3 ms·

>I would question why they haven't attracted investment in such a situation. I wouldn't say there isn't investment in new industries/tech upstream, but that it

>I would question why they haven't attracted investment in such a situation. I wouldn't say there isn't investment in new industries/tech upstream, but that it isn't in anything at a point that's driving consumer demand/profits. >To put it more directly, what do you know that people with billions to invest, and access the experts in the field don't? I'm interested in brain computer interfaces (worked/consulted in multiple research labs, published in journals, familiarity with all the politicking in between academia-industry/etc). I have hands on experience with medical imaging hardware/software and design of systems/sensors, and have seen a couple of great but really expensive systems/companies only target researchers, and many more trash systems/companies with even more funding that continued to get peddled to the public (and research labs sadly), and the only VC firm I've seen that even seems right up the ally with interest in something like this (some of the people behind it), nearly 15-20% of their portfolio companies are filled with corporate hiring startups (and another chuck companies with gov contracts for bread n butter [i.e. easily financed with 4-52 week notes]). If one follows Robin Hanson's take on our economic system (prestige bias wrt to experts, and how it can go horribly wrong in certain cases outside of wanting to associate with such people), its not hard to see how $10-100 billion or more of other peoples money mostly being burned…

benj111 7y ago
"its not hard to see how $10-100 billion or more of other peoples money mostly being burned" Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. Yes you have billions being thrown at the wall and seeing what sticks, but some of it will stick, and based on past experience will more than offset what fell to the floor. The Hedge fund you mentioned, if you're right should be very successful, that will attract more money, until eventually there will be too much money going into these underfunded areas. You seem to be complaining about essential features of capitalism, on one level you may be correct, just like observing that eating too much pizza will make you fat, but just like the fat, it's an inherent 'feature' that you can't really fix. Ps "I wouldn't say there isn't investment in new industries/tech upstream, but that it isn't in anything at a point that's driving consumer demand/profits" Much handwringing has been had complaining about the short termism of the markets, investing long term is good, yes ideally there should be a constant pipeline of new products, I don't think you can write off the industry that there isn't though.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  >Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. I agree with this statement. >You seem to be complaining about essential features of capitalism, on one level you may be correct, just like observing that eating too much pizza will make you fat, but just like the fat, it's an inherent 'feature' that you can't really fix. I may seem that way, but I think this situation does provide benefits for those who can exploit it in the short run. I don't think what we call capitalism as it exists today (on the national/international) level is an upper bound optimal level of resource allocation, just the local maxima/cleanest dirty shirt/etc. >Much handwringing has been had complaining about the short termism of the markets, investing long term is good, yes ideally there should be a constant pipeline of new products, I don't think you can write off the industry that there isn't though. I think it would be more fair to say that I'm writing off the industry now, there's alot of people/incentives in crowded positions that need to be wiped out before I'll be more interested.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "I don't think what we call capitalism as it exists today (on the national/international) level is an upper bound optimal level of resource allocation, just the local maxima/cleanest dirty shirt/etc" Maybe? Probably. I don't see how you could 'fix' it though. Sure you could find a better local maxima. As i say, it seems to me to be an inherent feature.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      Yeah, well I guess in my mind the thing to be fixed would be resource allocation, not what people may consider to be capitalism today (the present day king-of-the-kill towards those ends). Will some of the (social/political/economic) infrasurture of present day capitalism still exist? Probably, just as some religious institutions from thousands years past still exist today, but the role it plays towards some ends that drive society forward would be made obsolete. But in saying that, these things change on time frames beyond our own lives, with few having enough foresight to see what may be up ahead based on some kind of understanding of where we're going now, and fewer acting as agents of such change.

benj111 7y ago

"its not hard to see how $10-100 billion or more of other peoples money mostly being burned" Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. Yes you have billions being thrown at the wall and seeing what sticks, but some of it will stick, and based on past experience will more than offset what fell to the floor. The Hedge fund you mentioned, if you're right should be very successful, that will attract more money, until eventually there will be too much money going into these underfunded areas. You seem to be complaining about essential features of capitalism, on one level you may be correct, just like observing that eating too much pizza will make you fat, but just like the fat, it's an inherent 'feature' that you can't really fix. Ps "I wouldn't say there isn't investment in new industries/tech upstream, but that it isn't in anything at a point that's driving consumer demand/profits" Much handwringing has been had complaining about the short termism of the markets, investing long term is good, yes ideally there should be a constant pipeline of new products, I don't think you can write off the industry that there isn't though.

cinquemb 7y ago
>Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. I agree with this statement. >You seem to be complaining about essential features of capitalism, on one level you may be correct, just like observing that eating too much pizza will make you fat, but just like the fat, it's an inherent 'feature' that you can't really fix. I may seem that way, but I think this situation does provide benefits for those who can exploit it in the short run. I don't think what we call capitalism as it exists today (on the national/international) level is an upper bound optimal level of resource allocation, just the local maxima/cleanest dirty shirt/etc. >Much handwringing has been had complaining about the short termism of the markets, investing long term is good, yes ideally there should be a constant pipeline of new products, I don't think you can write off the industry that there isn't though. I think it would be more fair to say that I'm writing off the industry now, there's alot of people/incentives in crowded positions that need to be wiped out before I'll be more interested.
- benj111 7y ago
  "I don't think what we call capitalism as it exists today (on the national/international) level is an upper bound optimal level of resource allocation, just the local maxima/cleanest dirty shirt/etc" Maybe? Probably. I don't see how you could 'fix' it though. Sure you could find a better local maxima. As i say, it seems to me to be an inherent feature.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    Yeah, well I guess in my mind the thing to be fixed would be resource allocation, not what people may consider to be capitalism today (the present day king-of-the-kill towards those ends). Will some of the (social/political/economic) infrasurture of present day capitalism still exist? Probably, just as some religious institutions from thousands years past still exist today, but the role it plays towards some ends that drive society forward would be made obsolete. But in saying that, these things change on time frames beyond our own lives, with few having enough foresight to see what may be up ahead based on some kind of understanding of where we're going now, and fewer acting as agents of such change.