It's actually sad that the idea that the state should make targeted investments in its own success, sounds revolutionary. This is the whole basis for civilization. I can't build a highway, you can't build a highway, but collectively we can build a highway and both use it, and if we're both building the highway, then it needs to go where it does us the most good.
***** *"What the government does is take people's money and spend it on a highway regardless of whether they want it or not"* You realize without highways, no civilization. The same thing applies to almost everything else that the government spends money on. Hey, that Levoy Finicum found a good way to get out of paying taxes.
***** Is there any reason why a private corporation should instead of the government? And the same thing applies to almost everything else. You start with a preconception that public spending is bad, while reaping the benefits of investments that were made in society by prior generations.
***** Waiting for the "market" to create safety regulation soften leads to people dying, and, _again,_ a highway is needed to move goods and services. It's the spine of civilization. *"resources are finite,"* Throwing this out there as a general assertion is just false. Resources are _not_ infinnate, and this is just wrong. You'r argument for science research also applies to highways. The truth is that _some_ things are better left to private corporations, though often this needs to be regulated. Cars or computers would be a good example. No one want the government to build those, but something like highway build or energy production is better suited to being _public,_ owned and operated by everyone for the common good. With energy over the last 4 decades we've seen the public pick up the tab for Enron, for Exxon, for countless external costs. We would have been much better off with the public owning our energy production. The free market, in this instance, is an impediment to innovation and progress. There needs to be an _investment_ up front before we can transition away from _finite_ and harmful resources to renewable ones. Private industry has no incentive to transition because they never feel the sting of the stick and the carrot is and has been a generation out of reach.
***** Waiting for the market kills people all the time. Building codes are a great example of something the market doesn't regulate. If roads were free market, for profit, you would have roads going to the most traveled places and nowhere else, or you would only have _good_ roads going to these places and dirt tracks everywhere else. Some things, like roads need to be planned as a whole. Your point about the sun is nonsensical. It is, for all practical purposes, infinite, even if it isn't. It will not run out of energy in the span of human existence so it's a mute point. We've had "free market" forces acting against the switch to renewables for years. In 1980 the White House had solar panels on the roof. We've known that we needed desperately to switch away from coal and oil, but the _market_ has prevented it. It's just cheaper to use fossil fuels when you can pass the external costs on to future generations. Your economic ideas are utopian. The free market Libertarians share a this with the totalitarian communists. The basic idea is that if human being just quit acting like human beings, everything would work out. Nonsense. Some things need to be managed. Some things can be allowed to develop without direction. *"Specific environmental regulations end up choosing winners and losers"* There's nothing wrong with this. What you saying is that the National Football League chooses winners and losers by having _rules_ for football games. Societies need rules for the same reason. Managed competition, while not universally good, is often good, but it requires someone to direct the competition towards goals that are commonly good.
All this is well-known among technology historians. Read the book "Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?" by Vernon Ruttan or "State of Innovation" by Fred Block. Ruttan writes that "[d]ecision makers in the private sector rarely have access to the patient capital implied by a twenty year or even a ten year time horizon." Thus, the government is required.
False. Government can do it because he doesn't alter his own policies and taxes on himself along time. And what he does is inefficient comparing with free market, he doesn't compete and covers the deficit with taxpayers' money. State is continuously changing policies and regulations on the private business sector, making doing high intensity capital investments near impossible on some areas.
@@ColorMatching Replying to a comment from 5 years ago? I don't remember this video. In general, the state tends to inefficiently or accidentally contribute to progress. It's more common that someone else innovate and the government learn to copy it (badly) than that the government itself innovate. Even so, because the government has insanely more money than even the biggest businesses usually, it can end up contributing to various things (just usually not very well)
@@ColorMatching Obviously, the above reply is about how it generally works (especially in the US). But I skimmed the video, and it's definitely true that there are areas where it's really hard for businesses to fund progress. She's in fact being optimistic saying that moonshot projects have a 90% failure rate. That's the general failure rate for businesses. Doing something extremely ambitious, your chances are even worse. Or if you succeed in achieving your goal, it'll likely be after you spent an insane amount of money. Like the F-35 project... Cost around a trillion dollars... Obviously, if they had known that on the outside, they'd never have done it. Was it worth a trillion dollars in spend vs other places you could've spent that money? Almost definitely not! Even so, one of the reasons for China's success is that their government backs a more long term and research oriented mindset that is hard for US businesses to pull off usually... Because the banking system is different, and if you're doing promising stuff, you likely will get funding. So her core points are good ones overall.
When centralized planning, typically led by individuals with advanced degrees from prestigious institutions, relies on extensive statistics and a cadre of experts, the outcome often contrasts with market-driven approaches. Returning power to the market tends to result in higher rates of growth and a more rapid decline in poverty. The inherent nature of consequential knowledge, being diffused widely, benefits the masses who lack access to specialized expertise. This shift enables broader participation, fostering a dynamic environment where the cumulative knowledge of millions can drive progress and alleviate poverty at a swifter pace.
It seemed odd that the very appropriate DARPA was a major supporter of innovation and technology that raised quality of life, but awarded key technologies in Energy to holders of Patents, against the public Defence requirements.
Intriguing stuff, and gotta love the "gah commie!" comments (I've seen them elsewhere in relation to her, like an Amazon) she's only describing how things were...so if she's a commie guess the US was! Silly anyway, any true student of history should know even the glorious 19th century days small gov folk salivate over...the gov built our infrastructure. Or at least it basically prodded folks to do it. Built the infrastructure, kept the protectionist walls up so they didn't have to compete overseas, I believe Barry Ritholtz said it was an "incubator" it got the lab warm, planted the seeds, then the private sector did its thing with cut throat competition. So this is nothing new people! Anyway, I do disagree the state needs more return. Im ok with the state setting up the private sector, and letting them work with it and profit from it. I think it'd be more political feasible (dont want the state getting too red!) and honestly I DO fear too much state...I dont know if we want it profiting from its starting up as she says, we do want a strong private sector with a state helping...not the state growing larger, becoming corporatist and consuming everything.
Brian Lopez Most of applications we use today are military applications developed by the tax payers money. Internet, GPS, WiFi, touch technology. These are facts. These inventions were NOT created by private sector. Public are generally not aware of this fact.
yes, we should not think of "us and them", because the government IS (or should be) ALL of US! in democracy, we should choose the government, which is responsible to US. Therefore the government should be doing things and caring for "the commons" and all common services and projects that affect everyone, and are usually bigger than any single company
Apropos America, three little words, Military Industrial Complex. The whole process that is occurring here, people discussing a variety of subjects via a distributed network, would not have been possible without it. The process she describes is accurate although not necessarily that benign. Corporations are inherently antidemocratic and the reason the military system has been the major recipient of state investment and hence the engine of many of the most important technical innovations since the second world war is because,given it's nature, it is free from popular control. After all, if we recognize the reality of an investor state why would ordinary taxpayers not then be the logical recipients of such investment and also more involved in the process of deciding how this investment is directed ? Instead, the US state has a means of directing investment from the greater public to a small number of private hands, while effectively excluding popular control via unions and other such pesky institutions, by using the national security state as a means of limiting control of much of the economy to a small number of corporate managers, high level bureaucrats, and elite politicians. Here, she is merely reiterating a critique of State Capitalism that has existed among the more Libertarian section of the left for years, except here it comes with a more positive spin. So correct in analysis, a little too ra ra ra State Capitalism for my taste.
Adam Smith side note: the military industrial complex functioned much like a unionized work force. Not many realize how much wage stability was created by the huge bureaucratic and managerial structures the were in place during the cold war. so in stable job market terms, the MIC was nearly as important as the unionized work force in creating the middle class era in the 2nd half of the 20th century, especially in California. Mazzucato is correct in seeing the long term results from say the University of California's low cost education program for a science and tech workforce. This background of trained scientific minds was clearly a huge factor in creating the tech boom. And it was planned and implemented by the state of Calif from the era of Big Science just after WWII. This is undeniable. There is also a huge chunk of California Consciousness that is not getting discussed here: the wild thinkers, educated in math and science, but exposed to a very free and heterogeneous social scene in '70s that was spinning up the surf culture, music, radical theater, Esalen, yoga, the indie film explosion, avant garde art, etc. That stuff was also a by product of the education push and is much harder to get a metric on. That free thought, Whole Earth stuff seeded the early tech scene and is not easily replicable.
Bravo Mariana, we need more bold economists who are not puppets to the ruling class and wallstreet that serve only the top stock holders. The State has created all major inventions of past 120 yrs. even Edison had support from the State and he worked at inventing 24/7. Innovation is uncertain, collective and requires teamwork, shall look at your books... Thanks Robert Johnson for the interview from Doug Devine
funny how he starts the interview by saying she wrote a "small book" and she couldn't care less for his stupid commentary; then later on she mentions viagra as a drug that he'd be familiar with. good comeback
Are you sure you're not reading into something that's not there? Is the idea of a small book even insulting? It could infer brevity, which is often a virtue in writing. Especially well-rounded coverage of something complex mediated into laymen's reach, or even within scholarship.
@@pappapaps maybe its more of a cultural thing then. It felt like a comeback from a brazilian stand, and italians are like us in not being so formal. Brits are much more polite than both of us, maybe it wasnt his intention, but to me, her response sure felt as a comeback.
@@flaviomalta2021 Interesting. I am from a cold northern country so I have no knowledge of this, there might be something going on that I'm not equipped to capture.
Each govt must have a Basic Income (my version) for the unemployed, a bank to truly meet the neede of citizens, an affordable housing construction programme, secure narional insurance payments to the retired, free education and heaithcare, erc.
She talks about wanting a silicon valley... wanting a google, but doesn't look at how google formed. She then makes a logical leap that "targeted missions" funded by the state lay the ground work. IIRC, google innovated on web search technology. Where did the state lay the groundwork for this?
I think she's making a conjecture: public funding can fund high-risk businesses where the private sector will not. But she never asks or talks about why the private sector would not. Perhaps it's because the excess wealth is being sucked up by a large and wasteful state? But let's assume that even if the government had not sucked up this excess wealth, that they still would not have invested in these technologies. Where would the money have gone? We might not have had that technology that was apparently risky, we might have another equally important technology. We might have that specific technology, just later. She's making the mistake of looking at the seen and assuming there are no unseen consequences, no opportunity costs. This is a fundamental economic mistake.
Kevron Rees another mistake that she makes is ignoring the price mechanism which is not existent in a state bureaucratic environment. Government agencies have little incentives to pursue projects that have the highest marginal benefits. Her argument also makes the Chinese development banks as being spectacular investors when they have contributed to excess capacity in the solar industry leading to collapsing solar prices thereby bankrupting firms.
Kevron Rees Also, she wilfully ignores the realities that abound in the political sphere. Companies that can hire troves of lobbyists and PR specialists get a chance to take out of the governments pots. Hence, the most promising firms may not get badly needed funds. Good examples include Solyndra, Fisker Motors and even Tesla (which was eventually bailed out by venture capitalists.)
Akinyemi Ogunsanya She actually discusses Tesla and Solyndra in another video, as an example of the risks taken when gov supports these businesses, Solyndra of course failed. It could lead MORE credence to her theory that the gov should take more of the benefits from what they help start
You talk about the NIH investing in the 'higher risk' projects, but there is much evidence to show that they have in fact favoured lower risk ideas. As most of us would understand, when deciding how to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers money on either a well structured project with a higher probability of success or a far more abstract, adventurous idea with little chance of success, most of us would play the percentages. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has a different outtake, explicitly requiring proposals to have little in the way of a sensible structure to secure funding. HHMI has consequently been responsible for far more big breakthroughs and highly cited papers than the NIH, despite little or no disparity in the quality of researchers. If you want to read more on the relative conservatism of the NIH, look up the case of Mario Capecchi, who risked his career in pursuit of a project to change a tiny change to a mouse's DNA when the NIH attempted to persuade him otherwise, giving him funding purely on the basis of two other, more conservative proposals. The result? The Nobel prize for medicine in 2007 for Capecchi and the NIH admitting 'we're glad you didn't follow our advice'
Where would they get the cash for making all the hard science, and work needed in modern innovation, if not from the state? Take the drug companies... These are among the most innovative in the private sector, they come up with a lot of incredible medicins, drugs and so on, but they do so because they then can get a patent (a license to make your own money, basically). The State is in a position, where it can make a teknologi, and then release it to the market, and let the private companies find out how to use said technology (something the market is infinity better at doing, than the state).
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's actually sad that the idea that the state should make targeted investments in its own success, sounds revolutionary. This is the whole basis for civilization. I can't build a highway, you can't build a highway, but collectively we can build a highway and both use it, and if we're both building the highway, then it needs to go where it does us the most good.
***** Hmm, I wonder what you are concerned about them "forcing" you to do. Treat people fairly maybe? Not senselessly endanger others?
***** *"What the government does is take people's money and spend it on a highway regardless of whether they want it or not"*
You realize without highways, no civilization. The same thing applies to almost everything else that the government spends money on. Hey, that Levoy Finicum found a good way to get out of paying taxes.
***** Is there any reason why a private corporation should instead of the government?
And the same thing applies to almost everything else. You start with a preconception that public spending is bad, while reaping the benefits of investments that were made in society by prior generations.
***** Waiting for the "market" to create safety regulation soften leads to people dying, and, _again,_ a highway is needed to move goods and services. It's the spine of civilization.
*"resources are finite,"*
Throwing this out there as a general assertion is just false. Resources are _not_ infinnate, and this is just wrong.
You'r argument for science research also applies to highways. The truth is that _some_ things are better left to private corporations, though often this needs to be regulated. Cars or computers would be a good example. No one want the government to build those, but something like highway build or energy production is better suited to being _public,_ owned and operated by everyone for the common good. With energy over the last 4 decades we've seen the public pick up the tab for Enron, for Exxon, for countless external costs. We would have been much better off with the public owning our energy production. The free market, in this instance, is an impediment to innovation and progress. There needs to be an _investment_ up front before we can transition away from _finite_ and harmful resources to renewable ones. Private industry has no incentive to transition because they never feel the sting of the stick and the carrot is and has been a generation out of reach.
***** Waiting for the market kills people all the time. Building codes are a great example of something the market doesn't regulate.
If roads were free market, for profit, you would have roads going to the most traveled places and nowhere else, or you would only have _good_ roads going to these places and dirt tracks everywhere else. Some things, like roads need to be planned as a whole.
Your point about the sun is nonsensical. It is, for all practical purposes, infinite, even if it isn't. It will not run out of energy in the span of human existence so it's a mute point.
We've had "free market" forces acting against the switch to renewables for years. In 1980 the White House had solar panels on the roof. We've known that we needed desperately to switch away from coal and oil, but the _market_ has prevented it. It's just cheaper to use fossil fuels when you can pass the external costs on to future generations.
Your economic ideas are utopian. The free market Libertarians share a this with the totalitarian communists. The basic idea is that if human being just quit acting like human beings, everything would work out. Nonsense. Some things need to be managed. Some things can be allowed to develop without direction.
*"Specific environmental regulations end up choosing winners and losers"*
There's nothing wrong with this. What you saying is that the National Football League chooses winners and losers by having _rules_ for football games. Societies need rules for the same reason. Managed competition, while not universally good, is often good, but it requires someone to direct the competition towards goals that are commonly good.
All this is well-known among technology historians. Read the book "Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?" by Vernon Ruttan or "State of Innovation" by Fred Block. Ruttan writes that "[d]ecision makers in the private sector rarely have access to the patient capital implied by a twenty year or even a ten year time horizon." Thus, the government is required.
False. Government can do it because he doesn't alter his own policies and taxes on himself along time. And what he does is inefficient comparing with free market, he doesn't compete and covers the deficit with taxpayers' money. State is continuously changing policies and regulations on the private business sector, making doing high intensity capital investments near impossible on some areas.
@@dadaistaingegnierebut here you are assuming that the private sector is even willing to take the risk to make the investments
@@confusedarmchairphilosopher People always take the risk if see a grand prize for real.
@@dadaistaingegniere that is empirically false actually
@@confusedarmchairphilosopher You can hardly reasoning taking cherry-picking fallacies to support lies.
I may not agree with everything, but good stuff! She's thinking about it in a good way that deserves an honest listen.
What don't you agree with?
@@ColorMatching Replying to a comment from 5 years ago?
I don't remember this video. In general, the state tends to inefficiently or accidentally contribute to progress.
It's more common that someone else innovate and the government learn to copy it (badly) than that the government itself innovate.
Even so, because the government has insanely more money than even the biggest businesses usually, it can end up contributing to various things (just usually not very well)
@@Leto2ndAtreides you're incoherent
@@ColorMatching Obviously, the above reply is about how it generally works (especially in the US).
But I skimmed the video, and it's definitely true that there are areas where it's really hard for businesses to fund progress.
She's in fact being optimistic saying that moonshot projects have a 90% failure rate. That's the general failure rate for businesses.
Doing something extremely ambitious, your chances are even worse. Or if you succeed in achieving your goal, it'll likely be after you spent an insane amount of money.
Like the F-35 project... Cost around a trillion dollars... Obviously, if they had known that on the outside, they'd never have done it.
Was it worth a trillion dollars in spend vs other places you could've spent that money? Almost definitely not!
Even so, one of the reasons for China's success is that their government backs a more long term and research oriented mindset that is hard for US businesses to pull off usually... Because the banking system is different, and if you're doing promising stuff, you likely will get funding.
So her core points are good ones overall.
Where's this filmed?
Markets are intransitive. Only the state can be rational.
Thank you
Thanks for the video
When centralized planning, typically led by individuals with advanced degrees from prestigious institutions, relies on extensive statistics and a cadre of experts, the outcome often contrasts with market-driven approaches. Returning power to the market tends to result in higher rates of growth and a more rapid decline in poverty. The inherent nature of consequential knowledge, being diffused widely, benefits the masses who lack access to specialized expertise. This shift enables broader participation, fostering a dynamic environment where the cumulative knowledge of millions can drive progress and alleviate poverty at a swifter pace.
It seemed odd that the very appropriate DARPA was a major supporter of innovation and technology that raised quality of life, but awarded key technologies in Energy to holders of Patents, against the public Defence requirements.
Intriguing stuff, and gotta love the "gah commie!" comments (I've seen them elsewhere in relation to her, like an Amazon) she's only describing how things were...so if she's a commie guess the US was!
Silly anyway, any true student of history should know even the glorious 19th century days small gov folk salivate over...the gov built our infrastructure. Or at least it basically prodded folks to do it. Built the infrastructure, kept the protectionist walls up so they didn't have to compete overseas, I believe Barry Ritholtz said it was an "incubator" it got the lab warm, planted the seeds, then the private sector did its thing with cut throat competition. So this is nothing new people!
Anyway, I do disagree the state needs more return. Im ok with the state setting up the private sector, and letting them work with it and profit from it. I think it'd be more political feasible (dont want the state getting too red!) and honestly I DO fear too much state...I dont know if we want it profiting from its starting up as she says, we do want a strong private sector with a state helping...not the state growing larger, becoming corporatist and consuming everything.
+Brian Lopez Thankyou Brian
Brian Lopez Most of applications we use today are military applications developed by the tax payers money. Internet, GPS, WiFi, touch technology. These are facts. These inventions were NOT created by private sector. Public are generally not aware of this fact.
yes, we should not think of "us and them", because the government IS (or should be) ALL of US! in democracy, we should choose the government, which is responsible to US. Therefore the government should be doing things and caring for "the commons" and all common services and projects that affect everyone, and are usually bigger than any single company
pretty much
Apropos America, three little words, Military Industrial Complex. The whole process that is occurring here, people discussing a variety of subjects via a distributed network, would not have been possible without it.
The process she describes is accurate although not necessarily that benign. Corporations are inherently antidemocratic and the reason the military system has been the major recipient of state investment and hence the engine of many of the most important technical innovations since the second world war is because,given it's nature, it is free from popular control. After all, if we recognize the reality of an investor state why would ordinary taxpayers not then be the logical recipients of such investment and also more involved in the process of deciding how this investment is directed ? Instead, the US state has a means of directing investment from the greater public to a small number of private hands, while effectively excluding popular control via unions and other such pesky institutions, by using the national security state as a means of limiting control of much of the economy to a small number of corporate managers, high level bureaucrats, and elite politicians. Here, she is merely reiterating a critique of State Capitalism that has existed among the more Libertarian section of the left for years, except here it comes with a more positive spin. So correct in analysis, a little too ra ra ra State Capitalism for my taste.
Adam Smith side note: the military industrial complex functioned much like a unionized work force. Not many realize how much wage stability was created by the huge bureaucratic and managerial structures the were in place during the cold war. so in stable job market terms, the MIC was nearly as important as the unionized work force in creating the middle class era in the 2nd half of the 20th century, especially in California.
Mazzucato is correct in seeing the long term results from say the University of California's low cost education program for a science and tech workforce. This background of trained scientific minds was clearly a huge factor in creating the tech boom. And it was planned and implemented by the state of Calif from the era of Big Science just after WWII. This is undeniable.
There is also a huge chunk of California Consciousness that is not getting discussed here: the wild thinkers, educated in math and science, but exposed to a very free and heterogeneous social scene in '70s that was spinning up the surf culture, music, radical theater, Esalen, yoga, the indie film explosion, avant garde art, etc. That stuff was also a by product of the education push and is much harder to get a metric on. That free thought, Whole Earth stuff seeded the early tech scene and is not easily replicable.
Education the Persons Can Be Ground Floor Investigation. Not just Big Corporation. All kinds of Areas. Never Stops. Not playboy get world.
Bravo Mariana, we need more bold economists who are not puppets to the ruling class and wallstreet that serve only the top stock holders. The State has created all major inventions of past 120 yrs. even Edison had support from the State and he worked at inventing 24/7. Innovation is uncertain, collective and requires teamwork, shall look at your books... Thanks Robert Johnson for the interview from Doug Devine
funny how he starts the interview by saying she wrote a "small book" and she couldn't care less for his stupid commentary; then later on she mentions viagra as a drug that he'd be familiar with. good comeback
Are you sure you're not reading into something that's not there?
Is the idea of a small book even insulting?
It could infer brevity, which is often a virtue in writing. Especially well-rounded coverage of something complex mediated into laymen's reach, or even within scholarship.
@@pappapaps maybe its more of a cultural thing then. It felt like a comeback from a brazilian stand, and italians are like us in not being so formal. Brits are much more polite than both of us, maybe it wasnt his intention, but to me, her response sure felt as a comeback.
@@flaviomalta2021 Interesting. I am from a cold northern country so I have no knowledge of this, there might be something going on that I'm not equipped to capture.
Down with the practise of socialising cost to privatise the profit
Shes so smart, intelligent. And super hot. Plus what shes saying is right. And her economics cares for people. Good on her
Each govt must have a Basic Income (my version) for the unemployed, a bank to truly meet the neede of citizens, an affordable housing construction programme, secure narional insurance payments to the retired, free education and heaithcare, erc.
She talks about wanting a silicon valley... wanting a google, but doesn't look at how google formed. She then makes a logical leap that "targeted missions" funded by the state lay the ground work. IIRC, google innovated on web search technology. Where did the state lay the groundwork for this?
I think she's making a conjecture: public funding can fund high-risk businesses where the private sector will not. But she never asks or talks about why the private sector would not. Perhaps it's because the excess wealth is being sucked up by a large and wasteful state?
But let's assume that even if the government had not sucked up this excess wealth, that they still would not have invested in these technologies. Where would the money have gone? We might not have had that technology that was apparently risky, we might have another equally important technology. We might have that specific technology, just later.
She's making the mistake of looking at the seen and assuming there are no unseen consequences, no opportunity costs. This is a fundamental economic mistake.
Kevron Rees another mistake that she makes is ignoring the price mechanism which is not existent in a state bureaucratic environment. Government agencies have little incentives to pursue projects that have the highest marginal benefits. Her argument also makes the Chinese development banks as being spectacular investors when they have contributed to excess capacity in the solar industry leading to collapsing solar prices thereby bankrupting firms.
Kevron Rees Also, she wilfully ignores the realities that abound in the political sphere. Companies that can hire troves of lobbyists and PR specialists get a chance to take out of the governments pots. Hence, the most promising firms may not get badly needed funds. Good examples include Solyndra, Fisker Motors and even Tesla (which was eventually bailed out by venture capitalists.)
Akinyemi Ogunsanya She doesn't ignore any of these things and none of it is conjecture, its induction from economic history. Read her book, guys.
Akinyemi Ogunsanya She actually discusses Tesla and Solyndra in another video, as an example of the risks taken when gov supports these businesses, Solyndra of course failed. It could lead MORE credence to her theory that the gov should take more of the benefits from what they help start
You talk about the NIH investing in the 'higher risk' projects, but there is much evidence to show that they have in fact favoured lower risk ideas. As most of us would understand, when deciding how to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers money on either a well structured project with a higher probability of success or a far more abstract, adventurous idea with little chance of success, most of us would play the percentages. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has a different outtake, explicitly requiring proposals to have little in the way of a sensible structure to secure funding. HHMI has consequently been responsible for far more big breakthroughs and highly cited papers than the NIH, despite little or no disparity in the quality of researchers.
If you want to read more on the relative conservatism of the NIH, look up the case of Mario Capecchi, who risked his career in pursuit of a project to change a tiny change to a mouse's DNA when the NIH attempted to persuade him otherwise, giving him funding purely on the basis of two other, more conservative proposals. The result? The Nobel prize for medicine in 2007 for Capecchi and the NIH admitting 'we're glad you didn't follow our advice'
Busting the myths propagated by neoliberalism.
😂😂😂 Animal Spirit that you don’t want to rely on in the Wild…🌐
Oh so if the government hadn't come up with it, a private company or an individual wouldn't have?
No. And there's plenty of hard data to definitively prove that now, thanks to the work of Keen, Piketty, Shaikh et al.
Where would they get the cash for making all the hard science, and work needed in modern innovation, if not from the state?
Take the drug companies... These are among the most innovative in the private sector, they come up with a lot of incredible medicins, drugs and so on, but they do so because they then can get a patent (a license to make your own money, basically).
The State is in a position, where it can make a teknologi, and then release it to the market, and let the private companies find out how to use said technology (something the market is infinity better at doing, than the state).
Interesting
Seal
Sahrawi histoire 1976 Le Sahara occidental capital de le monde car le dernier gouvernement du mahdi lmontader c'est logique pour information
total socialist ideas, dont like.
Just another communist.
Transparent as crystal.