4 ms·

Two good books that intersect technology, hype, and economics/finance are Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital by Perez (going back to the 1700s): *

Two good books that intersect technology, hype, and economics/finance are Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital by Perez (going back to the 1700s): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_Financial_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_... And The Rise and Fall of American Growth by Gordon: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_... Most actually innovation (in the US?) occurred from about 1920-1950,† with mainstream acceptance from 1950-1980, with very little newness (leading to economic/productivity growth) occurring post 1980s: the main exception of course being computers and the Internet, but that seems to have maxed out in the '00s. † The (first?) Industrial Revolution is discussed, as well as early scientific discoveries that led to later engineering development that turned into usable products.

baxtr 1y ago
How is "innovation rate" actually being measured? It’s hard for me to imagine a KPIs that hasn’t been affected by mainstream internet and mobile smartphone adoption, which happened the last 15-20 years.
- thatcat 1y ago
  Think about it this way, if we still had a world's fair - what would even be on display? Improving some metrics isnt necessarily innovation
  - econ 1y ago
    I've talked a lot with all kinds of people about new inventions and things people /we could do if we put our back under it. The responses are very cultural and nothing like what would be required to accomplish anything large. To give an example. We could make tubes with hot and/or cold water running from Siberia to the Sahara. There are plenty of design challenges in such project. The correct mindset is to take a broad outline calculating ROI so that you have an idea how much the state of the art needs to improve for it to be viable. Then you take the largest expenses or technical hurdles and ponder what could be done to ease the pain point. You can ponder the diameter vs the temperature vs the flow rate or pressure, the distance between the pumps etc etc, not to build anything but to train the brain noodle. If it wasn't a stupid idea people would be doing it already. Many countries, if not all, had a period where great things were done. After that comes defeatism nihilism and a preference for talking about tarifs, Epstein, 911, etc With tiny improvements everything shifts around. The steam engine had many challenges that have been solved long ago. Imagine that the 100 mph carburator didn't happen because you lose much of the throttle control. How silly this excuse is in the age of hybrids? It's pretty much a non-argument.
    - econ 1y ago
      Oh, I forgot, you aren't supposed to talk about this.
  - athenot 1y ago
    We still have world fairs, the current one is in Japan. A friend of mine just came back from seeing it and it's apparently quite impressive. https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/overview/purpose/ https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/overview/purpose/
    - throw0101d 1y ago
      Will what was on display: * reduce infant or child mortality? * reduce maternal mortality? * increase average life spans (by, say, double-digit percentages)? * increase health or quality of life such that people at the end of their lives are more mobile, and perhaps have less onerous medical conditions? * produce more food in the same amount of land? * produce more food with fewer inputs (energy, labour, fertilizer, water)? * produce more manufactured things with fewer inputs (energy, labour, metals)? * allow for faster transportation with more efficiency? It's all very well to invent something, but in what ways does it improve people's lives: > Fortunately Gordon indicates that it is not an end to innovation, but a decline in the usefulness of future inventions that is taking place. Documenting the impressive rise in standards of living between 1920 and 1970, with rising TFP, he claimed that it will be more difficult than before to replicate such improvements in advanced countries like the United States. In the earlier period, the American standard of living doubled every 35 years; in the future this doubling (for most people) may take a century or more. Moreover, the newer innovations do not seem to be benefitting all segments of society, which in turn reflects rising inequality in the advanced countries. > Gordon’s thesis raises many questions: Is he correct in saying that the era of rising labor productivity associated with innovation and technological change over? Will the digital economy imply a new rise in the standard of living? From a development perspective, what implications does his thesis have for middle- and low-income countries? * https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/declining-pace-innovation-lowering-productivity-growth https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/declining-pac...
      - wasabi991011 1y ago
        > Will what was on display: ... Well yes, they're aiming for those goals. On the grandparent comment's link, you'll notice that they mention striving for the UN's sustainabile development goals, which includes all of that (+ others like gender equality). Or on this link about theme weeks[1] which includes more of the same. [1] https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/sponsorship/theme-weeks/ https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/sponsorship/theme-weeks/
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > It’s hard for me to imagine a KPIs that hasn’t been affected by mainstream internet and mobile smartphone adoption, which happened the last 15-20 years. The Internet got going in the 1990s, and everyone in the US was basically connected by (say) 2010. Can you be "more connected" that already having your business or home being online 24/7 (i.e., DSL or cable, not dial-up modem)? Certain transfer speeds have gone up, and going from a V.92 56kbps to DSL is improves things, but how much productive is going from 10 Mbps to 50Mbps: do you get a 5x rise in economic productivity? Can you point to a FRED chart or cite a DOI that shows that GDP is better in societies pre- and post-smartphone? If all KPIs have been affected, then it should be easy to post a graph and see where there is an inflection point or change in the slope. If you find it so hard to believe, shouldn't it be easy for you to cite the data showing so?
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    > ...how much productive is going from 10 Mbps to 50Mbps: do you get a 5x rise in economic productivity Diminishing returns has kicked in for me. But hard to rule out any future bursts until the baseline raises. Perhaps lower latency could make things like VR and AR more appealing and useful.
    - throw0101d 1y ago
      Latency is limited by physics (c) and distance; see Admiral Hopper's nanosecond illustration: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        I don't mean physics defying advancements. When things improve, even in technically incremental ways, they sometimes cross a threshold that unlocks (seemingly) unimaginable use cases.
scroot 1y ago
To add: one of the main arguments in Gordon's tome is that many if the most impactful innovations dealt with "networking the house" (gas, electricity, plumbing, and communications) and could _only happen once_. It's actually kind of sobering to read.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  And transportation: the fastest mode of transportation going from the horse (which was it for millennia), to the train, to the car, to the plane. In 1900 people were mostly in horse and buggies (and trains for longer distance), and by 1960 we had the Boeing 707, with the 747 entering service in 1970: how much have been moved forward from that?

baxtr 1y ago

How is "innovation rate" actually being measured? It’s hard for me to imagine a KPIs that hasn’t been affected by mainstream internet and mobile smartphone adoption, which happened the last 15-20 years.

thatcat 1y ago
Think about it this way, if we still had a world's fair - what would even be on display? Improving some metrics isnt necessarily innovation
- econ 1y ago
  I've talked a lot with all kinds of people about new inventions and things people /we could do if we put our back under it. The responses are very cultural and nothing like what would be required to accomplish anything large. To give an example. We could make tubes with hot and/or cold water running from Siberia to the Sahara. There are plenty of design challenges in such project. The correct mindset is to take a broad outline calculating ROI so that you have an idea how much the state of the art needs to improve for it to be viable. Then you take the largest expenses or technical hurdles and ponder what could be done to ease the pain point. You can ponder the diameter vs the temperature vs the flow rate or pressure, the distance between the pumps etc etc, not to build anything but to train the brain noodle. If it wasn't a stupid idea people would be doing it already. Many countries, if not all, had a period where great things were done. After that comes defeatism nihilism and a preference for talking about tarifs, Epstein, 911, etc With tiny improvements everything shifts around. The steam engine had many challenges that have been solved long ago. Imagine that the 100 mph carburator didn't happen because you lose much of the throttle control. How silly this excuse is in the age of hybrids? It's pretty much a non-argument.
  - econ 1y ago
    Oh, I forgot, you aren't supposed to talk about this.
- athenot 1y ago
  We still have world fairs, the current one is in Japan. A friend of mine just came back from seeing it and it's apparently quite impressive. https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/overview/purpose/ https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/overview/purpose/
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    Will what was on display: * reduce infant or child mortality? * reduce maternal mortality? * increase average life spans (by, say, double-digit percentages)? * increase health or quality of life such that people at the end of their lives are more mobile, and perhaps have less onerous medical conditions? * produce more food in the same amount of land? * produce more food with fewer inputs (energy, labour, fertilizer, water)? * produce more manufactured things with fewer inputs (energy, labour, metals)? * allow for faster transportation with more efficiency? It's all very well to invent something, but in what ways does it improve people's lives: > Fortunately Gordon indicates that it is not an end to innovation, but a decline in the usefulness of future inventions that is taking place. Documenting the impressive rise in standards of living between 1920 and 1970, with rising TFP, he claimed that it will be more difficult than before to replicate such improvements in advanced countries like the United States. In the earlier period, the American standard of living doubled every 35 years; in the future this doubling (for most people) may take a century or more. Moreover, the newer innovations do not seem to be benefitting all segments of society, which in turn reflects rising inequality in the advanced countries. > Gordon’s thesis raises many questions: Is he correct in saying that the era of rising labor productivity associated with innovation and technological change over? Will the digital economy imply a new rise in the standard of living? From a development perspective, what implications does his thesis have for middle- and low-income countries? * https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/declining-pace-innovation-lowering-productivity-growth https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/declining-pac...
    - wasabi991011 1y ago
      > Will what was on display: ... Well yes, they're aiming for those goals. On the grandparent comment's link, you'll notice that they mention striving for the UN's sustainabile development goals, which includes all of that (+ others like gender equality). Or on this link about theme weeks[1] which includes more of the same. [1] https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/sponsorship/theme-weeks/ https://www.expo2025.or.jp/en/sponsorship/theme-weeks/
throw0101d 1y ago
> It’s hard for me to imagine a KPIs that hasn’t been affected by mainstream internet and mobile smartphone adoption, which happened the last 15-20 years. The Internet got going in the 1990s, and everyone in the US was basically connected by (say) 2010. Can you be "more connected" that already having your business or home being online 24/7 (i.e., DSL or cable, not dial-up modem)? Certain transfer speeds have gone up, and going from a V.92 56kbps to DSL is improves things, but how much productive is going from 10 Mbps to 50Mbps: do you get a 5x rise in economic productivity? Can you point to a FRED chart or cite a DOI that shows that GDP is better in societies pre- and post-smartphone? If all KPIs have been affected, then it should be easy to post a graph and see where there is an inflection point or change in the slope. If you find it so hard to believe, shouldn't it be easy for you to cite the data showing so?
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  > ...how much productive is going from 10 Mbps to 50Mbps: do you get a 5x rise in economic productivity Diminishing returns has kicked in for me. But hard to rule out any future bursts until the baseline raises. Perhaps lower latency could make things like VR and AR more appealing and useful.
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    Latency is limited by physics (c) and distance; see Admiral Hopper's nanosecond illustration: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      I don't mean physics defying advancements. When things improve, even in technically incremental ways, they sometimes cross a threshold that unlocks (seemingly) unimaginable use cases.

scroot 1y ago

To add: one of the main arguments in Gordon's tome is that many if the most impactful innovations dealt with "networking the house" (gas, electricity, plumbing, and communications) and could _only happen once_. It's actually kind of sobering to read.

throw0101d 1y ago
And transportation: the fastest mode of transportation going from the horse (which was it for millennia), to the train, to the car, to the plane. In 1900 people were mostly in horse and buggies (and trains for longer distance), and by 1960 we had the Boeing 707, with the 747 entering service in 1970: how much have been moved forward from that?