Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (142207)	8/8/2010 7:28:07 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542043

>>Sustained business investment, in turn, rests on innovation. Business cannot wait for discoveries in science or the rare successes in state-run labs. Without cutting-edge products and business methods, rates of return on a great many investments will sag. Furthermore, innovation creates jobs across the economy, for entrepreneurs, marketers and buyers. State-led technology projects do not.<< No, of course State-led projects don't lead to job creation across the economy. That Internet thing was a complete dud, as one example.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (142207)	8/8/2010 8:09:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542043

The Economy Needs a Bit of Ingenuity By EDMUND S. PHELPS Nice piece. Very interesting argument. I've seen it in other places so it's not new. At least not to me. My overall take is that the first part makes the most sense to me. Down to the part at which he offers his program. And much of that is sensible. I have two quarrels with the argument, however. One that I see Allen has already noted. 1. Phelps asserts that: Furthermore, innovation creates jobs across the economy, for entrepreneurs, marketers and buyers. State-led technology projects do not. And the largest counter case that leaps to mind is the internet. Massive is hardly the right word for the employment changes that resulted from the innovation it was and the myriad of innovations it fostered. And which we are still experiencing. 2. He argues that demand is not the problem but fixing the structural features he enumerates is. I fail to see the either/or character of the argument. His list of structural issues is reasonably good. But so long as there is a serious lag in demand for goods, we aren't going anywhere. And that demand grows from employment, whether public or private in its source. Well, having typed two problems with his argument, I've thought of a third. His proposal for a First National Bank of Innovation is one of the screwiest things I've heard in a very long time. A "state sponsored network of merchant banks that invest in and lend to innovative projects." Much, much ambiguity there. How does it get funded? What role does the government pay in oversight, regulation? What of the profits from the innovations? Etc. Definitely not very clear thinking there.