"There's been no real innovation for the last 30 years" - Kasparov & Peter Thiel

[blainehodder]

Technology... the destroyer of wealth. Oh wait.

 

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/RealGDPperCapita.png

[Liberty]

No economic impact at all from the invention of the printing press? That's a pretty bold claim that would need some very solid data to support, IMO, unless you mean in the very short term. Almost all technological and scientific innovations that happened after the printing press depend on its as a way to spread and archive information.

 

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

 

Except if 300 years is short term.

 

Do you have a more direct citation? I'm not going to read that whole site.

 

But this highlights the difficulty of looking at a single piece of technology or scientific discovery in isolation. How many of the developments starting in 1800 would have happened in a world without a printing press?

[PlanMaestro]

http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kronicle/2008/03/charting-histor.html#.UZ-g_GSG1QY

 

BTW, the world before the industrial revolution was 99.9% agriculture. "1493" shows well how the very slow agricultural productivity improvements were achieved. The printing press doesn't show, only trade.

[PlanMaestro]

Technology... the destroyer of wealth. Oh wait.

 

Straw man.

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3699/8815760610_bc28e74bbb.jpg

[Liberty]

BTW, the world before the industrial revolution was 99.9% agriculture. "1493" shows well how the very slow agricultural productivity improvements were achieved. The printing press doesn't show, only trade.

 

I don't think it's surprising that it didn't have an effect immediately. In fact, I'd be surprised it if had. Technologies spread a lot slower back then, but also it wasn't a sufficient innovation in itself. As long as you just keep printing religious texts with it, it's not going to make you move forward.

 

But once you have the scientific method and the enlightenment, then you can use the printing press to make real progress. But if you have the scientific method without a printing press, then you are held back tremendously and you have isolated pockets of people constantly reinventing the wheel because there's no easy way to spread knowledge widely and know what others know. You also have a huge leakage of knowledge over time as people die and forget and things aren't being archived efficiently for others to later (re)discover.

[Otsog]

Would you guys consider the Age of Enlightenment innovation? 

 

Or would it always have to be prefaced as 'cultural' innovation?

 

 

 

[Otsog]

Technology... the destroyer of wealth. Oh wait.

 

Straw man.

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3699/8815760610_bc28e74bbb.jpg

 

I'm not sure I understand this point, productivity gains are always above 0%.

 

Is an argument against the economic benefits of the printing press also an argument against the economic benefits of a literate society and intellectual discourse?

 

 

 

 

[PlanMaestro]

I'm not sure I understand this point, productivity gains are always above 0%.

 

Is an argument against the economic benefits of the printing press also an argument against the economic benefits of a literate society and intellectual discourse?

 

The point is that the title of this thread is "There's been no REAL innovation for the last 30 years", not that there hasn't been a rise in the standards of living over the last 250. The difference of productivity growth of 3% per year vs 1% per year compounded is a huge reduction in expectations, and has a real impact as you can see in the GDP per capita numbers.

[stylized_fact]

I'm not sure I understand this point, productivity gains are always above 0%.

 

Is an argument against the economic benefits of the printing press also an argument against the economic benefits of a literate society and intellectual discourse?

 

The point is that the title of this thread is "There's been no REAL innovation for the last 30 years", not that there hasn't been a rise in the standards of living over the last 250. The difference of productivity growth of 3% per year vs 1% per year compounded is a huge reduction in expectations, and has a real impact as you can see in the GDP per capita numbers.

 

The cliche you'll hear in media discussions of this topic is, "Would you rather have running water or an iPhone?".

 

http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight63.pdf

[yp]

moon landing: 1969

the first flight: 1903

the creation of the internal combustion engine: early to mid 19th century.

the development of the first electronic computers: 1946 (ENIAC)  with the first microprosesors not arriving until the early 1970s.

 

It doesn't seem like major completely new innovations happened all that frequently in the past either.  The thing is none of the above happened out of the blue.  The internal combustion engine was built up from innovations starting as far back as the Romans in the 3rd century using crankshafts and connecting rods in saw mills.  (Hierapolis_sawmill)

 

The digital computer was built on mathmatics done in previous centuries. And the hardware itself is simply built upon the same principles of mechanical computing machines, which have been envisioned as far back as Liebniz.  Vacuum tubes (and later transistors) serve as the valves in the machine.

 

Nothing ever springs forth from nowhere. Technology builds upon itself in small steps (and sometimes leaps or bounds), but always built upon what comes before.  Sometimes a purely theoretical idea can sit around for centuries before we are ready to put it to practical use.  Right now we are in the process of connecting everyone and everything together.  This will lead to things we can't yet imagine when the process is finished.

 

Thiel is a smart guy, but that is an asinine statement if I ever heard one.

 

Great comment and actually, I see what you mean.

This is true, that almost all tech (past and present) is based on some other technology or scientific findings preceding it.

 

Some of the posts in this thread have basically changed my mind haha.

 

P.s. that quote wasn't from Thiel, it was from Kasparov... Just felt the need to defend the genius that is Peter Thiel :)

[kevin4u2]

Thiel is smart guy and he's rich, but he is a wise guy as opposed to being wise man and he loves to throw out these bomblets.

 

 

Thiel funds some very forward looking people, like the SENS Research Foundation (the only charity I donate to). I think he's just trying to bring some attention to the real problem of not enough smart people going into more productive fields, and encourage people to get off their butts and help move us forward, which is not a bad thing -- all this innovation doesn't just happen by itself. But it still doesn't make the general claim that there's been no innovation in decades true.

 

Munger is also in the camp that hates seeing smart people getting into stupid fields like financial engineering.

 

I'd like to see innovations that bring about paradigm shifts like

 

- People work for 2 to 3 hours per day versus 8-10+

- Work for 20 years versus 40+

- Live completely healthy lives to 100+ by addressing adult health issues, (much of longevity increase in the last 100 years has been the result of the largescale elimination of childhood diseases)

 

Basically to achieve your paradigm shift we need to increase GDP by 5x and keep consuming at the same rate.  Sorry man but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

One could only work 1.5 days per week if they so choose, but your standard of living would be equivalent to those of the 1940's in terms of consumption.

 

Secondly, work seems to be a burden not a joy to you.  That is another paradigm that perhaps needs to be address.  Productive work, overcoming adversity and the building of character go hand in hand (no matter what economic level you are at).  Sitting around sounds like a burden to me.  Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy leisure but I have too much curiosity and I have so much I want to learn. 

[Liberty]

The cliche you'll hear in media discussions of this topic is, "Would you rather have running water or an iPhone?".

 

You could also ask: "What's harder to invent, running water or an iPhone?"

 

It wouldn't really tell us more, though.

 

Of course we start with the most basic and important things to keep us alive, and then when those needs are met we can move on to less vital things for survival. These basics will always be more important than everything else for survival. But are they more impressive inventions?

 

If we're waiting for more of those before calling them real innovation, then I suppose that curing the diseases of aging will be the next thing (ie. when people's mortality per year isn't higher at any age than for young adults).

[John Hjorth]

Innovation is the development of new values through solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulate needs, or old customer and market needs in value adding new ways.

 

This is accomplished through more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

 

Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

 

Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better.

 

As per this definition, there has been a lot of innovation within the last 30 years. Many good examples are already posted above.

[PlanMaestro]

It wouldn't really tell us more, though.

 

Really? Impact doesn't matter?

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

[PlanMaestro]

BTW, these 31 charts are great.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/these-31-charts-will-destroy-your-faith-in-humanity/

[rkbabang]

Science and technology don't only exist to grow the economy, though. The James Webb space telescope* won't have the effect of containers on GDP, but it might help us better understand the universe.

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

 

No argument there, knowledge and technology can be beautiful and so can be art.

 

But technology can also have bad effects. For example, the invention of the printing press had no economic impact at all, and instead was a trigger of religious wars.

 

Yes we should never have allowed the serfs to read the Bible, the church should have retained all of its power and we'd still be living peaceably in the dark ages.  Wow.

 

The internet is going to cause more war, death and destruction than the printing press did as people eventually realize that government itself is no more necessary than religion was (this will take centuries, just as it has taken centuries for religion to fall, a still on-going process in itself), but it is a necessary step in the evolution of our society, just as the printing press was.  Just because it subjects us to the death throes of a dieing beast losing its grip on its power, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good thing.  The beast was the problem to begin with, not the process of ridding society of its control.

 

 

 

[PlanMaestro]

 

Yes we should never have allowed the serfs to read the Bible, the church should have retained all of its power and we'd still be living peaceably in the dark ages.  Wow.

 

The internet is going to cause more war, death and destruction than the printing press did as people eventually realize that government itself is no more necessary than religion was (this will take centuries, just as it has taken centuries for religion to fall, a still on-going process in itself), but it is a necessary step in the evolution of our society, just as the printing press was.  Just because it subjects us to the death throes of a dieing beast losing its grip on its power, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good thing.  The beast was the problem to begin with, not the process of ridding society of its control.

 

LoL, I love the smell of straw in the morning from a confessed anarchist.

[turar]

lol.  Yeah, no paradigm shifts, just lots and lots of rapid iterative improvement.  Although it's a little mind blowing to think about what a paradigm shift would be like in this day of age.  Infinite energy sources?  Speed of light travel?  Dunno... All seems pretty sci-fi to me...

 

Hrm... After doing a bit of research on wikipedia, it looks like even Semmelweis, the precursor to Pasteur, was even "standing on the shoulders of giants".  Maybe all "innovation" is just iterative improvement?

 

Not necessarily paradigm shifts, but pretty significant leaps. It's obviously true that all innovation is based on previous work, but the nature of the leap from A to B was what I meant I guess. People keep mentioning things like Internet, mobile phone, or wireless, but those were all created more than 30 years ago. Even in software, most major innovations paradoxically happened more than 30 years ago, even though this may sound ridiculous to a layperson. First flight was 1903, first man in space was in 1961, 58 years later. It just seems like a LOT has happened in terms of technological progress in that half of 20th century of time, compared to the later part.

 

And to the discussion regarding free time, an interesting article to read: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2962/

 

[jeffmori7]

Maybe that we will have to look back in 30 years to see what were the main innovations nowadays? Not easy to see all that is happening, I think it is better to look in retrospect.

[Guest longinvestor]

Thiel is smart guy and he's rich, but he is a wise guy as opposed to being wise man and he loves to throw out these bomblets.

 

 

Thiel funds some very forward looking people, like the SENS Research Foundation (the only charity I donate to). I think he's just trying to bring some attention to the real problem of not enough smart people going into more productive fields, and encourage people to get off their butts and help move us forward, which is not a bad thing -- all this innovation doesn't just happen by itself. But it still doesn't make the general claim that there's been no innovation in decades true.

 

Munger is also in the camp that hates seeing smart people getting into stupid fields like financial engineering.

 

I'd like to see innovations that bring about paradigm shifts like

 

- People work for 2 to 3 hours per day versus 8-10+

- Work for 20 years versus 40+

- Live completely healthy lives to 100+ by addressing adult health issues, (much of longevity increase in the last 100 years has been the result of the largescale elimination of childhood diseases)

 

Basically to achieve your paradigm shift we need to increase GDP by 5x and keep consuming at the same rate.  Sorry man but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

One could only work 1.5 days per week if they so choose, but your standard of living would be equivalent to those of the 1940's in terms of consumption.

 

Secondly, work seems to be a burden not a joy to you.  That is another paradigm that perhaps needs to be address.  Productive work, overcoming adversity and the building of character go hand in hand (no matter what economic level you are at).  Sitting around sounds like a burden to me.  Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy leisure but I have too much curiosity and I have so much I want to learn.

 

Nowhere in my post did I indicate that working fewer hours or years in life was my personal preference. You conclusion that the freed up time would end up being sitting around time may be just in your approach, so speak for yourself. There is plenty of work to be done to increase time with your own children, wholesome recreational activity or caring for the needy that would more than easily fill up my hours. I may not be as smart or curious as you but doing just fine, thanks!

 

To me, the outcome of true innovation bring about a change in the human condition. Like the eradication of diphtheria or small pox as an example brought real increase in life expectancy from under 50 to over 70 during the 20th century. Similarly farming and distribution innovation increased the agricultural output by orders of magnitude and that has made it less sweaty;

 

Unless consumption of essentials dramatically rises to meet the benefits of global turbo-productivity (with China, India, Russia joining the fray), a reasonable and humanly equitable solution would be for folks everywhere to "work" less for producing goods and services.

 

True innovation is more than "cool", I am in the camp that believes that sometime in the future, when we look back at all the capital that went into the information age, much of it would have been pi$$ed away. The dot com bust was just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, there have been benefits but IMO, not commensurate with the capital spent.

[mvalue]

Success in one area leading to a propensity for grand wise man prognosticating... shoe-button complex! Peter Thiel isn't right, and neither is Ray Kurzweil.

[rkbabang]

Success in one area leading to a propensity for grand wise man prognosticating... shoe-button complex! Peter Thiel isn't right, and neither is Ray Kurzweil.

 

I disagree, they are probably both right, but they just have their time scales all wrong.  Peter Thiel is more correct the shorter the timescale you look at (for instance, nothing life changing has happened this week as far as I know), he's just wrong saying that it has been 30 years. Where Kurzweil probably will be right eventually, he just may be off by a hundred years or three.

 

[rkbabang]

LoL, I love the smell of straw in the morning from a confessed anarchist.

 

I introduced no straw into the argument.  What you said was ridiculous and indefensible.  Which is why your only defense was an ad hominem.

Yes the printing press caused wars, but it didn't just cause wars.  And saying it had no effect on the economy is completely false.  Almost all of the growth in the worlds economy since its invention is directly attributable to it. Every improvement in your life over that of a medieval serf is directly attributable to it.  It is like saying "the invention of fire added nothing to the economy it just caused a lot of burns".  Asinine.

 

Also I am not a "confessed" anarchist.  You only need to confess something for which you are not proud of, like the commission or support of a crime.  With all of the murder (hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone) committed by governments, wars, massive theft from almost everyone on the planet (anyone with anything to steal anyway), I can see why someone would be a "confessed statist", but there is no need to confess to being apposed to the legitimization of violence on a massive scale. You smell logical fallacies where there are none, yet are quite proficient in their application.

 

[Liberty]

It wouldn't really tell us more, though.

 

Really? Impact doesn't matter?

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

 

I just said that of course running water is more important than an iphone because it fulfils a more basic human need. And of course you won't often get inventions that meet basic human needs because there aren't that many of them, so once they are met, everything else can seem comparatively superfluous. It doesn't tell us much because it's an obvious statement (just like the obvious statement that it's much harder to invent the iPhone than running water -- also doesn't tell us much). Other questions are more probing, IMO. Not sure what you thought I meant.

[mhdousa]

This sounds like real innovation to me:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3008346/deep-inside-taco-bells-doritos-locos-taco