I don't really get this whole elon thing. As an engineer, it's pretty obvious he doesn't do any of the stuff his companies do. The engineers do it. This all seems like twitter drama.
Anyway, are you arguing: "The overcelebration of managers in tech limit innovation"? I could buy that, but you need a lot a proof since (naively) I'd expect any celebration of any individuals to be beneficial. Musk is an important case study in this argument, but is otherwise fairly uninteresting (to me). Does he suck up and missalocate capital, in way that would be intolerable if he wasn't so famous? I dont know. I guess Im looking forward to the next article.
I'm skeptical, though, because there are serious structural impediments to innovation in the private sector that may dominate. Innovation is risky and it's only worth pursuing if existing products are fully optimized/are going obscelete. An executive at AFRL told me that big aerospace companies stopped R&D on years when the R&D tax credit expired (I have not verified this fully). Moreover, Bell Telphone had natural monopoly protection and thus did basic research to keep Washington happy. They actually innovated themselves out of business.
Perhaps the private sector only does high risk developement with exogenous pressure, so a "gritty idiot" is like Musk is essential? Again, idk.
Glad you're looking forward to the next article! I think the combination of the lone inventor myth with the self-made man myth generates a phenomenon, especially in VC (although we don't touch on that yet) where capital is allocated based on charismatic leadership rather than whether innovations solve people's problems. I think it offers a (partial) explanation as to why "tech bros" do things like re-invent vending machines and such. Musk isn't necessarily a better example of this than any other similar person. The advantage of presenting the argument vis-a-vis Musk is that most people are already familiar with him, so are ready to follow the argument without needing a lot of background or context.
I appreciate the skepticism though. Things like market stability, tax incentives, competition, etc. certainly play a role in R&D investment decisions. Mostly I think economists have covered that sort of thing, but they also don't paint a complete picture either.
Thanks!. I guess I'm too cynical in that I don't expect any innovation from the private sector at all. Innovation isn't the norm, so when industry does dumb shit we need not look for some pathology causing a deviation from an ideal (like musk)
It's actually the opposite, when big innovation comes from private sector we must look for what caused it (tax incentives, political pressure, "skunkworks" projects shielded from external pressure, etc)
I don't really get this whole elon thing. As an engineer, it's pretty obvious he doesn't do any of the stuff his companies do. The engineers do it. This all seems like twitter drama.
Anyway, are you arguing: "The overcelebration of managers in tech limit innovation"? I could buy that, but you need a lot a proof since (naively) I'd expect any celebration of any individuals to be beneficial. Musk is an important case study in this argument, but is otherwise fairly uninteresting (to me). Does he suck up and missalocate capital, in way that would be intolerable if he wasn't so famous? I dont know. I guess Im looking forward to the next article.
I'm skeptical, though, because there are serious structural impediments to innovation in the private sector that may dominate. Innovation is risky and it's only worth pursuing if existing products are fully optimized/are going obscelete. An executive at AFRL told me that big aerospace companies stopped R&D on years when the R&D tax credit expired (I have not verified this fully). Moreover, Bell Telphone had natural monopoly protection and thus did basic research to keep Washington happy. They actually innovated themselves out of business.
Perhaps the private sector only does high risk developement with exogenous pressure, so a "gritty idiot" is like Musk is essential? Again, idk.
Glad you're looking forward to the next article! I think the combination of the lone inventor myth with the self-made man myth generates a phenomenon, especially in VC (although we don't touch on that yet) where capital is allocated based on charismatic leadership rather than whether innovations solve people's problems. I think it offers a (partial) explanation as to why "tech bros" do things like re-invent vending machines and such. Musk isn't necessarily a better example of this than any other similar person. The advantage of presenting the argument vis-a-vis Musk is that most people are already familiar with him, so are ready to follow the argument without needing a lot of background or context.
I appreciate the skepticism though. Things like market stability, tax incentives, competition, etc. certainly play a role in R&D investment decisions. Mostly I think economists have covered that sort of thing, but they also don't paint a complete picture either.
Thanks!. I guess I'm too cynical in that I don't expect any innovation from the private sector at all. Innovation isn't the norm, so when industry does dumb shit we need not look for some pathology causing a deviation from an ideal (like musk)
It's actually the opposite, when big innovation comes from private sector we must look for what caused it (tax incentives, political pressure, "skunkworks" projects shielded from external pressure, etc)