"BARACK OBAMA may have to surrender his BlackBerry when he moves into the White House, in the interests of presidential security and confidentiality. But there is every sign that his administration will pursue a pro-technology agenda.
In speeches and policy statements, Mr. Obama has repeatedly emphasized a need to maintain America’s technology leadership in the world and to invest government funds to do so. His campaign platform declared that government policy must “foster home-grown innovation” and “help ensure the competitiveness of United States technology-based businesses.” Two of his favorite proposals — roundly endorsed by technology industry leaders and university scientists — are to double federal funding for basic research over the next several years and to train many thousands more scientists and engineers."
Yes. Call me skeptical. I'm not in favor of a Technology Czar either, if for no other reason than it helps proliferate the appellation "Czar". For one thing, it should be "Tsar".
"But such steps would likely amount to well-intentioned but misguided policies that risk doing more harm than good, according to Amar Bhidé, a professor at the Columbia Business School. In a new book, “The Venturesome Economy” (Princeton University Press), Mr. Bhidé makes a detailed argument that contradicts the prevailing view of expert panels and authors who contend that the nation’s prosperity is threatened by the technological rise of China and India, and that America’s capacity for innovation is eroding. To arrest the decline, they insist that more scientists and engineers, and more government spending on research, are sorely needed."That pretty much describes all government policies. It would be hard to throw the idea out based on that reasoning. I'd read the book, except it will simply confirm what I already believe. It's like Taleb' s books. I can't really judge their import and accuracy, since I'm hardwired into a similar world view.
"Mr. Bhidé derides the conventional view in science and technology circles as “techno-nationalism,” needlessly alarmist and based on a widely held misunderstanding of how technological innovation yields economic growth. In his view, many analysts put too much emphasis on the production of new technological ideas. Instead, he observes, the real economic payoff lies in innovations in how technologies are used."
Okay. This is not a new thesis. I'll tell where I first had it hardwired into me. It is a masterpiece entitled "Mechanization Takes Command", by S. Giedion:
"The brilliant Minoan age, the last matriarchy, possessed not only bathtubs, but sewer systems and water closets. Sir Arthur Evans' tireless excavating has given us better insight into this early period than we have, for instance, into the Greek gymnasium. The painted terra-cotta tub that Evans pieced together from the queen's apartment in the Palace of Knossos in Crete informs us that this type of bath, like many other Minoan habits, was taken over by the Greeks of the Mycenean period, around 1250 B.C. The Cretan tub, modest in dimensions, fits the description of the Mycenean bath in which the Homeric heroes bathed. When Homer, looking back from around 800 B.C., tells of the bath ceremony, he refers to it as the restorative following 'soul exhausting toil.' The stress here falls not upon cleanliness but upon relaxation.
The present-day type of bath, the tub, is actually a mechanization of the most primitive type. It belongs in the category of external ablution. The tub is understood as an enlarged washbowl. No period before ours has so unquestioningly accepted the bath as an adjunct to the bedroom. Each of its components was the outcome of a slow, tedious mechanization; hence the bathroom with running water emerged only toward the end of the last century, while not until the time of full mechanization between the two World Wars was it taken for granted. "
In other words, the technology, which is often already available, needs to await its use and economy.
"America’s competitive advantage, Mr. Bhidé explains, resides mainly in its creative use of information technology, especially in the large and growing services sector, led by companies like Wal-Mart.
“Wal-Mart and its followers are as much a part of the technological success of America as Silicon Valley,” he said."
So said Giedion.
“I’m not arguing for reductions in research spending in the United States,” he said. “But in a world where investment in high-level science and technology is increasing, there is no compelling reason to invest a lot more.”
I've no idea. I'd probably spend a hell of a lot more on it, but that's just my personal preference. Where the money would come from I haven't a clue. Maybe TARP.
"The flaw in Mr. Bhidé’s thesis is that it amounts to a “false choice,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. Most of the economic gains from technology, Mr. Atkinson agrees, do come from its innovative use. “But that doesn’t mean that the basic research is not critical,” he said.
In fast-moving fields, Mr. Atkinson said, there are immense benefits from the knowledge produced in research projects quickly spilling over into ventures that become powerhouses in new industries. Google, which grew out of a digital library project funded by the National Science Foundation, is among a host of such examples. Where the invention is done, Mr. Atkinson notes, is often vital."
A "false choice". What's the false choice here, if you don't mind spelling it out? Is it:
Economic gains from technology come from:
1) Innovation
2) Basic Research
I left out "most", because that's a fudge word, meaning "I've no research backing up my claim, but I feel pretty good about it nonetheless. So don't push me on it".
First of all, the use of "most" took it out of the realm of false choice, since it then became a question of emphasis, not a clear demarcation needed for a false choice.
Second, I don't think that Bhide claimed anything like 1, since he said that he didn't think that research funding should be cut. I'm sure it's fine to disagree with him, but it hardly constitutes a flaw in his thesis, where "flaw" means something like this:
"a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.""Yet, Mr. Bhidé argues, policy choices and tradeoffs have to be made, and they should be guided by a deeper understanding of how innovation, in all its forms, contributes to economic growth. That analysis, conducted over the last six years, is the basis of his 508-page book, which adds to the emerging field of “innovation economics.”
I'm sure that we're all waiting anxiously for the models used in "innovation economics" to be constructed. We can't wait to begin misusing them for our own purposes.
"His research builds on, but is also critical of, the doctrine of “new growth theory,” developed in the 1980s and ’90s. That theory holds that new ideas are the key engine of growth and presents mathematical models, created by economists like Paul M. Romer of Stanford, to simulate the process. The models have been used to justify increasing government subsidies for research.
But what the math models do not — and cannot — capture, Mr. Bhidé writes, is “all the various forms of knowledge generated by the massively multiplayer innovations game that sustains economic growth.”
Tell that to the Quants."What gets short shrift, Mr. Bhidé said, is “midlevel innovation.” The category, by his definition, is a broad one, ranging from a venture capitalist tweaking a business model to trim costs by a few percent to a technician fine-tuning his company’s business software to save a couple of data-entry steps in the accounting department.
These midlevel innovations, Mr. Bhidé said, do not show up in patent counts, and individually they are small steps indeed. But they add up, especially because there is so much of that kind of unsung innovation across the American economy."
Let's make a CDO out of this. We'll call the midlevel innovations the Mezzanine Tranche. I'll bet they work, you bet they default.
Did everybody on the planet go to Harvard but me?
"Every day, for example, millions of workers are using spreadsheets to do simple what-if calculations to improve some process or operation in their businesses, he said. “In the end, it comes down to individuals, and you don’t need to be a trained scientist or engineer for this broad swath of creatively productive work,” he observed. “You need a somewhat more open mind, a willingness to experiment and to innovate in the use of technology, not create it.”
The individuals bit is my Human Agency explanation used in this particular case.
"So instead of tilting policy toward the apex of the education system, Mr. Bhidé suggests, it may make more sense to invest scarce government resources further down — say, in upgrading community college programs. “The modern information technology economy is going to need a lot of foot soldiers,” he said.
“And our supply of high-level science and ideas in most fields far exceeds our capacity to use it.”
It's like our brains. Well, at least mine. No need to include you, intrepid reader, in this.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment