3 ms·

Perhaps part of the problem is that we incentivize high-risk ideas too much.

Johnny555 4y ago
I think it's the opposite. I'm not talking about "Let's start a social media app for Aardvarks!" kind of ideas, but actual scientific research. We used to have pure research orgs like Bell Labs, but companies aren't funding pure research any more, so we need more investment from government. Not every idea should have a path to monetization before it's funded.
- pedro2 4y ago
  It has been read somewhere that's due to the possibility to gobble up/buy competitors with no blocking by the state of such behaviour, specially since state deregulation in the 70s. So there is the possibility the market can be made to care again.
- epicide 4y ago
  I should clarify, as I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. I don't equate "skunkworks" with high risk. To me, that's not "risk" as much as "I don't care about monetization in the first place", like you're saying. I agree that research without promise of a payout is sorely missing these days. When I say "maybe we should have less high risk", I'm thinking of fly-by-night companies that do make a social media app for aardvarks, spend a bunch of money on slick marketing so they can pump their IPO, and then pull the rug with them when they bail. But billionaires don't become billionaires by doing skunkworks projects. They often do the latter.
tomcam 4y ago
Well most high risk ideas fail, which is why it’s handy that we have billionaires willing to risk. Why should taxpayers be on the hook?
- epicide 4y ago
  Because taxpayers are on the hook anyway when billionaires risk too much and their companies end up getting bailed out. Except now we've collectively spent even more than we likely would have so that they could, in the meantime, buy several yachts and lawyers to make sure they can hang onto their "risked" money and assets. And sure, you could just say "well, let's just not do bailouts then", but then that leads to things like bank closures, airline collapses, imploding automobile industries [0], etc. Basically, we can argue about specific cases, but there are some things that become too important to fail. Ultimately, there are things that benefit society that taxes should be used to pay for. Some of those things should be done regardless of what any potential payout might be. Note that billionaires don't help solve these problems. If anything, they make them worse because they often pay a far lower percentage tax than anybody else. [0]: Of which the US at least is highly dependent on. I want this to change, but it won't be an overnight thing by any means.

I think it's the opposite. I'm not talking about "Let's start a social media app for Aardvarks!" kind of ideas, but actual scientific research. We used to have pure research orgs like Bell Labs, but companies aren't funding pure research any more, so we need more investment from government. Not every idea should have a path to monetization before it's funded.

pedro2 4y ago
It has been read somewhere that's due to the possibility to gobble up/buy competitors with no blocking by the state of such behaviour, specially since state deregulation in the 70s. So there is the possibility the market can be made to care again.
epicide 4y ago
I should clarify, as I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. I don't equate "skunkworks" with high risk. To me, that's not "risk" as much as "I don't care about monetization in the first place", like you're saying. I agree that research without promise of a payout is sorely missing these days. When I say "maybe we should have less high risk", I'm thinking of fly-by-night companies that do make a social media app for aardvarks, spend a bunch of money on slick marketing so they can pump their IPO, and then pull the rug with them when they bail. But billionaires don't become billionaires by doing skunkworks projects. They often do the latter.

tomcam 4y ago

Well most high risk ideas fail, which is why it’s handy that we have billionaires willing to risk. Why should taxpayers be on the hook?

epicide 4y ago
Because taxpayers are on the hook anyway when billionaires risk too much and their companies end up getting bailed out. Except now we've collectively spent even more than we likely would have so that they could, in the meantime, buy several yachts and lawyers to make sure they can hang onto their "risked" money and assets. And sure, you could just say "well, let's just not do bailouts then", but then that leads to things like bank closures, airline collapses, imploding automobile industries [0], etc. Basically, we can argue about specific cases, but there are some things that become too important to fail. Ultimately, there are things that benefit society that taxes should be used to pay for. Some of those things should be done regardless of what any potential payout might be. Note that billionaires don't help solve these problems. If anything, they make them worse because they often pay a far lower percentage tax than anybody else. [0]: Of which the US at least is highly dependent on. I want this to change, but it won't be an overnight thing by any means.