Reading the first section of this article, where they talk about innovation as a spur to economic growth, reminded me of something about capitalism: it contains an inherent assumption of, and...
Reading the first section of this article, where they talk about innovation as a spur to economic growth, reminded me of something about capitalism: it contains an inherent assumption of, and requirement for, growth. It is not sufficient to make the same profit this year as last year; this year's profit must be higher than last year's, and next year's must be higher again. You can get growth by acquiring more customers or by selling a new product, and innovation certainly leads to more products.
I don't know where I'm going with this. It's just a bit of a ramble. But capitalism requires growth, innovation creates growth, and we just keep innovating to support capitalism.
Meanwhile, you can't sell maintenance. You can't put maintenance in a showroom, whack a price sticker on it, and get people to buy it. Maintenance doesn't make money. Maintenance costs money. Innovation is sexy, and maintenance isn't.
Growth-over-all is one avenue for capitalism, but I don't think it's fair to say it's inherent. That mainly applies when you're beholden to investors and/or shareholders. And again, I can agree...
Growth-over-all is one avenue for capitalism, but I don't think it's fair to say it's inherent. That mainly applies when you're beholden to investors and/or shareholders. And again, I can agree that capitalism kind of promotes this behavior, but it's not inherent and doesn't have to manifest this way.
The mom and pop shop who's content with their earnings is also valid capitalism. Also, there are service-oriented jobs where maintenance is their livelihood, such as repair (plumbers, computers, home renovation, etc).
I think the real issue is the inability of many people to be content with what they have. It's a deep-seated human need to always want more, and capitalism simply allows humans to seek it out in the form of growth.
Heh. I vaguely remember reading this essay a few years ago and agreeing with its sentiment. Without the "maintainers" the society we've built cannot function. It's all very well someone coming up...
Heh. I vaguely remember reading this essay a few years ago and agreeing with its sentiment.
Without the "maintainers" the society we've built cannot function.
It's all very well someone coming up with the next big "market disruptor", but it means nothing without the people who make sure everything works so they can go out and "innovate and disrupt". And very often the people who are out there making sure everything works are the least appreciated, least respected in society. The snobbish attitudes I've encountered from suit wearing desk jockeying paper shufflers over the years has been a source of irritation for decades... oops I appear to be heading into rant territory so I'll stop this train here.
I wish people were more willing to acknowledge just how much they and their innovations rely on other people, and the things they build and maintain, to bring them to fruition.
And the idea that capitalism is the one true driver of innovation is laughable to me. Capitalism largely removes altruism from the equation, and gives us things we want, but not necessarily need.
I realise this comment is somewhat jumbled and verging on incoherence, but this is my initial, gut reaction to it.
Many times I've seriously had people ascribe all progress of the human race in the last century to capitalism, as if the progress of humanity wasn't moving forwards and getting faster before we...
And the idea that capitalism is the one true driver of innovation is laughable to me.
Many times I've seriously had people ascribe all progress of the human race in the last century to capitalism, as if the progress of humanity wasn't moving forwards and getting faster before we stepped out of mercantilism or earlier.
It seems to me that maintenance is the fertile soil where the seeds of innovation grow. Without the data on how past innovations perform over time, the costs of operation, the curve of decline,...
It seems to me that maintenance is the fertile soil where the seeds of innovation grow.
Without the data on how past innovations perform over time, the costs of operation, the curve of decline, the inutility or disutility of what was built, the bad/good use cases, how do you know what the next improvement or great replacement will be?
The "maintainers" are often those best positioned to recognize opportunities to innovate, even through the sheer laziness of "why do I have to do/fix this over and over?".
I've been acquainted with a number of inventors and innovators (my dad was on the list), and most of them got their starts doing maintenance activities that led them to "why not do 'x' instead?" in fantastically productive ways.
Examples:
turning a disregarded waste product from a manufacturing process into a valuable commodity;
tweaking a simple "maintenance" script into process automation that (sadly) replaced a couple of dozen paper-handling clerks;
I have often thought about this topic. I think that disruptive innovation, as is funded by high-risk VCs, is the only part of capitalism that leads to real innovation. On the other hand you have...
I have often thought about this topic. I think that disruptive innovation, as is funded by high-risk VCs, is the only part of capitalism that leads to real innovation. On the other hand you have old-school capitalists like Warren Buffet. He admittedly invests in monopolies which are antithetical to true innovation. A long time ago I think that I coined a term “economic inertia” for this while thinking about the petroleum economy. There have been venues to explore of real alternatives but there is just too much money behind oil to allow true innovation, until very recently. The movers there are arguably China’s investment in PV technology in the early 2000’s and Elon musks push to gigawatt-hour scale lithium-ion battery production. Both of those pushes came from outside the normal streams of capitalism.
I guess my point is that old-school, low risk, capitalism is actually against innovation as it will end existing revenue streams. To me this is why the lack of anti-trust actions in the USA is so troubling. It actually lowers the rate of advancement.
Dude, go on angel list right now and tell me you see any real innovation. VC culture is so fucking meta all we see is B2B services that function to optimize other B2B services and it's small...
Dude, go on angel list right now and tell me you see any real innovation. VC culture is so fucking meta all we see is B2B services that function to optimize other B2B services and it's small 'efficiencies-as-a-service' all the way down.
There is nothing innovative about this shit, at this point companies are just scraping as much value from an inflated market as possible before it all crumbles under its own weight.
I specifically said “high-risk VCs” for that reason. Social Capital is the one I was thinking of. But also, anyone who invested in SpaceX, or Tesla were taking huge risks and the disruption there...
I specifically said “high-risk VCs” for that reason. Social Capital is the one I was thinking of. But also, anyone who invested in SpaceX, or Tesla were taking huge risks and the disruption there is huge. Don’t let any opinions of Elon Musk cloud your judgment of what those two high risk ventures have accomplished. But yeah, most VCs are just a heard following the easy money most of the time.
Oh, and also, Angel List is kind of the bottom of the barrel isn’t it? I mean if something is truely groundbreaking, they don’t need to go list on that site, right?
Oh, and also, Angel List is kind of the bottom of the barrel isn’t it? I mean if something is truely groundbreaking, they don’t need to go list on that site, right?
Reading the first section of this article, where they talk about innovation as a spur to economic growth, reminded me of something about capitalism: it contains an inherent assumption of, and requirement for, growth. It is not sufficient to make the same profit this year as last year; this year's profit must be higher than last year's, and next year's must be higher again. You can get growth by acquiring more customers or by selling a new product, and innovation certainly leads to more products.
I don't know where I'm going with this. It's just a bit of a ramble. But capitalism requires growth, innovation creates growth, and we just keep innovating to support capitalism.
Meanwhile, you can't sell maintenance. You can't put maintenance in a showroom, whack a price sticker on it, and get people to buy it. Maintenance doesn't make money. Maintenance costs money. Innovation is sexy, and maintenance isn't.
Growth-over-all is one avenue for capitalism, but I don't think it's fair to say it's inherent. That mainly applies when you're beholden to investors and/or shareholders. And again, I can agree that capitalism kind of promotes this behavior, but it's not inherent and doesn't have to manifest this way.
The mom and pop shop who's content with their earnings is also valid capitalism. Also, there are service-oriented jobs where maintenance is their livelihood, such as repair (plumbers, computers, home renovation, etc).
I think the real issue is the inability of many people to be content with what they have. It's a deep-seated human need to always want more, and capitalism simply allows humans to seek it out in the form of growth.
Heh. I vaguely remember reading this essay a few years ago and agreeing with its sentiment.
Without the "maintainers" the society we've built cannot function.
It's all very well someone coming up with the next big "market disruptor", but it means nothing without the people who make sure everything works so they can go out and "innovate and disrupt". And very often the people who are out there making sure everything works are the least appreciated, least respected in society. The snobbish attitudes I've encountered from suit wearing desk jockeying paper shufflers over the years has been a source of irritation for decades... oops I appear to be heading into rant territory so I'll stop this train here.
I wish people were more willing to acknowledge just how much they and their innovations rely on other people, and the things they build and maintain, to bring them to fruition.
And the idea that capitalism is the one true driver of innovation is laughable to me. Capitalism largely removes altruism from the equation, and gives us things we want, but not necessarily need.
I realise this comment is somewhat jumbled and verging on incoherence, but this is my initial, gut reaction to it.
Many times I've seriously had people ascribe all progress of the human race in the last century to capitalism, as if the progress of humanity wasn't moving forwards and getting faster before we stepped out of mercantilism or earlier.
You're correct it's super laughable to me too.
It seems to me that maintenance is the fertile soil where the seeds of innovation grow.
Without the data on how past innovations perform over time, the costs of operation, the curve of decline, the inutility or disutility of what was built, the bad/good use cases, how do you know what the next improvement or great replacement will be?
The "maintainers" are often those best positioned to recognize opportunities to innovate, even through the sheer laziness of "why do I have to do/fix this over and over?".
I've been acquainted with a number of inventors and innovators (my dad was on the list), and most of them got their starts doing maintenance activities that led them to "why not do 'x' instead?" in fantastically productive ways.
Examples:
I have often thought about this topic. I think that disruptive innovation, as is funded by high-risk VCs, is the only part of capitalism that leads to real innovation. On the other hand you have old-school capitalists like Warren Buffet. He admittedly invests in monopolies which are antithetical to true innovation. A long time ago I think that I coined a term “economic inertia” for this while thinking about the petroleum economy. There have been venues to explore of real alternatives but there is just too much money behind oil to allow true innovation, until very recently. The movers there are arguably China’s investment in PV technology in the early 2000’s and Elon musks push to gigawatt-hour scale lithium-ion battery production. Both of those pushes came from outside the normal streams of capitalism.
I guess my point is that old-school, low risk, capitalism is actually against innovation as it will end existing revenue streams. To me this is why the lack of anti-trust actions in the USA is so troubling. It actually lowers the rate of advancement.
Dude, go on angel list right now and tell me you see any real innovation. VC culture is so fucking meta all we see is B2B services that function to optimize other B2B services and it's small 'efficiencies-as-a-service' all the way down.
There is nothing innovative about this shit, at this point companies are just scraping as much value from an inflated market as possible before it all crumbles under its own weight.
I specifically said “high-risk VCs” for that reason. Social Capital is the one I was thinking of. But also, anyone who invested in SpaceX, or Tesla were taking huge risks and the disruption there is huge. Don’t let any opinions of Elon Musk cloud your judgment of what those two high risk ventures have accomplished. But yeah, most VCs are just a heard following the easy money most of the time.
Oh, and also, Angel List is kind of the bottom of the barrel isn’t it? I mean if something is truely groundbreaking, they don’t need to go list on that site, right?