IEC09 : Innovation and Economic Growth

A Conversation with Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Moderator: Judy Woodruff, Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• iec09

[FreiheitKampfer]

@BrooklynNYC777

I watched it, and I really liked it, but I don't know what point you were making with it. His perspective doesn't conflict with mine at all.

[BrooklynNYC777]

@FreiheitKampfer i understand what your saying and i disagree with most of it. peer review is a legitimized form of intellectual syndicates keeping the radicals out. please watch this on youtube James Burke : Connections, Episode 10, "Yesterday, Tomorrow and You", 2 of 5 (CC) i would like to know your thoughts after you watch all 5 parts

[FreiheitKampfer]

@BrooklynNYC777

It is pure speculation to claim that the resources, time and skill which market-incentives inspire to be allocated in areas which people value most will be better used when given to the discretion of a tech czar, rather than through a peer-review, diverse selection network, developing the underlying tech used in the given research, developing, infrastructure and medicine, increase the survival-rate from extreme poverty & disease, resulting in more researchers, more producers,etc

[FreiheitKampfer]

@BrooklynNYC777

Suppose for example that there is some theoretical cosmological approach that receives a lot of govt tax-money, which has no indirect or direct productive value (as predicted today)..

Suppose research takes a billion dollars spanning 20 years and employing a thousand of the best inspired scientists, and at the end of that time, there is some measurable amount of benefit from understanding the universe, which will be valuable to future generations by x amount.

(continued..)

[BrooklynNYC777]

@FreiheitKampfer i respect your insight a great deal but i think there is a slight flaw in your logic based on not having empirical precedential data. I think your premise is based on your view of our current government which does not prove that my analysis of your flawed statements are false. both government and corporations have a role in innovation research.

When you commodify science in the manner that your doing i think you miss out on a great deal.

[FreiheitKampfer]

@BrooklynNYC777

Govt might consume vast amount of wealth, time and expertise claiming to be aiming at developing some single thing at some future time 'for longterm benefit'.

If there is no profit motive for doing that, then that literally means that the value-created is less-than value-lost (+ interest), which also means that the project is wasteful.

Even if the govt does something huge (unlikely), you have to consider if those resources&people were committed to civil r&d. People innovate.

[BrooklynNYC777]

@FreiheitKampfer very interesting you say this..........but you can also say the same thing when it comes to doing r and d for mear profit. Example it might take 5-10 years for some research to bear fruit, some companies might not do this due to not being able to profitize such research, but a government org could fund such research for longterm benefit.

[FreiheitKampfer]

'..no one doubts that [scientific funding] is a responsibility of government.'

Completely false. Do a single google search, and you'll see studies on how government funding hurt scientific professionalism, creates incentives that pervert science in favor of political programs. Promotes unproductive research and transfers capital from other more socially beneficial private functions.