why entrepreneurs, not government, drive innovation · – investments in a promising startup with...

Trending How to Build a Starship — and Why We Should Start Thinking About It Now

BY PETER DIAMANDIS ON JUL 14, 2015 | ENTREPRENEURSHIP, FEATURED, FUTURE 6,267

It's sad that the U.S. government doesn't fund risky research anymore.

After all, "the day before something is truly a breakthrough, it's a crazy idea"… and if you're not fu

crazy ideas, you're stuck with linear (incremental) thinking.

This post is about why you as an entrepreneur (or 'exponential CEO') are going to be solving our

problems, as opposed to waiting for the government.

Why government R&D funding is declining, why that's a bad thing, and how innovative entrepren

now responsible for keeping the U.S. on the cutting edge.

Historically, government funding accelerated some of the most important technologies on which o

global infrastructure now heavily relies: The microchip, GPS, wind energy, cancer therapies, touc

screens, the Internet…

Even Google probably wouldn't be around had it not been for government funding. In 1994, NSF,

and NASA funded the Digital Library Initiative to index and sort through the growing number of we

coming online.

One of the six grants from the Digital Library Initiative went to two graduate students at Stanford —

Page and Sergey Brin — who would later commercialize their research and call it "Google."

In fact, as the data from a recent NIH Report shows, the more innovative a concept, the less fund

receives.

Figure-1: NIH evaluation score vs. proposal novelty

NIH evaluation score vs. proposal novelty.

Why does this happen?

Governments (and large corporations) have a tremendous fear of (public) failure, which leads to

congressional investigations or lower stock prices. And as my friend Chris Lewicki says, "When fa

not an option, success gets really expensive!"

Why Entrepreneurs, Not Government, DriveInnovation

Historically speaking…

But the government doesn't fund crazy ideas anymore…

Why We Should Use Behavioral Economics to Design Technology That Doesn’t Kill Us

How to Build a Starship — and Why We Should Start Thinking About It Now

Why Edward Snowden Showed Up to CES as a Robot, and What He Had to Say

How Old Are You, Really? Biological Age Is Harder to Pin Down Than You Think

How Amnesty International Aims to Bring Technology and Human Rights Together

Somewhere Out There Could Be a Giant New Planet in Our Solar System: So Where Is It?

CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Is a Huge Deal, But It’s Just theTip of the Iceberg

‘Wait But Why’: Elon Musk’s Favorite Blog Makes Good Ideas Available to Everyone, With Cartoons

Bitcoin Is Damaged Beyond Repair, and We Badly Need a Replacement

Digital Diagnosis: Intelligent Machines Do a Better Job ThanHumans

+

TECH SCIENCE HEALTH FUTURE SINGULARITY UNIVERSITY SUBSCRIBE ABOUT

of 17Why Entrepreneurs, Not Government, Drive Innovation - Singularity HUB

29/01/2016http://singularityhub.com/2015/07/14/why-entrepreneurs-not-government-drive-innov...

Here's one of my favorite stories. Did you know that the $2.5 billion Curiosity Rover (which lan

Mars in 2011) is running a PowerPC processor that was built in 1993?

Why?

Because NASA knows it works, and they don't "want to take a risk" with a newer processor that is

unproven.

Even stranger, guess what processor the next mission "Mars Rover 2020" will use when it touche

on the surface of Mars in 2021?

Yup, you guessed it, a 1993 vintage PowerPC.

At the same time that the government is getting more and more risk averse, the amount of federa

dollars continues to shrink (as a percentage of the federal budget) by more than 60% over the pa

years.

Figure-2: Federal R&D as % of total Federal Budget

Federal R&D as % of total Federal Budget

It really is a sad state of affairs.

Entrepreneurs.

Today's entrepreneurs have access to technologies once only available to governments and the

corporations: the world's information on Google, massive computational power on Amazon Web

(AWS), access to capital and expertise from the crowd, etc.

At the same time that entrepreneur reach has increased: the cost of launching an Internet techstartup has plummeted 1,000-fold over the past 15 years.

Figure-3: Cost of launching an Internet Tech Startup

Cost of launching an Internet tech startup.

With this democratization of entrepreneurship, we've seen a dramatic rise in the number of startu

created and, concordantly, the number of innovative solutions to problems that we've been unabl

solve (or even think about) until now.

And rather than shrinking (as we've seen in government R&D funding), private sector funding has

increased more than six-fold over the past 80+ years.

Companies like Google, SpaceX, IBM, Facebook, Qualcomm and countless of global startups are

the needle forward by developing technology that solves key problems. After all, the world's bigge

problems are the world's biggest business opportunities.

Graph - Private Sector R&D

As the Kauffman Foundation reported a few years ago, "New businesses (i.e., startups) account

nearly all net new job creation and almost 20 percent of gross job creation."

Net Job Creation

If we can continue to incentivize and support entrepreneurs to devote their time to solving the wo

biggest problems, we will see enormous economic upside in the long run.

Bottom line: If you're looking to make a difference in the world, you can vote, politic, fund campai

write grants…or you can start a company and build technology.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com

What's going to keep the U.S. on the innovation cutting edge?



RELATED TOPICS: AMAZON WEB SERVICES CHRIS LEWICKI CURIOSITY MARS ROVER DARPA

DIGITAL LIBRARY INITIATIVE FACEBOOK GOOGLE GOVERNMENT FUNDING IBM LARRY PAG

MARS ROVER NASA QUALCOMM SERGEY BRIN SPACEX

About Latest Posts

Dr. Peter Diamandis is the Chairman and CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation, which leads the wdesigning and launching large incentive prizes to drive radical breakthroughs for the benefit ohumanity.Best known for the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE for private spaceflight, the Foundationow launching prizes in Exploration, Life Sciences, Energy, and Education.

Diamandis is also the co-Founder & Executive Chairman of the Singularity University, a SilicoValley based institution teaching graduates and executives about exponentially growing technand their potential to address humanity’s grand challenges.

Diamandis recently co-Authored Abundance – The Future Is Better Than You Think.

Diamandis has founded or co-founded many of the leading entrepreneurial companies in thisincluding Zero Gravity Corporation, the Rocket Racing League and Space Adventures. He alscounsels the world’s top enterprises on how to utilize exponential technologies and incentivizinnovation to dramatically accelerate their business objectives.

Dr. Diamandis attended MIT where he received his degrees in molecular genetics and aerospengineering, as well as Harvard Medical School where he received his M.D..

Peter Diamandis

Can Petridish Become The Kickstarter Of Science? We Ask The CEO

Tech Billionaire Milner Aims to Accelerate Progress by Bankrolling Science

On the Origin of Truly InnovativIdeas

Related

Discussion — 31 Responses

· 7 months ago

Cloaked in the black holes of defense department, are propriety and secret technologie

have yet to be exposed to the private sector. Lets face it CapX is pathetic in the private

and the numbers would be worse if it wasn’t for the bio-tech which was kick started by t

money. This stock buy back is seen as a positive, yet shareholder given the choice wou

have a dividends check. Stands to reason from a taxation prospective.

“Setting aside the fact that this dynamic is embedding an enormous amount of risk in co

credit (a booming primary market is a dangerous thing when the secondary market is

completely illiquid and investors are staring down a Fed rate hike cycle), record issuanc

buybacks have come at the expense of capex.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-06/capex-recovery-worst-history-bofaml-says

“Perhaps the only missing ingredient is the return of “animal spirits” to executive suites

boardrooms. Relatively low levels of actual spending thus far in the economic recovery

that corporate decision-makers still feel less than ready to make big investments in the

https://www.manning-

napier.com/Corporate/Insights/Blogs/MarketsEconomy/Article/tabid/313/Article/116/Key

Questions-for-Capex-Spending.aspx

I would like to see the private sector change the 2012 findings, yet the mentality of look

further than the next quarter is all too common. Then there might be a factoring in of the

Frank Triana



compensation, which thereby causes high non prudent risk. So as for R&D, which sequestration

is going to effect, there will be a void to fill.

“The technological innovation that has driven much of the world’s economic development since

the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without scientific knowledge. Americans

have long recognized the importance of science and technology for our prosperity, health, and

security, and have invested substantial amounts of money in supporting the scientific enterprise

— both privately and through government.”

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

The gospel according to Sacca, which is the reality.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-06-11/sacca-carl-icahn-made-a-mistake-

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that enterpreneurs are the only saviours of

innovation. .

Almost all great science projects and science breakthroughs have been funded by

governments, as mentioned in the article. In fact, the lack of progress in e.g. pharmacy

because of the controlling role of pharmaceutical companies in research. A chronic trea

for a disease is way more lucrative than a silver bullet. For a government, a disease is

which it want to get rid of the sooner the better, not a cash cow like it is for a pharmace

company.

By the way, there is a very valid reason for NASA to use a processor from the nineties.

transistors are inefficient, but very robust and resistant against the intense cosmic radia

the unprotected Martian surface. The main problem with NASA is institutional inertia. F

instance, the Indian national space agency ISRO, a government organisation, manages

complete projects like Mangalyaan BELOW budget.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2013/11/07/how-indias-isro-launched-its-mars-m

cut-rate-costs/

In a sense, governments are businesses too. They need to compete against other gove

in order to stay sovereign. That is why wars spur innovation. I hope that many public se

both in the USA as well as in other people-empowering policies, will read the Singularit

(and similar publications) and import exponential technologies and methods (and, most

important: exponential aims) in government institutions.

Germen Roding

Log in to Reply

Germen Roding · 2 months ago

“All great science projects and science breakthroughs have been funded by

governments”

Not all. Some.

– ARPANET during the 60’s

– Nanotech during the 90’s.

– Investments in a promising startup with a potential of helping launch an eco

scale.

However, that model is now broken. With government cutting funding for pub

funded science and private donors and enterprises coming in to fill that void.

Economic models are also broken.

The past cannot be used as a predictor of what will occur in the future. Speci

more so, when it comes to the developments at hand.

Again, not all science projects and science breakthroughs have been funded

government.

genidma



More and more, great breakthroughs are emerging from everywhere and anywhere,

specially as innovation and the capacity to innovate goes mainstream.

A million dollar probe will help open up the frontier of asteroid mining. The same

probe, if it was constructed using traditional mechanism, would have cost $100

million.

Innovation is going mainstream, each passing day.

Reliance on government is not going to give you anything.

Yes, some co-operation is required. But it is some co-operation. Very limited in scope.

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

If government is the sole investor in a Phase II SBIR, there is no ready source of exploi

capital ready to move the idea toward the mainstream. Yet most of the government con

rely on its own control and assets, which are fine for plodding ordinary R&D, but not for

breakthrough ideas. Only NIH seems to demand that the proposing firm have thought t

and prepared for exploitation.

Only the government will fund sweet technology just becasue it’s sweet and in the hand

favored political class.

An unusual public-private venture capital fund targeting the biosciences is launching in

York with $150 million to deploy

Venture capitalists are funding an increasing number of Israel-based startups, attracted

abundant supply of technological innovations that are coming out of Israeli companies

(Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: More Than $130 Billion)

http://www.wrmea.org/congress-u.s.-aid-to-israel/u.s.-financial-aid-to-israel-figures-fact

impact.html

The Arrowhead Center, New Mexico State University’s business accelerator, is launchi

fund to help inventors get their projects off the ground

The University of Pittsburgh is preparing to launch a $1 million fund to support very ear

product commercialization. The fund will make awards up to $50,000 to support produc

commercialization and prototyping projects across the university. [Kris B. Mamula, Pitts

Business Times, Feb 18] Not enough money for serious innovation and no source of fo

capital.

Venture-capital firms also have more money to play with these days. U.S. venture firms

$33 billion in capital last year from pension funds, university endowments and other sou

62% from a year earlier. But, With more money at their disposal, venture firms are havi

invest great sums per deal. [Scott Austin, Wall Street Journal, Feb 18]

SBIR has no chance of such rewarding results because about three-fourths of the mon

spent by agencies that just want what they can use for their own purposes with no rega

whether there is any widespread economic payoff, nor any payoff to society. SBIR can

these facts behind privacy of private business whihc is OK with Congress as long as th

biz get the prescribed handouts.

THIS GOES ON AND ON, JUST FUTILE TO WASTE ANYMORE TIME, SOURCE BEL

http://www.carl-nelson.com/venturemoney06.htm

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

INTREXON CORP COM and a special relationship with the University of Texas

http://investors.dna.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=249599&p=irol-

SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2FwaS50ZW5rd2l6YXJkLmNvbS9maWxpbmcueG1sP2lw

Frank Triana



ILLUMINA INC COM and a history, including 2015 of government contracts.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/fda-spends-17-million-to-go-faster-after-

pathogens/#.VaVpl_ldV8E

These are the Apples of bio-tech, given the competitive advantage.

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

“Why government R&D funding is declining, why that’s a bad thing […]”

It may not be a bad thing.

Terence Kealey argues that government funding of R&D crowds out private funding. Ac

to OECD data, he says, for each dollar the government spends on R&D, the private sec

spends $1.25 less.

haakonsk

Log in to Reply

haakonsk · 7 months ago

At these historically low rates, the crowd out effect isn’t an issue. They have n

problem borrowing for stock buy backs. At high interest rates, government bo

might make private sector borrowing more expensive and or put it off all toge

“CROWD OUT EFFECT IS A WELL KNOWN ECONOMIC CONCEPT” and w

even close. We would have to be in a period of inflation. Inflation by definition

much money following too few goods. Hence, price is a rationing mechanism

increase. It was government spending on WWI which ended the Great Depre

and not the private sector. The public works projects were new and they claim

was the end of the world back then too. Not to mention the G I Bill was also th

the world. However, since the war machine money went through their hands

was good borrowing?

Last year the $900 billion in stock buy backs wasn’t used as R&D, it was a ca

method of keeping stock prices up. The investments they did make was with

borrowed money, which was mostly for the fossil fuel industry, which is high y

junk bonds. We have over $4 trillion in these bonds, which attract the fixed in

crowd. For 2% less they could have gotten much safer high grade corporate

Since, treasuries are so low, these folks are attracted to these junk bonds, div

paying stocks and even regular bonds, which have an inverse relationship to

rates.

The amount of default of these bonds and the market price as interest rates i

is a bubble waiting to happen. Will there be enough liquidity in the system if a

seniors miles long redeem their $4 trillion in bonds? Will that have an effect o

stock market?

So NASA went to the moon and launched satellites, as the private sector inve

nothing. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the basic research which have crea

Frank Triana



industries like computers, cable TV, cell phones, video games, and all of the creature

comforts you enjoy today.

Even Elon Musk is on a subsidy on all of his ventures.

Is Elon Musk Just A Billionaire Welfare King?

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Elon-Musk-Just-A-Billionaire-Welfare-

King.html

Log in to Reply

Frank Triana · 7 months ago

It didn’t come to mind, but it will play out like this. May have little to

to do with R&D funding. As the interest rates increase and treasurie

become more attractive to fixed income investoors. The risk advers

investor will come out of the high yield, the dividend payers and util

markets. It will be a slow methodical move into treasuries as they g

increase. The supply of the dividend payers and utilities will increas

thereby their price will decrease. This will make the dividend payers

attractive and as interest rate begin to move lower their price will in

Then you should begin to slowly and methodically moving out of the

Buying low, taking a dividend as you wait for lower interest rates. T

utilities will also act likewise, however many may not pay that divide

high yield will and is a risky proposition and typically are attractive a

very bottom of interest rates, as the refinance of debt is undertaken

would be a 40% or more returns on that year. This isn’t going to ha

often enough, it’s a one or two times in a lifetime opportunity.

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

I am a little skeptical of the story of the NASA rovers Mr. Diamandis gave to show the r

aversion of the government. It is true that “NASA knows [the PPC chip they used] work

they don’t ‘want to take a risk’ with a newer processor that is unproven” but I think this l

out a great deal.

I think we should remember the high risk of failure in unfamiliar and dangerous environ

like space and Mars, as well as the high cost of technology that must work in such

environments. I am not an engineer, but isn’t it good practice to anticipate obstacles as

possible and take them into account, especially for a project with such a high cost?

If one googles “curiosity rover powerpc,” one sees this article among the first few links:

http://www.cnet.com/news/slow-but-rugged-curiositys-computer-was-built-for-mars/

The introductory paragraphs say this:

—

The electronic brain controlling NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover has far less horsepower th

microchips typically found in a modern smart phone.

But the RAD750 PowerPC microprocessor built into the rover’s redundant flight compu

one enormous advantage: It was engineered to be virtually impervious to high-energy c

rays that would quickly cripple an iPhone or laptop computer.

—

Later in the article, Scott Doyle, a BAE systems engineer for satellite electronics, says t

—

“First, you have to develop the radiation hardening techniques and actually implement t

the design,” said Scott Doyle, a BAE systems engineer for satellite electronics. “The ne

you have to qualify each of those individual components and that qualification is norma

year, a year-and-a-half, just to do that.”

“Then they get integrated on the board, and that board has to go through qualification a

prove out the board. Then once that board gets integrated into the satellite at the syste

ocolorp



there’s several years worth of qualification testing that goes in at the satellite level. You add all

that up, you’re talking five to eight years of qualification work.”

“So the challenging part about this is that my phone wouldn’t survive the journey to Mars, so we

have to build computers that are robust enough to survive the harsh (environment of)

interplanetary space. And when we do that, there are certain limitations we have and some of

those limitations include the size of the flight software image that we have, and that forces us

every now and then to update the flight software to add new capabilities.”

—

It takes at least 5-8 years to ready the chip, during which time consumer processor speeds will

have advanced exponentially. Further, the RAD750 started being produced in 2001, based on

the PowerPC 750, which was introduced in 1997.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_7xx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750

These links are to Wikipedia, and so although I mention them, I can’t be sure they are correct.

I’ve looked for at least an hour, and I haven’t been able to verify Mr. Diamandis’s 1993 date.

Where does this come from?

Did Mr. Diamandis mean that PowerPC 750 development started in 1993?

Isn’t it reasonable to expect a performance tradeoff for the extremely high reliability that a space

mission demands? And, how can we know what that performance cost should be without being

quite familiar with the technology? At least, I think one should probably consult an engineer in

this field. Further, as I mentioned earlier, space missions cost a great deal. Why wouldn’t we do

everything we can to ensure its success?

Maybe NASA is being unnecessarily risk averse. Considering the circumstances, I think it would

be difficult to blame them. I can’t be sure. I don’t work at NASA, and so I’m giving them the

benefit of the doubt. Can Mr. Diamandis provide evidence that they should be taking more risks

in robotic space missions by installing “a newer processor that is unproven”?

There is new family of chips, RAD5500, that, according to BAE is 10x more powerful that the

750:

http://www.baesystems.com/our-company-rzz/our-businesses/electronic-systems/product-

sites/space-products-and-processing/processors

http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_161071/processors

I hear, but could not confirm, that it will not be used in the Mars 2020 mission. I guess the 750

will be installed.

In general, I find Mr. Diamandis’s talks and writings interesting. In this case, I think the story

about the Mars missions he gave is not as ridiculous as it seems, if one learns a little more

about it.

I think there is a good case for the statement that government funding in R & D is declining, and

I find it worrying. To add to Mr. Diamandis’s article, Noam Chomsky spoke about this on

February 10, 2014, “How to Ruin an Economy; Some Simple Ways.” Chomsky mentions some

of the things Mr. Diamandis does, but not all:

—-

But let’s continue the exercises of figuring out how to ruin an economy. Suppose we are intent

on making the scandal even worse. There are some good ways to proceed. So, modern

economies depend very heavily on R&D, research and development. Fundamental work comes

primarily from the dynamic state sector on which the advanced economy heavily relies. Almost

most of the IT revolution, biology-based industries and much else. Actually that’s a pattern that

traces far back but it’s become much more critical since the Second World War, as the impact

of science and technology on the society and economy have greatly expanded.



So, a good way to ruin an economy and a society would be to cut back on R&D and federal

R&D. And we can read about how that is done from the first issue of the triple-A journal, the

American Association for the Advancement of Science journal, Science the first issue in 2014.

Here’s what it says. “The 2014 budget will continue what has been a “decades-long slide in the

ratio of federal R&D budget to the GDP.” This ratio is often used as a measure of how much a

nation values basic research. This ratio, which has fallen 25% in the last decade alone. And

that’s continuing.”

“In the meantime, elsewhere internationally, investment in science is rising as nations

throughout the world connect investment in R&D to the development of their human capital and

their future prosperity. For example, the European Union’s flagship research program, Horizon

2020, is set to receive a nearly 30% boost in 2014. The Chinese government’s investment in

R&D has been increasing by percentages in the double digits for the last several years and is

poised to become the world leader.”

You can draw the consequences without any comment. What’s happening here is a very natural

development of the imposition of the business model of seeking short term profit. The future

and society, they’re someone else’s business.

—-

Talk transcribed here by Mariko Sakurai: http://readingchomsky.blogspot.com/2014/07/noam-

chomsky-2014-how-to-ruin-economy.html

video of talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mhj-j0z-fk

Log in to Reply

ocolorp · 7 months ago

ocolorp, excellent work, I’ve worked on the shuttles and the international spac

and NASA specs are tighter than the MIL specs. Ironic is the fact the Google

were working as grad students and taxpayers fund university level research.

The author should just come out with it. Sequestration is cutting NASA/DoD/U

research PERIOD. My cousin, has written so many grant proposals and had

ironic that she is in the bio-tech field too. That seed DNA mapping wasn’t paid

private sector money either, yet the private sector has the very professors on

payroll. The majority of the STEM educated people are government employe

government employees by proxy.

So as I said below, $900 billion went into stock buy backs last year, as they s

concern with the next quarter and not R&D. They have borrowed over $4 trilli

of that CapX going into the lucrative Goldman Sach prediction of $135 a barr

backs. Investment firms encourage this financial engineering as opposed to R

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49487-Innovation.p

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

Your prime assumption is in error; the government does NOT HAVE any money. It only

what it takes from the citizens either in direct taxes or by borrowing from the Fed and le

the citizens on the hook to pay that back – with interest! So for the government to inves

D it must, of necessity, put that cost on the public.

There was a time when citizens could expect a decent return on money invested by the

government in R & D. New or improved products, employment by corporations using th

of that R D, a rising standard of living, and many more obvious and subtle benefits cam

that research. Not so today. Today the corporations get grants, fed to them by owned

politicians, that are used to line the CEO’s pockets with little going to real R & D. When

D do occur and result in new products, the corporations build plants that operate with

automated, robotic workers so the taxpayer gets few, if any, jobs; the profits do not rea

average joe through higher wages, in fact, joe is getting lower real wages than he did in

’70’s.

Scribblerlarry



Any money that the corporations invest in R & D is, of course, tax deductible. But when the

corporations reduce the taxes they pay, we, the long suffering and now low paid or unemployed

taxpayers must make up for that lack of government income.

Now, we have as crooked a bunch of two-faced, fork-tongued, slippery-lipped twits as it is

possible to put in office. We glorify it with the name “government”. It’s members – politicians –

are as bold and arrogant and self-aggrandizing as any you can find anywhere; yet even that

bunch won’t try to convince the public that the government ought to blow their tax dollars on R &

D that will be of no benefit to them but will see the bank accounts of the 1% fatten up a bit more.

So….. Why won’t government fund more research? Simple: even the politicians who make up

the government are not that stupid; or have a sense of self-survival.

Log in to Reply

Scribblerlarry · 7 months ago

You nailed it. There is not much sense repeating the story of how come. Ther

even sense pointing fingers all the time on greedy and benefit driven venture

capitalists or massive corporations or trick bankers, being all of them the resu

permission. Our collective way shall proceed on massive crowdactivities if we

be part or just shut up and or repeating the prefab academic nonsens at best

Horst G Ludwig

Log in to Reply

Horst G Ludwig · 7 months ago

https://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ration-of-

to-average-worker-by-country/

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply


interesting to read. that would be an persepctive to entrep

than? shark society = shark salaries. there is not much th

good sample for the world, indeed it isn´t. Maybe in talkin

complaining and talking again….. I dont know whats happ

these folks but I cant listen to any self centered US individ

anymore.

Horst G Ludwig

Log in to Reply

Scribblerlarry · 7 months ago

“Your prime assumption is in error; the government does NOT HAVE any mo

You are trapped in the classic libertarian fallacy. Because: neither do busines

have money. You fail to understand that only because Government protects t

intellectual property, property rights, rule of law and a stable social order, bus

can function. Big businesses are like big dodo’s, well equipped to function in

advanced society but hopelessly inadequate to function in a corrupt society.

Try to find functional big-scale high tech companies in countries with a weak

institutional framework, like Nepal. You won’t – not because of lack of talente

There is no effective law enforcement to prevent cheating, robbing and leech

which makes internal transaction costs in those companies huge and makes

companies beyond the size of the top manager’s scope unsustainable.

Governments provide valuable services, just like companies do.

Germen Roding

Log in to Reply


wow, how can you intentionally misunderstand the message of scri

and call him on top libertarian like if that would be something ugly to

comes to finance-economy there is no political tendency owner of w

or knowledge. So keep it cool, please and leave the people of Nepa

They have a total different view on life, values and prosperity than a

yuppy.

Governments lost sovereign control on money emission but there a

probably lots of things you do not want to know about. At most gove

are trustees and administrators and distributing only debt on its citiz

not equality in wealth distribution because there is always a best bu

Horst G Ludwig



lobby friend behind the door waiting. So is it with R&D fund distribution

ending up in mayority in those corps perfectly rich to risk their own neck.

Research a little, than lets talk. Research on the universities too, eating

from the same plate both ways.

Log in to Reply


I do not “accuse” you of being libertarian. I do not believe

thought crimes. I just mentioned that you fell prey to the m

libertarian fallacy. This because of your initial remark rega

government having no money, implying that governments

provide valuable services.

Government (together with charities) is best qualified for

fundamental research (in contrast to applied research), b

fundamental research will benefit everyone, not just the o

is pursuing it.

I agree, though, that lobby groups, nepotism and partisan

a mortal threat to government effectivity. Not only regardi

reseach, but regarding every terrain of government activit

a point Mr. Diamandis mentions correctly, the risk-averse

research culture. Which is a problem in big corporations a

and seems a generational problem rather than a governm

problem. We should not be afraid to fail in research, as lo

learn from failure and keep the cost of failing limited.

Also we should press for open government and total

accountability, while forgiving government officials for min

not immoral mistakes.

Germen Roding

Log in to Reply


Erratum: you should be ScribblerLarry.Germen Roding

Log in to Reply


Without law enforcement there is the hired gun of the wild west, wh

whoever can hire the best shot wins. Instead civilised countries tran

physical violence of the gunman to the intellectual violence of the la

courts, where the best paid man usually wins. Altogether less mess

Quantium

Log in to Reply

Quantium · 7 months ago

Libertarian is an ideology which isn’t too smart/wise, they

have opted for Great Depression II, if it weren’t for the FE

Insane austerity in a low interest rate environment conduc

public works. They fail to see that spending can generate

tax revenue. So they fail to see the big picture and if they

see it, they might see that it is but a small piece of the big

puzzle. They are simple minded and that is being kind.

Entire industries have been the result of taxpayer funded

historically. They see that their income is 66% earned

entitlements and they certainly want to fund the military in

complex. So they need to see that in the short run, until th

boomers run their course, a 30 year mortgage is wiser an

create a multiplier effect, increase the velocity of the mon

supply and thereby generate more tax revenue.

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply


Roding, there is truth in what you say.

Yes, civilization needs a platform upon which all can come and play

genidma



But, we cannot place a large amount of our faith in an institution and with it’s

capacity to help provide services, that today, we take for granted.

Friedman identifies the primary services that a government must perform.

Perhaps he identified some secondary and tertiary services as well.

Next, it is foolish for us to assume that the government is going to be

immune from forces within the market. Specially here, with automation

chewing into all market segments.

With, most/all routine based jobs going the way of automation over a 30

period time period. Most of the work, an overwhelming amount of work that

the government performs would be classified as a collection of processes

and routine based jobs.

In light of such a reality, what is going to safeguard our future, is, more

innovation.

The government does not have the capacity to safeguard our future. Have

you ever looked at what representatives of the governments have been

saying over the years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPjWBwa5is

It is impossible to expect one system to help put a fix to all problems. This is

a design issue.

So logic would entail that we develop the kind of networks that help give us

what we need. i.e more innovation.

Logic would also entail that we enable platforms in such a way, so that more

risk taking occurs. More innovation occurs. More industries are created.

Corporations have become net job destroyers.

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Jobs-Are-Entrepreneurship-

American/dp/1118573242

Three-quarters of all small businesses across the United States are in the

‘non-employer’ category. (Look under Figure 1:

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf)

According to the Fed’s website:

The role of the Feds is:

“To promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices,

and moderate long-term interest rates.”

But there are no real jobs to be had. I really do not know where the job

growth is coming from in the mid-term. Long term, yes, I can see the

enablement of a lot of jobs, but only *if* the focus is towards the creation of

newer industries.

But 40 years from now, it may be a very different situation. But let us focus

on the state between now and the 40 years.

You criticize the libertarian point of view. But this point of view has the

capacity for driving growth in an enlightened sense. Of protecting freedoms

and for helping enable more innovation. What is your objective criticism of

libertarianism?

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

In the UK citizens have the option of investing in Venture Capital trusts, which have sub

advantages in that both income and capital tax penalties do not apply, and the cost of t

investment can be set against income taxes. They are a useful way of keeping an unus

windfall income. However there is also the fact that if any individual investment fails, it c

Quantium



be counted as a loss against capital tax penalties on any other profits. A trust contains many

different enterprises, so the risk to the citizen holding shares is less than one might suppose.

This shows that the UK government are aware of the advantages of “risky” investment.

However some of the investments made by these trusts turn out to be of the form of business

speculation (such as buying a less profitable business, closing it down, and selling the site for a

supermarket) rather than speculation in science and engineering.

Log in to Reply

Quantium · 7 months ago

Good point, put yourself into the chair of a venture capital manager. They don

by heart or knowledge, they involve by profit margins and risk managment ter

without even understanding in the first place where are the risks of an R&D p

Project managers otherside do a lot of showing risk solutions, but it is as usu

talk to much about risks nobody will even look at it. This is not different in the

Otherwise I can confirm shareholding in VC-Trusts in the UK. Fortunately not

everything is bad by The City driven country and empire of foreign affairs.

But lets get back and be global beings. R&D is our nature within and could be

handled different outside of the prefab pretextual wheel. It might be even mor

important to look at all the ramifications which are not subject to patent. That

stand alone circus by its own.

The global benefit on R&D is important to the entire globe. Any street corner

economist does know this and those countries putting visible parts of its GDP

education and R&D are also the most successful countries by pure logic and

patience.

Off course we end up with capital conditions as usual because all our countri

societies and continents are the chess board hereto. While this an impressive

of R&D from the little ones are lost and what we actually do see on media an

of the deep web is a poor 5% of what is really possible.

Fusing comon sense, capital and projects on massive crowdfunding levels is

intermediate solution until the sharks got hold of it.

Horst G Ludwig

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

Now I really would love getting back and having a look to entrepreneurship vs governm

funding. Any entrepreneur around here? Lets tell people the truth about the utmost diffi

conditions and live of a businessman and not just treating that like another carrot in fron

mule.

The modern wave of startup culture is nothing new at all except the publicity and marke

guys hammering it into just another product, a fancy outlook, uniform like everything the

in the US.

Under my view of technologist and economist it would be truly welcome every human b

his own self responsible micro company hooking up with whatever laborchance / incom

around, that as much small sized corporations being born in a participative economy. T

own answer oposite debt capitalism, comunism, socialism.

Fact is that mainly all fresh starters of whatever age and productivity not only left alone

having an impossible time to get funding. On top of it they have to pay taxes, accountan

notary, lawyer, registrations and spending half the time with nonsens build up by the fa

of-live monkeys in government and institutions. No wonder the big mayority ending up a

3 years in bancrupcy, overdebt and heart broken, because again, nobody cares about e

some friends or family members.

What is wrong with this, with us, with our construct?

Than the other sick half to talk about. Pure psychology so to speak.

Most of the so called colleagues responding with hidden jealousity to the entrepreneur

really dont wish him to be in a better situation than themselves. More distant folks just t

the doing of the entrepreneur or businessman into “he want to get rich, so I dont care a

That´s also like a university lab where the prof running away with the achievement of its

pupils often working harder and smarter then he ever did. Or the internet scammers for

to reference their knowledge and copy paste or or or

So again. Whats wrong with us on either side?

I am building up a roof for more than 400 young engineers, developers and entreprene

Horst G Ludwig



by Barcelona and try to remove all these obstacles and problems. Would be a pleasure sharing

my experience and the proof that a participative economy is more than doable, and off course,

without any kind of government assistance or begging on the streets of Europe/US. Everybody

got to understand that our power is by doing and not voting anymore for any bricklayer of words

to become a misreable polititian and policies maker. We are also closing door to superficial

capitalists, either they do participate for real or they got nothing to gain here, because any

benefit is made by sweat and tears no matter if you understand a NASDAQ screen or not.

And what about the big corporations, you may ask. There is a measurment of when a

corporation of success turning into a cancer of society and global economy and that is what we

have to take care about as well and not just blindly clapping hands to any rediculess CEO and

VIP while half a country is starving.

In many ways we have to ask ourselves in which degree we are the idiots because all up and

running is the result of our participation and permitt given.

Log in to Reply


Horst, I’d like to see you succeed in the creation of an innovation Utopia in a

rich in history and tradition. That is a massive undertaking and wish you the b

luck.

Espana, they have the talent and it isn’t being used, as their youth unemploym

proof of a structural problem in an economy. Their is an area on that Iberian p

which has the San Diego temperature, so I hear. My grandfather was from th

resided in the Canary Islands, Tenerife in the end, that culture is deeply roote

DNA as is the food. Pedro Domecq Vina 25 Sherry, Turrón de todos tipo, Goy

Foods. Zoe olive oil and paella are a proud part of my heritage.

In any case, I see the passion and a mind more in tune with this generation, a

labels need not apply, to a pragmatic approach to the reality. A society which

show, see pockets of blight, endless cycles of poverty and only looks to idoliz

wealthy parasites. A whole new manner to look at a societies character and m

obligation. Could be a new humanitarian philosophy/ideology right for the tim

becoming we, setting our egos/greed aside and treating innovation as an opp

to help everyone from the onset, not after you have exhausted patent rights o

satisfied greed.

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply


Thank you but this aint utopia, it is just not a google inc. cluster of a

private open community in the sense of participative economy. You

hear from it in the future but we are not subject to promotion, applic

coming from Palo Alto, Berlin, London, Bombay, all around the wor

not only the spanish engineer, developer, etc. because there is no o

place giving cheap all you need under full protection against tax inq

capital shark conditions and bad deals at the backend.

Neither did it come out of the blue, 35 years of teaching participativ

economy and democracy against the wall it just appears me having

sufficient funds deliberated to ignite a wave of talents and launching

2015/2016 already 27 soft- and hardware products on the market.

I may not misuse this site for own purposes, maybe singularity reco

there is a world outside the US and we have a proper representatio

subject. If not, I dont care. It will be widely known by march 2016 an

Horst G Ludwig

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

I’d say that the dramatic cuts in govenrment research funding is one reason that the gra

being offered tend to be in “sure things”. The number of grant applications govenrment

organizations get is now so far above the amount of money the govenrment is spending

research, a lot of good research goes unfunded, and the “safe bets” are most likely to b

funded.

Yosarian2

Log in to Reply

Yosarian2 · 7 months agoFrank Triana



Yosarian2, if the sequestration would have come years ago, mapping the gen

code of a fruit fly, would have been a barrier to an entire bio-tech industry we

today. Not to mention the big data tools/industry of today. All from a fruit fly?

The strategy was to construct strains of Drosophila fruit flies carrying mutatio

each of seven genes that have been associated with autism, and test for thos

effects on social behavior and on the regulation of other genes.

Several of the tested autism gene homologs were found to affect fly social be

and also other genes’ expression levels. This suggests that there is a commo

network, or more than one common network, susceptible to autism predispos

when affected by mutations. It will be important to explore this possibility furth

effort to understand the most accessible points in the system for potential inte

in the treatment of autism.

Understanding the network relationships among the many disparate genes as

with autism has the potential to offer uniquely powerful strategies for treatmen

possibly even prevention, of the underlying causes of the disorder.

https://sfari.org/funding/grants/abstracts/using-fruit-flies-to-map-the-network-o

autism-associated-genes

A key use of the sequence information from the canonical model organisms,

Drosophila, will be to help interpret the sequence of the human genome. Sim

determining the DNA sequence of the genome would be sufficient for compar

the genomes of other species to identify similarities between genes or protein

domains among species. But such similarities are inherently intellectually ste

unless the biological functions of the genes have been established for one or

the species being compared. If the model organism genome projects are to b

maximally useful in assigning functions to human DNA sequences, they will n

utilize the powerful tools for determining gene function that are available to th

that not only the sequences of the genes, but also their biological functions, a

determined.

http://www.fruitfly.org/about/pubs/rubin96.html

Qx. Anything you wish to add?

Thibault de Malliard: The sequencing/genotyping technologies evolve very fa

Evolving means more data from the machines. I expect our data to grow at le

times each year. We are glad to have TokuDB in place to handle the challeng

————-

Since 2010, Thibault de Malliard has worked in the University of Montreal’s P

Awadalla Laboratory where he provides bioinformatics support to the lab crew

develops bioinformatics solutions for next-generation genomic sequencing.

Previously, he worked for the French National Institute for Agricultural Resea

(INRA) with the MIG laboratory (Mathematics, Informatics and Genomics) wh

part of the European Nanomubiop project, he was tasked with developing sof

produce probes for a HPV chip. He holds a masters degree in bioinformatics

http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/03/big-data-for-genomic-sequencing-intervie

thibault-de-malliard/

Log in to Reply

· 7 months ago

To be honest enterpreneurs don’t make innovation. They make business. If incidentally

business trains innovation then enterpreneurs make also innovation. Was that so when

Motorola in the end of seventies invented cell phone system and reached target before

competitors. Innovation was linging in the air and it was just a matter of time that Motor

another electronic devices firm will found a solution.

US government prepared innovation before mobile phone was been developed by gran

radio frequencies ready for mobile phone Providers.

Raffaele Megabyte



This is an example of governments which demonstrated to possess a long eye for the future…

I found your example of PowerPC processors powering Mars rovers rather irrilevant.

Original design of PowerPC processors was born in 1993 but since then it started a family of

processors that evolved in time and still being developed with processors like QOORIO.

With your statements you just proved that virtual exploring space is a matter of innovation (new

ccd cameras, new theories, etc…) but “TRAVELLING” in space is another matter if things and a

“phisical” journey thru Mars require processors that are reliable, fault proof, and you can’t

abandon a space mission of dozens million dollars to newer processors before years of testing

in missions of lesser importance.

Exceot the example you made with Mars Mission and PowerPC I agree with your point of view.

IMHO There is no real innovation since French Government in 1844 bought copyrights of

Daguerre photography invention to make it free worldwide creating an immense market as

invention of fundamental importance fir all mankind.

Log in to Reply

Raffaele Megabyte · 7 months ago

With this Tea Party sequestration in America, university research is hit first, N

also and then the defense & aerospace. I see as the population ages there is

to be frugal, however, they have a pledge sheet that they have passed aroun

spending. They don’t know that Keynes said that increasing spending has a m

effect and thereby increases governments revenues. Thereby they need not

innovation machine aka the goose that lays golden eggs. Entire industries ha

created by government basic research, cell phones, internet, cable or stream

television and many more creature comforts we take for granted today. Our 5

planets population in America consumes 24% of the worlds energy and just a

same or more of the worlds good/services.

The private sector is great at refining innovations, which is fine, yet there is a

where greed kicks in and profits are obscene. I was glad to see that Malaria v

offered at cost plus 5%, to help places like Africa. Children were considered a

Gates Foundation and others are going to make a difference. Then the 5% w

back into further research.

“The world’s first malaria vaccine has been given the green light by European

regulators and could protect millions of children in sub-Saharan Africa from th

threatening disease.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended that RTS,S, or Mosq

should be licensed for use in young children in Africa who are at risk of the m

borne disease. The shot has been developed by Britain’s biggest drugmaker

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and part-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Found

has taken 30 years to develop vaccine, at a cost of more than $565m (£364m

date.

It will now be assessed by the World Health Organisation, which has promise

its guidance on how and where it should be used before the end of the year.

then apply to the WHO for a scientific review of the vaccine, which will be use

UN and other agencies to help make purchasing decisions. The rollout of the

which also has to be approved by national health authorities in sub-Saharan A

likely to be funded by Gavi, the vaccine alliance founded by the Gates Found

According to the WHO, 627,000 deaths from malaria were reported globally i

of which the vast majority (562,000) occurred in Africa, mostly among childre

the age of five (82%).

The EMA said its committee of experts “considered that the benefits of vaccin

may be particularly important among children in high-transmission areas in w

mortality is very high”.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/24/first-malaria-vaccine-given-gr

light-by-european-regulators

Frank Triana

Log in to Reply



You must be logged in to post a comment.

About Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Contact Us



why entrepreneurs, not government, drive innovation · – investments in a promising startup with...

Documents