Thanks for that post i enjoyed it. This is a fitting place for such discussions, considering the revolutionary character of Quantum computing.
by way of illustration, the characterizations of the variables associated with Shumpeters economics of creative destruction, are subordinate to the eventual programming associated within the development of quantum computers.
These are multi state logic issues and cant be truly applied without the aid of quantum computers programmed with fuzzy logics.
You've done a good job by demonstrating hierarchal symmetry of shumpeter by illustrating;
According to Schumpeter, innovation tends to come from companies and individuals that provide any of the following:
--New markets or products
--New equipment
--New sources of labor and raw materials
--New methods of organization or management
--New methods of inventory management
--New methods of transportation
--New methods of communication
--New methods of advertising and marketing
--New financial instruments
In my view, Shumpeters work is suborned to the variables of
F A Hayeks Times Shapes of Capital. Shumpeter presents a discreet series of conditions which are derivable under conditions subject adjudication within Hayek's work.
Still, it all says a lot about Stan and Iris, i am growing more confident everyday that these two managed thier career paths using multi phased logics, that are just not evident anywhere else.
It may or may not be a good idea for ENER to spin off the revolutions inherent in the companies Quantum computing IP.
If current management is incapable of thinking in Qbit ways, so as to derive benefits for shareholders relating to QC, than these ancillary research areas become superfluous and should be spun off.
Problem is, those who might bid, will more likely than not, be bidding in a vacuum, ensuring the returns to shareholders will be low compared to these inventions extrapolated potentials.
All part of the systemics of linear pegs applied to quantum fabrics.
. |
