No. I am not denying (or if we can cool back down to a friendlier tone^, disputing) the effect of policies on outcomes. But, they are one factor which can be su

No. I am not denying (or if we can cool back down to a friendlier tone^, disputing) the effect of policies on outcomes. But, they are one factor which can be substantial or not. I am disputing that (apart from some relatively uncommon cases) they are predictive or determining, especially if the thing we are trying to determine is what kind of effects on employment future innovations will have. The implication that one could take the best of an economy and expecting that this is achievable elsewhere by copying policies or a policy approach is nonsensical. Germany's industrial engineering is superb (as is California's software) and that is the result of a lot of history and organic development. Policy played a role, but probably a small one. Even if the role is bigger than I think, it is still a complicated role that was played by interacting with time and place sensitive uncopiable factors. California's software is part of an ecology (Universities, VCs, Angels) and it is part of a culture. You can't copy RMS & a history of hippies in Berkley. The extent to which 'innovation' they can be encouraged at all and how is fairly disputed. It's certainly harder than encouraging (for example) investment. Innovation is inherently unpredictable. Trying to direct the eventual impact of innovation "innovates in order to empower workers" is snake oil. And, I don't think it's even true that Germany's innovation has these characteristics. The whole article is layered nonsense from a Professor. grrrr ^My apologies. Reading back, I don't like the tone I wrote in.