3 ms·

The vast majority of innovation comes from the private sector, but those innovations usually go unnoticed because they aren't ground-breaking or flashy, but are

The vast majority of innovation comes from the private sector, but those innovations usually go unnoticed because they aren't ground-breaking or flashy, but are, instead, incremental. The 'dipshit innovations' you're referring to are all related to consumer products, but incremental innovations in private industry are what has driven the massive global increase in economic efficiency over the last half-century, which in turn is what has allowed us the standard of living that we enjoy today. Of course government innovations played a role in this process, but if necessity is the mother of all invention, then it seems obvious that had government not funded the creation of technology A, B, or C, and if there was truly a need for it, then they would have been invented anyways. Furthermore, had the dollars that have been spent on government innovations been instead allowed to remain in circulation in the economy, how many more innovations would private industry had come up with? Put more succinctly, what is the opportunity cost of government innovation?

confluence 13y ago
> incremental innovations in private industry are what has driven the massive global increase in economic efficiency over the last half-century, which in turn is what has allowed us the standard of living that we enjoy today I agree. But this would not be possible without government investment at a loss to develop the very things the private sector incrementally innovates upon. > Of course government innovations played a role in this process, but if necessity is the mother of all invention, then it seems obvious that had government not funded the creation of technology A, B, or C, and if there was truly a need for it Now here is where we diverge. Companies will not seek these type of innovations because those that do die before they can reap any profit. > Furthermore, had the dollars that have been spent on government innovations been instead allowed to remain in circulation in the economy, how many more innovations would private industry had come up with? Put more succinctly, what is the opportunity cost of government innovation? Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is clear: lack of break through innovation. Hence why I advocate a split (40 long term government - 60 short term free market) in my above hypothesis. It's the best of both worlds; you don't short sell the future, whilst neither ignoring the present.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is clear: lack of break through innovation. How did you arrive to that conclusion? That's not clear to me at all. In fact, it's not clear to me that break through innovation would even be possible without incremental innovation, and vice-versa.
  - confluence 13y ago
    Hence why I advocate for a reasonable resource split where both are part of a virtuous positive feedback cycle. You can't have one without the other.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      But then how can you claim that one has the other as an opportunity cost? And besides, that you need the two types of innovations doesn't mean you need the state to produce one of them. I mean, maybe we do, but it's an orthogonal issue.
      - confluence 13y ago
        Think of the state like a massive conglomerate corporation with huge pockets, many sub-divisions, and long investment timelines and you'll understand my point of view. My distinction between government and non-government is basically pocket book size and investment timeline.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  >Companies will not seek these type of innovations because those that do die before they can reap any profit. Complete and utter politicized bullshit. Both IBM and Xerox had developed their own internal protocols for network communications; they adopted TCP/IP because the government was already using it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architectur... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Network_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Network_Systems History is replete with examples of non-governmental entities making ground-breaking advancements in technology. The most obvious ones off the top of my head are the automobile/assembly line, the television (both black and white and color), the integrated circuit, radio, the list goes on and on.
RougeFemme 13y ago
I agree completely re: "the opportunity cost of government innovation?" and partially re: "if there is truly a need for it have been invented anyways". But (and yes, I'm cherry-picking just a bit here). . .was there a "need" for the internet and GPS? Had anyone in the private sector identified those needs AND found deep-pocketed investors willing to wait patiently for their return on investment? Maybe not. If that had been the case, surely they would beat the government to the punch, since the government has notoriously long product lifecycles.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  For the internet? Certainly. Linking electronic computers together via some sort of standardized network protocol is the obvious and natural next step for any physically decentralized entity with many such machines. And as we all know, once you have the standardized network protocol, the network grows and spreads organically. The idea of connecting computers so that they can communicate with each other is not a particularly novel one, and to make the logical leap from the fact that DARPA was the first one to do so to the belief that no one else would have had DARPA not done so takes a rather large set of blinders and a staunch willingness to wear them at all costs. As for GPS, why not? As electronics shrank and the cost to send satellites plummeted, surely someone would have come up with the idea to combine radio and triangulation to determine position. Though the concept is more novel than linking computers together, it isn't so complex or costly that a reasonable person can say with any degree of certainty that it would never have been done. But my point isn't that the government should invent nothing, it is that the government, despite all of its spending, actually invents very little relative to the private sector.

confluence 13y ago

> incremental innovations in private industry are what has driven the massive global increase in economic efficiency over the last half-century, which in turn is what has allowed us the standard of living that we enjoy today I agree. But this would not be possible without government investment at a loss to develop the very things the private sector incrementally innovates upon. > Of course government innovations played a role in this process, but if necessity is the mother of all invention, then it seems obvious that had government not funded the creation of technology A, B, or C, and if there was truly a need for it Now here is where we diverge. Companies will not seek these type of innovations because those that do die before they can reap any profit. > Furthermore, had the dollars that have been spent on government innovations been instead allowed to remain in circulation in the economy, how many more innovations would private industry had come up with? Put more succinctly, what is the opportunity cost of government innovation? Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is clear: lack of break through innovation. Hence why I advocate a split (40 long term government - 60 short term free market) in my above hypothesis. It's the best of both worlds; you don't short sell the future, whilst neither ignoring the present.

icebraining 13y ago
Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is clear: lack of break through innovation. How did you arrive to that conclusion? That's not clear to me at all. In fact, it's not clear to me that break through innovation would even be possible without incremental innovation, and vice-versa.
- confluence 13y ago
  Hence why I advocate for a reasonable resource split where both are part of a virtuous positive feedback cycle. You can't have one without the other.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    But then how can you claim that one has the other as an opportunity cost? And besides, that you need the two types of innovations doesn't mean you need the state to produce one of them. I mean, maybe we do, but it's an orthogonal issue.
    - confluence 13y ago
      Think of the state like a massive conglomerate corporation with huge pockets, many sub-divisions, and long investment timelines and you'll understand my point of view. My distinction between government and non-government is basically pocket book size and investment timeline.
notdrunkatall 13y ago
>Companies will not seek these type of innovations because those that do die before they can reap any profit. Complete and utter politicized bullshit. Both IBM and Xerox had developed their own internal protocols for network communications; they adopted TCP/IP because the government was already using it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architectur... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Network_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Network_Systems History is replete with examples of non-governmental entities making ground-breaking advancements in technology. The most obvious ones off the top of my head are the automobile/assembly line, the television (both black and white and color), the integrated circuit, radio, the list goes on and on.

RougeFemme 13y ago

I agree completely re: "the opportunity cost of government innovation?" and partially re: "if there is truly a need for it have been invented anyways". But (and yes, I'm cherry-picking just a bit here). . .was there a "need" for the internet and GPS? Had anyone in the private sector identified those needs AND found deep-pocketed investors willing to wait patiently for their return on investment? Maybe not. If that had been the case, surely they would beat the government to the punch, since the government has notoriously long product lifecycles.

notdrunkatall 13y ago
For the internet? Certainly. Linking electronic computers together via some sort of standardized network protocol is the obvious and natural next step for any physically decentralized entity with many such machines. And as we all know, once you have the standardized network protocol, the network grows and spreads organically. The idea of connecting computers so that they can communicate with each other is not a particularly novel one, and to make the logical leap from the fact that DARPA was the first one to do so to the belief that no one else would have had DARPA not done so takes a rather large set of blinders and a staunch willingness to wear them at all costs. As for GPS, why not? As electronics shrank and the cost to send satellites plummeted, surely someone would have come up with the idea to combine radio and triangulation to determine position. Though the concept is more novel than linking computers together, it isn't so complex or costly that a reasonable person can say with any degree of certainty that it would never have been done. But my point isn't that the government should invent nothing, it is that the government, despite all of its spending, actually invents very little relative to the private sector.