The Need For State-Based Innovation

The Need For State-Based Innovation

www.disinfo.com

Politicians and pundits constantly call for the government to step out of the way and let entrepreneurs and “job creators” build the industries of the future. New Left Project argues that this current conventional wisdom is all wrong, and more often than not, game-changing innovation is funded by the government, not the private sector:

(visit the link for the full news article)

This article offers a great overview of the issue, with a declared bias towards balance between the state and corporate sectors. He rightly points out that profit-seekers avoid risk, and that governments traditionally absorb the out front uncertainties - towards benefiting the public - especially in fields like medicine, aviation, computers, electricity, internet, nanotechnology that help create economy-wide growth.

It is assumed that the private sector is inherently more innovative, more able to think out of the `box’ and to lead a country towards long-run innovation-led growth. But many examples in the history of innovation, entrepreneurship and competition, in different sectors and across different countries, paint a very different picture – of a risk taking innovative state – especially in the most uncertain phases of technological development and/or in the most risky sectors – versus a more inert private sector, which only invests (in innovation, in new start- ups, in networks) once the state has absorbed most of the uncertainty.

Please, read the source article - and square off!



This thread is respectfully dedicated to Mirthful Me.

www.disinfo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

To play a bit of devils advocate I would point to Google's 'Solve For X' campaign, where they are collecting new ideas and technology to solve the big problems of our time.



Perhaps Google is not a state in the traditional nation sense, however it would be foolish to dismiss them as an organization without the drive to innovate, the money to fund that innovation and the people who will do so.

So, I do not disagree with your article, I just think that there is some competition arising to the challenge of the state being the only one with enough resources to explore innovation without requiring a profit margin established beforehand.

I did not come with only one link, I'd like to point out one example of State-Based innovation gone rotten. The MacAdam Shield Shovel was a piece of equipment handed to Canadian Infantry troops to be an advantage, not only because it seemed like a good idea, but because Sam Hughes (minister for the Department of Militia and Defence in 1913) had a secretary named Ena MacAdam who suggested it.

A secretary who suggested a piece of military equipment, developed by a Minister of Parliament. Cronyism, perhaps. But negligence as well.

Preliminary tests, however, revealed the unfortunate conclusion that the shovel’s blade was incapable of stopping the penetration of gunfire even from the smallest of enemy calibre arms. Its value as a digging tool was also questioned as soldiers commented against the shovel’s weight, its inability to be easily carried, and the fact that the blade was poor for shovelling loose soil as it contained a large sight-hole. With such a reputation, several high ranking Canadian and British military officials refused to press the instrument into service. With these developments, an executive order was eventually issued for the shovels to be reduced to scrap. A total sum of $1,400 was recovered in the salvage; a figure far less than the original contract price, which tagged each MacAdam shield-shovel at $1.35.

en.wikipedia.org...

State-Based innovation can be a double-edged sword, great in theory but no battle plan survives the enemy. Sam Hughes was also one of the champions of The Ross Rifle, which didn't work as well in the trenches as it was a marksmans rifle instead of a infantrymans rifle. "Made in Canada" was not a reason to use it, the British had a superior weapon already in place, the Lee-Eenfield.

reply to post by Sachyriel

Originally posted by Sachyriel
To play a bit of devils advocate I would point to Google's 'Solve For X' campaign, where they are collecting new ideas and technology to solve the big problems of our time.

...Perhaps Google is not a state in the traditional nation sense,

The rise of the corporate state is being ignored. To our great peril.

Also, in that particular case, the risk is absorbed by participants providing free labor, ideas and resources - not the 'Google State.'

I'd like to point out one example of State-Based innovation gone rotten.

I'm sure there are many examples of State-Based innovation gone rotten - 'tis the nature of risk. Like genius and invention - the "failures" are not defeats; they are proofs.

Nation states are motivated to innovate, willing to risk and historically, able to absorb losses - profit seeking Corporate States are NOT motivated to innovate, are UNwilling to risk and moreover, stockholders would jump ship if they were asked to absorb the necessary losses.

State based creativity and expansion is being impeded by the Federal goons. There are a few things that are currently illegal that really don't need to be illegal; costly expenses and manpower to enforce the laws will show. How do we expect minds to contribute to much when they don't have access to some of the most valuable commodities; they are then limited.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

...How do we expect minds to contribute to much when they don't have access to some of the most valuable commodities?

EXCELLENT question.

Given that knowledge arguably is the most valuable commodity on this planet, may I assume you support Open Access to scientific information?

IMHO... based on my 64 years to date of education, of employment interaction at the private and both state and federal levels, of my employment required and personal research and study of future needs and my observation of historical fact, I would say the Military complex forges ahead as the US 'forced' most non-military R & D and growth industry outside of the US by outsourcing in their race to a world economy.

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

...the Military complex forges ahead as the US 'forced' most non-military R & D and growth industry outside of the US by outsourcing in their race to a world economy.

Ahhh. The vaunted public-private partnership approach. Let the taxpayers foot the bill on the risks; let industry pull all the profits. The system is proven to work.

reply to post by soficrow


Yes I do.

I was just thinking about the future of science yesterday and this thread brought it back up. I think what the scientific and technological fields needs is a fresh wave of open-minded, resourceful, intelligent people. It is a neccesity for it's survival and our growth. It's difficult to explain the current situation right now we're in a like 'stasis'. There are promising new theories and breathroughs, but to me they're in our realm. I'd compare to small solar bodies : Our Earth's gravity pulls on asteroids and comets all the time but every once in a while theres that massive civilization killer . In that case we don't want the big one, but in this instance we do.! I think it's probable that it will happen soon but it's being hindered government interference, null economic growth and lack of incentive.

Conflict drives innovation.
Thats conflict in a broad sense not warfare per say.
You are reducing somethig complex down to a very limited scope of public vs private. I dont think its that easy to see and measure. You need to account for the size of businesses and governments. While it is possible for small governments to use public funds for innovation as they expand governments become self feeding loops and mired in waste and conflicting regulations. As businesses expand they become less innovative and less likely to risk for the same reasons. Large businesses just like large governments like predicability. They want to plan the future and control. Keep in mind a business cant grow to such sizes without help. They have to utilize government to provide the force they need to reach that size. If they cannot craft legislation and regulations they will be taken down by smaller more innovative and nimble businesses. Large businesses use the government to control their competition and their customers. Large governments use force to do the same thing.

Its all bad and should go the way of the dinosaurs. Governments must remain small and limited by legal restraints. Businesses will remain small and innovative by market restraint.

reply to post by Dragoon01

...Large businesses just like large governments like predicability. They want to plan the future and control.

Like gigantism in biology:

gigantism:

excessive vegetative growth often accompanied by the inhibiting of reproduction

PS. Captain Nemo - glad to hear it.

reply to post by Dragoon01


Really interesting, I never thought of it that way. What would we do with the existing massive companies and consortiums?

We dont DO anything with them. If you remove the protectionism of governments they will rise or fall on merit. They will innovate or collapse on their own.
Big companies give massive donations to politicians because they can use those politicians to craft protectionist legislation. They use that political power to keep their competition out of business. If you remove the ability for government to pass those types of business regulations then you will hav eno large political donations. Everyone thinks the way to stop this is to limit donations but that infringes on the ability of everyone to support a candidate. The real way to stop it is give the candidates very little power once they are in office. As long as they cant pass the laws that support large businesses then those companies are left to their own devices.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

reply to post by Dragoon01

Big companies give massive donations to politicians because they can use those politicians to craft protectionist legislation. ....As long as they cant pass the laws that support large businesses then those companies are left to their own devices.

"Their own devices" already override national laws, never mind state laws. I guess you missed the part about how corporate "protections" already exist under international law - and international law supercedes, overrides and neutralizes national law.

...Any foreign or international corporation that trades with a nation under a "Free Trade" agreement is defined as an "Investor State." Check out the info on "Investor-States" rights, protected by "Free Trade" agreements under international law.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but Investor States have way more pull and drag than any country. More money and political power too.