3 ms·

WWI, FDR, and then WW2 ushered in the age of big government, academic-government collaboration, and bureaucracy over all. Everything gets done according to pro

WWI, FDR, and then WW2 ushered in the age of big government, academic-government collaboration, and bureaucracy over all. Everything gets done according to process. Elon Musk is a rare iconoclast.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Our biggest growth happened after those times. I believe the bend in the curve happened closer to the 70s in the US.
usrusr 6y ago
Well, that process was an important innovation as a damage control tool for the cost plus thing. I never really understood the cost plus thing, at least not how it can survive the tiniest excursion out of wishful thinking. Not until the pandemic hit. Then it suddenly became clear to me that in exceptional situations the cost plus model, even with all its failing damage control band-aids, is far superior to waiting for The Market to reach an equilibrium. You wouldn't win a war by giving each soldier a budget and then unleashing them to outbid each other for ammunition and medical support, to put it bluntly. The failure of course is when you stick to that model for too long ("F35"). (sorry for bringing the pandemic into a discussion about Wright Flyer bits flying on Mars)
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  Bureaucracy stifles innovation as the cost of increased risk management. Being incredibly risk adverse can often be a very short sighted attitude because you surrender the opportunity cost of taking calculated risks like trying new approaches and tools. Successful organisations are able to adapt over time, where bureaucracies only stagnate. Markets are orthogonal to that trade off because both bureaucracies and adaptive organisations operate within the market. It's just a tool, you can use it well or poorly.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Markets are not orthogonal in so far as that certain forms of bureaucracy exist solely for dealing with non-market scenarios ("wartime cost plus"). You want either one or the other, never both at once (a market stifled by redundant bureaucracy) or none at all (decisionmakers just wiring the money to family members for vague promises of maybe trying to deliver, perhaps) Unfortunately it gets a bit murky in that there is another form of bureaucracy to tame markets while they are not circumvented and there's a severe lack of separation between those two forms of bureaucracies. Usually neither critics nor advocates seem to care about the distinction (which plays out much better for critics I suppose).

WWI, FDR, and then WW2 ushered in the age of big government, academic-government collaboration, and bureaucracy over all. Everything gets done according to process. Elon Musk is a rare iconoclast.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Our biggest growth happened after those times. I believe the bend in the curve happened closer to the 70s in the US.

usrusr 6y ago

Well, that process was an important innovation as a damage control tool for the cost plus thing. I never really understood the cost plus thing, at least not how it can survive the tiniest excursion out of wishful thinking. Not until the pandemic hit. Then it suddenly became clear to me that in exceptional situations the cost plus model, even with all its failing damage control band-aids, is far superior to waiting for The Market to reach an equilibrium. You wouldn't win a war by giving each soldier a budget and then unleashing them to outbid each other for ammunition and medical support, to put it bluntly. The failure of course is when you stick to that model for too long ("F35"). (sorry for bringing the pandemic into a discussion about Wright Flyer bits flying on Mars)

beaconstudios 6y ago
Bureaucracy stifles innovation as the cost of increased risk management. Being incredibly risk adverse can often be a very short sighted attitude because you surrender the opportunity cost of taking calculated risks like trying new approaches and tools. Successful organisations are able to adapt over time, where bureaucracies only stagnate. Markets are orthogonal to that trade off because both bureaucracies and adaptive organisations operate within the market. It's just a tool, you can use it well or poorly.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Markets are not orthogonal in so far as that certain forms of bureaucracy exist solely for dealing with non-market scenarios ("wartime cost plus"). You want either one or the other, never both at once (a market stifled by redundant bureaucracy) or none at all (decisionmakers just wiring the money to family members for vague promises of maybe trying to deliver, perhaps) Unfortunately it gets a bit murky in that there is another form of bureaucracy to tame markets while they are not circumvented and there's a severe lack of separation between those two forms of bureaucracies. Usually neither critics nor advocates seem to care about the distinction (which plays out much better for critics I suppose).