I’m glad to hear your views, Glen. I do believe that the private sector has a deeply important—vital—role to play in the development and dispersion of innovation, but in the case I meant, the Internet, the real innovation came from people with an astounding vision who were able to spend from the deep pockets of government until the proof of concept was far enough along that the private sector could see the opportunities. If the vision of a small group that must nevertheless persuade government that this is a good way to spend public money is “private,” then I guess so. It is true that the medium for all this were computers that were (mostly) manufactured by private firms (though these too had their genesis in government models), plus telephone lines that had been installed by a private, regulated monopoly. Perhaps this is what you mean by the complex interplay between public and private.
We were a far richer country then, and believed our scientific and technological leadership was central to a free world. This may have been myth. In any case, we still seem to give lip service to that idea, but our money is no longer where our mouth is. In 2001, I stood by a huge architectural model at China’s MIT, and asked if it were the model for a new campus. No, my host assured me, these were just the new buildings for software research. I was stunned. Perhaps the vision I hope for exists in the U.S. private sector. I’ll be in Silicon Valley next month to inquire. I deeply hope it does. As for healthcare.gov, I do believe that’s a red herring in this argument. The Germans began socializing medicine under Bismarck in the 1880s. THAT was innovation. Obamacare is an overdue, unwieldy compromise among the private insurers, the medical community, and the Congress. Yes, I find it shocking and immoral that insurance companies until Obamacare were allowed to deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, and throw a pesky customer off their roles if that customer got too sick. If that makes me a socialist, so be it. Almost as bad, I know very well that I’ve been subsidizing the poor with my opaque hospital bills, but I have no idea to what extent and how. I’d really like to know that. But I do agree with you that if people are sick and dying, then our economy is sick and dying. Pamela On Mar 3, 2014, at 3:25 PM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > > FWIW, I remember the question well. I was too busy to respond in the way I > wanted to. My lack of response wasn't because it was an uninteresting > question. I didn't respond because the reasoning seemed fallacious. I still > can't respond the way I'd like to, with a full explanation of what's wrong > with the implication. But, since you inferred an identity between lack of > comment and lack of interest, I'll throw a few inadequate words at the > subject. > > The most irritating part lies in the rampant equivocation around > "innovation". Qualifiers like "genuine" and "copycat" set off alarm bells in > my head. But the problems they cause pale in comparison to the confirmation > bias embedded in the term "innovation". > > It also relates deeply to the recent thread about "surviving" across > infrastructure changes and the desire for zero-intelligence-tools ... this > concept that you should not need to understand how a tool works in order to > use the tool. > > To me, all innovation is privately funded. It's the bringing-to-market that > is "funded" in the sense I think you mean. Every innovator I've ever met > devotes their _self_ to their inventions. They take un-quantifiable risk and > commit unquantifiable resources to the development of that thing/process. Am > I equivocating on "private"? Perhaps. Maybe "personal" is a better word. > But my point survives my fallacy. > > The people who devote their _selves_ to the construction of innovative > tools/methods, are the funders of the innovations. The bags of money we > usually refer to as "funders" follow quite closely with demand. And in a > world of zero-intelligence-tool-users, are we really surprised there's little > intelligence embedded in the tools brought to market by the money bags? > > We can consider http://healthcare.gov a fine example. Is it innovative to > socialize the risk pool in a way that "enlightened" capitalists can tolerate > (if not profit from)? I'd say, yes, absolutely. Socialized risk is not > novel. Websites aren't novel. "Esurance" isn't novel. Etc. The money bags > (governments and NGOs) brought healthcare.gov to "market". But are we really > going to say that they're the innovators? No, I'd rather blame/credit the > small cadre of socialized medicine advocates peppered through our public > citizenry (as well as many outside the country). I also consider > blaming/crediting the "capitalists" who recognize our economy for the > ecological complex system it is, yet understand that _people_ are the > innovators (as well as everything else). And if the people are sick and > dying, then our economy is sick and dying. > > But more specifically re: what I think you want to talk about -- In my > arguments with liberals, they often assert that there is no such thing as a > "free market". I agree. But there's a flipside to their argument. It means > there is no sharp distinction between public and private money bags. E.g. > Yes, Bill Gates has near autocratic control over how his fortune is spent. > But our governments were absolutely critical to his fortune. Without our > government, his fortune would not exist (as it now exists, at least, perhaps > not at all). Similarly, without the NGOs that help build things like > airplanes or semiconductors, our government would not exist (as it exists, at > least, perhaps not at all). > > Every innovation is brought about from a complex interplay between the > private and public sectors. To even make the distinction is enough to mark > one as a "libertarian". > > > > On 03/03/2014 09:42 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: >> This was my original message on February 22. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *Pamela McCorduck <pam...@well.com <mailto:pam...@well.com>> >>> *Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] WhatsApp ... Death of SMS?* >>> *Date: *February 22, 2014 at 5:14:43 PM EST >>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> >>> >>> The Internet was conceived and first implemented by a small group of >>> government and university researchers: J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Kahn, >>> Vint Cert, and several other pioneers. (So when I hear Silly Valley >>> Libertarians go on and on, the best I can do is laugh.) >>> >>> My question to this august group is: now that the momentum for >>> innovation has moved to the private sector, are we going to see >>> nothing but these trivial, mostly copycat apps that make your eyes >>> glaze over? Is the private sector capable of genuine innovation? >>> >>> Pamela >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > -- > ⇒⇐ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
