debates): Learn Liberty is project of the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian-focused nonprofit with Charles Koch and other conservative businessmen and politicians on its Board of Directors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Humane_Studies
- Mz 9y agoIt reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down), he was pretty much free to do as he pleased. If you are responsible, freedom of that sort is empowering. If you are not, you wind up being the jerk that causes regulations to be written and permitting processes to be created, ruining it for everyone.
- Maxious 9y agoSimilar story about net metering, power companies didn't initially have policies one way or another about feeding solar back in to the grid to reduce power bills https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/
- Declanomous 9y agoWe have a bunch of regulations on that stuff in Chicago now. I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. Here's a pdf (warning) of all of the hoops you need to jump through to install solar in Chicago: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/Solar/Photovoltaic_Guidelines.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/g... Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head from stuff I read in the paper five or more years ago. I can't find any articles now, but I have looked into the permitting process and it looks like a pain in the butt.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> I don't know if it was the same guy, but some people got upset because they thought solar panels were super ugly. This is a sad aspect of living in a high-density society. A lot of people are not only boring themselves, but they excessively want everyone else to be boring too.
- symstym 9y agoThis reminds me of some parts of Pieter Hintjens' book Social Architecture. He advocates that open source projects practice "optimistic merging" where essentially any patch that is well-formed should be accepted, without value judgement (though they may be reverted later). He argues that counterintuitively, this leads to better results than having gatekeepers. It seems pretty extreme, but similar in spirit to the idea of permissionless innovation.
- kmicklas 9y agoI don't fundamentally disagree with the article but this is ridiculous: > People sometimes ask me, “What is the most important concept in political economy?” The answer is easy, but subtle: permissionless innovation, a strong presumption in favor of allowing experimentation with new technologies and with new business platforms that use those technologies. Surely the ideas of capital, labor, markets, property, etc. are more important concepts in political economy?
- dreamdu5t 9y ago"Learn Liberty" is an ideologically driven organization whose goal is to promote pro-corporate policies by masking them in radical free market libertarian rhetoric. It's propaganda.
- CalChris 9y agoNo mention of intellectual property. It isn’t government regulation that prevents people from innovating. It’s government protection of their innovation that incents them.
- acjohnson55 9y agoYet that also makes it so that innovation requires permission from your competitors, which is stifling.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- CalChris 9y agoNo. It isn’t stifling at all. This is Patent 101. Joe has a patent on the widget. I can’t make a widget without violating his patent. I get a patent on an improved widget. Joe can’t manufacture the improvement. He’s incented to cooperate with me and I’m incented to innovate. Incented, not stifled. Just allowing copying incents manufacture but not innovation. Even China is moving in the IP direction.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoJoe has a patent on the widget. You can't make an improved widget without either getting permission from Joe, or breaking patent law. So you don't invent your improved widget, you don't patent it, and if Joe is not interested in innovating, nobody else won't do it either. The world becomes poorer. (In reality: enter China, who doesn't give a fuck and innovates anyway.) (In real reality: unfortunately, the Chinese government is starting to enforce western IP more and more, due to economical pressures from the west.)
- CalChris 9y agoYou might not invent the improved widget but I would. Essentially all patents are improvements. Berkeley invents CRISPR. Broad Institute invents improved CRISPR. In a parallel universe, does John Galt invent CRISPR? Let's see. He'd have to spend millions on development and then wouldn't be able to recoup that because anyone could copy it. So no, Galt doesn't do this. He's free to do this but there's no incentive for him to do it. Galt's world seems more like: From each according to their ability To each according to their need
- FrozenVoid 9y agoFor most inventions, having starting capital/resources and free time to innovate is a much bigger factor. If a place laws are against invention the inventor can move to more hospitable region(he has time and money after all).
- Toenex 9y agoI can't recall who said it (may have been Bart Simpson) but I've always liked the phrase. _"To truly innovate, one must be prepared to seek forgiveness not permission."_
- a3n 9y agoGrace Hopper said something very much like that, and is generally credited for the expression of that attitude. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
- KozmoNau7 9y agoProbably one of the most amazing and most important persons in the history of computing. "The most dangerous phrase in the language is, "We've always done it this way."" sums up so many human-made problems, it's not even funny.
- golemotron 9y agoInteresting that the article does not mention The Precautionary Principle [1], which is the opposite of 'permissionless innovation'. As an example, a society could decide that the rollout of driverless car technology would disrupt jobs and communities so severely that it either shouldn't be done or should be done slowly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- notacoward 9y agoHow many of the people praising permissionless innovation are also condemning Facebook/Twitter/Google for allowing their platforms to be used for political purposes? If that's you, you're being inconsistent because permissionless innovation is exactly how those companies got into that pickle. Sometimes innovation has dangers or negative consequences. It's not always unreasonable to have a "review cycle" where those can be recognized, measured, and possibly ameliorated (or at least accounted for) before too much harm is done. There should be a tendency toward permissionless innovation, but just saying anyone should be allowed to run any experiment they want on their neighbors is taking it too far.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sharemywin 9y agoI don't really get the article on the one hand he's complaining about the government picking winners, like the solar failure. On the other he's heralding a service that closed it's api and is built on one of the largest government picks of all time. CompuServe, AOL had solutions long before the internet. What if Darpa had decided to build an infrastructure on top of compuserve, aol, and prodigy. the whole world would look completely different.
- ythn 9y agoHis point is that innovation is both something that we all want, yet something that is often inadvertently stifled by regulators or competitors. Perhaps the energy innovation that would benefit society most is not pursued because it's too lucrative to pursue solar (the government's "winner"). Perhaps there are streaming video/music innovations we will never see because there is so much red tape put up by Disney, etc.
- Qwertious 9y ago>His point is that innovation is both something that we all want, yet something that is often best decided by the market, not by regulators or competitors. Perhaps the energy innovation that would benefit society most is not pursued because it's too lucrative to invest in solar. As a generalisation, I think that solar "subsidies" are a two-part problem. First off, the government is refusing to price the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions (in part due to the republicans largely refusing to acknowledge the externalities even exist), which distorts the value of solar by implicitly subsidising fossil fuels. Second, people acknowledge that solar needs to be made more viable and attempt to correct the market by adding a subsidy to solar instead of removing the subsidy from fossil fuels. I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in common neoliberal ideology today - the notion that the way to remove market distortions is for government to do less, not more. This is clearly absurd, since climate change will cause trillions of dollars of property damage, and penalising property damage is basically the government's job.