6 ms·

> Picking Nokia as an example of innovation? She used Apple as an example too, which around here is uncontroversial. If you want to learn more, she wrote an en

> Picking Nokia as an example of innovation? She used Apple as an example too, which around here is uncontroversial. If you want to learn more, she wrote an entire book explaining the article's statement: "And every technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone owes its vision and funding to the state: the Internet, GPS, touch-screen displays, and even the voice-activated smartphone assistant Siri all received state cash. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency bankrolled the Internet, and the CIA and the military funded GPS." Furthermore, she clarifies in her TEDx talk [1], that Nokia's problems are its own executives' misjudgements, as is clear. (Just as the US isn't responsible for every failed US tech firm.) Nokia obviously did quite well from state subsidies, just as US firms do. (I recommend this TEDx talk, which goes deeper into the context than the brief Slate article.) I find Mazzucato quite reserved in her critique of religious economic ideology, despite people willfully reading "madness" into a brief Slate essay, rather than carefully investigating her work. Not only did she explain in a book, but she even made a Youtube channel investigating this theme with other economic/political figures. [2] Her work came from an INET grant [3], not an insignificant institution. [4] [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA [2] http://www.youtube.com/user/RethinkingTheState http://www.youtube.com/user/RethinkingTheState [3] http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-mariana-mazzucato-rethinking-state http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-ma... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_New_Economic_Thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_New_Economic_Thin...

ada1981 13y ago
Having written a book and created a YouTube channel isn't any sort of evidence for the validity of much more than the creators ability to create a book and YouTube channel. Because a government offers funding at a low rate and an entrepreneur takes advantage of such a rate doesn't mean the government "innovated". I think NASA and the moon are a good example of innovation in the relm of war. The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. Of course we lost most of the "events" of the space race save putting someone on the Moon. It seems plausible governments could be innovative as they are comprise of humans and humans can create things regardless of context. Long scale planning certainly is a strength of a government, because in theory in means funding can be coerced from citizens and invested into projects that they wouldn't normally choose of their free will via the marketplace -- but they often simply don't invest in good long term projects. Perhaps I'm wrong.. the promise of wealth seems to be a primary motivator, and since governments amass large sums of money through coercive taxation, I suppose they can be a motivational source for inventors and entrepreneurs, but I'm just not comfortable with saying governments are more innovative than individuals.
- jmduke 13y ago
  Having written a book and created a YouTube channel isn't any sort of evidence for the validity of much more than the creators ability to create a book and YouTube channel. The ability to make a book in service of own's argument is evidence of a great deal many things: at the very least, dedication and conviction to one's argument. The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. This is 100% valid, and yet it resulted in us putting a man on the moon, so you haven't really detracted from the argument.
  - OvidNaso 13y ago
    >The ability to make a book in service of own's argument is evidence of a great deal many things: at the very least, dedication and conviction to one's argument. Or confidence in one's ability to fool the market.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. As a side effect we got positioning, communications and earth observing satellites, all the sciences have had massive benefits and the extra research into stuff like photovoltaics hasn't hurt either.
- LiweiZ 13y ago
  "Long scale planning certainly is a strength of a government, because in theory in means funding can be coerced from citizens and invested into projects that they wouldn't normally choose of their free will via the marketplace -- but they often simply don't invest in good long term projects." As we human beings live in a complex system such as country. The old fashioned "long term planning and executing accordingly" in the long run actually does way more harm. Misallocating resources, killing the possibilities each individual could bring to the system, killing the necessary environment for more diversified individuals to grow up from infants... If taking the similarity to animals' as a spectrum (no offense). A low level trait means things like food needs, shelter to live. A high level trait means the things people created such as art, tech... What I believe may be wrong, but I think as humans, the high level traits are the ultimate things we are looking for. Bringing in more possibilities and catalyze some of them might be a good way.

ada1981 13y ago

Having written a book and created a YouTube channel isn't any sort of evidence for the validity of much more than the creators ability to create a book and YouTube channel. Because a government offers funding at a low rate and an entrepreneur takes advantage of such a rate doesn't mean the government "innovated". I think NASA and the moon are a good example of innovation in the relm of war. The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. Of course we lost most of the "events" of the space race save putting someone on the Moon. It seems plausible governments could be innovative as they are comprise of humans and humans can create things regardless of context. Long scale planning certainly is a strength of a government, because in theory in means funding can be coerced from citizens and invested into projects that they wouldn't normally choose of their free will via the marketplace -- but they often simply don't invest in good long term projects. Perhaps I'm wrong.. the promise of wealth seems to be a primary motivator, and since governments amass large sums of money through coercive taxation, I suppose they can be a motivational source for inventors and entrepreneurs, but I'm just not comfortable with saying governments are more innovative than individuals.

jmduke 13y ago
Having written a book and created a YouTube channel isn't any sort of evidence for the validity of much more than the creators ability to create a book and YouTube channel. The ability to make a book in service of own's argument is evidence of a great deal many things: at the very least, dedication and conviction to one's argument. The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. This is 100% valid, and yet it resulted in us putting a man on the moon, so you haven't really detracted from the argument.
- OvidNaso 13y ago
  >The ability to make a book in service of own's argument is evidence of a great deal many things: at the very least, dedication and conviction to one's argument. Or confidence in one's ability to fool the market.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
The space race was about international posturing and displays of technological capability as a deterrent to engaging in nuclear war. As a side effect we got positioning, communications and earth observing satellites, all the sciences have had massive benefits and the extra research into stuff like photovoltaics hasn't hurt either.
LiweiZ 13y ago
"Long scale planning certainly is a strength of a government, because in theory in means funding can be coerced from citizens and invested into projects that they wouldn't normally choose of their free will via the marketplace -- but they often simply don't invest in good long term projects." As we human beings live in a complex system such as country. The old fashioned "long term planning and executing accordingly" in the long run actually does way more harm. Misallocating resources, killing the possibilities each individual could bring to the system, killing the necessary environment for more diversified individuals to grow up from infants... If taking the similarity to animals' as a spectrum (no offense). A low level trait means things like food needs, shelter to live. A high level trait means the things people created such as art, tech... What I believe may be wrong, but I think as humans, the high level traits are the ultimate things we are looking for. Bringing in more possibilities and catalyze some of them might be a good way.