3 ms·
Interesting, but not entirely new. One thing, I've heard before that removing profits does not stifle innovation, but the economics/game theoretic argument (es
by roundsquare 17y ago
Interesting, but not entirely new.
One thing, I've heard before that removing profits does not stifle innovation, but the economics/game theoretic argument (essentially lack of motivation) seems convincing. I'd be interested to see if anyone has an explanation for the continuing innovation.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoI'd guess that since quite a bit of research is funded through universities by government grant that you'll still see a trickle of new tech. of course you can never know whether you would have had more innovation given competition.
- troels 17y agoUniversity researchers are quite competitive. Whether the price is money or professional fame shouldn't make much of a difference in that sense. It might change the types of people that choose to play the game though.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoright but the ultimate reward isn't geared towards results, but rather towards pleasing the grant approval process. see the other big discussion thread about open sourcing research results.
- m_eiman 17y agoIf everyone has to use the cheapest tech, that basically means they're forced to be your customers if you invent a cheaper and/or more efficient way of performing something. That'd be a pretty good incentive for innovation - a free customer base and a monopoly in return for a good innovation (until someone else thinks of an even better way).
- Ras_ 17y agoScarcity creates innovation.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoYou can invent something in the UK and run a bunch of trials there, then make your profits by selling it in the US market.