dagblog - Comments for "David Brooks eulogizes the bygone Culture Clash. "

I've been trying to recall a

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:31:13 +0000

In reply to Welcome; just ran across it

I've been trying to recall a reference to a book on "lateral society", the idea being a general restructuring.

What just occured to me is that if society is changing to a "horizontal" structure emphasizing new forms of communication, grass roots innovation and community organization outside what we are used to, a vertical, authoritarian structure--that the sense of this is what is scaring people. It's not socialism per se, but a new form of freedom that threatens people. Change, and especially freedom, is a frightening prospect.

Welcome; just ran across it

artappraiser — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:48:53 +0000

In reply to Thank you so much Artsy. Who

Welcome; just ran across it and it reminded me of this thread. We shall soon see if the Nobel committee really does want to promote this "school." That would kind of interestingly sync with all the "mourning Steve Jobs" mania of both the Brooks and non-Brooks kind.

Thank you so much Artsy. Who

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 01:38:16 +0000

In reply to Nobel Prize For Economics

Thank you so much Artsy. Who would have thought that better rules within societies on how people work together would have any effect upon innovation.Why, it smacks of socialism. Innovation is simply exclusive circles of specific corporate executives exploiting markets. Well,we won't burden a free trader, 19th century industrialist like Mr. Brooks with anything which is outside his comfort zone of economic stagnation.

Thanks again.

Nobel Prize For Economics

artappraiser — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:32:13 +0000

In reply to David Brooks eulogizes the bygone Culture Clash.

Nobel Prize For Economics Will Likely Go To Growth Theorists, Experts Say
By Malin Rising, Huffington Post, Oct. 9, 2011

STOCKHOLM — Researchers who study economic growth and how technology helps drive long-term development are among the top contenders for the Nobel prize for economics being awarded Monday, Swedish Nobel guessers say.

A day before the announcement of the prestigious....award, Americans Robert Barro and Paul Romer stand out as favorites for the prize for their research on growth, leading experts say.

The Nobel Committee maintains it doesn't pay attention to current events when picking a winner, but an award to growth theory would be closely watched as the world debates how to revive the economy in the face of large public spending cuts.

[.....]

"His research is focused on powers within technology and development that drive growth, that had previously been overlooked," Waldenstrom told The Associated Press. "He has showed that it is actually significant for long-term growth and has changed our view of what drives growth."

Romer has constructed mathematical models showing how technological advances are the result of specific decisions to invest in research and development. Later, he advanced his ideas, concluding that to make real progress, societies must also keep implementing better rules that structure how people work together.

He could share the prize with growth theory pioneer Barro, a professor of economics at Harvard University, who has specifically looked at the links between innovation, public investment and growth.....

[....]

I think the point about small

Oxy Mora — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:18:30 +0000

In reply to email posts allow events like

I think the point about small production companies is very much to the point. At no time before could companies like these get started with so little capital.

Very well put, VA. I

Oxy Mora — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:16:20 +0000

In reply to ^This. Also, I find it

Very well put, VA. I especially like (b), it's not in my field.

Thanks, Peracles, some

Oxy Mora — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:14:32 +0000

In reply to This graph shows huge crop

Thanks, Peracles, some excellent and relevant points.

^This. Also, I find it

Verified Atheist — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:32:57 +0000

In reply to This graph shows huge crop

^This.

Also, I find it hilarious that while some are complaining about robots not just taking manual jobs but also being poised to take white-collar jobs others are complaining about a lack of innovation. I can hear the justification now: oh, but that's not really innovation because (a)"I don't understand it"/(b)"It's not in my pet field"/(c)"It's not something I approve of"/(d)"It's only incremental improvements (see also (a))".

This graph shows huge crop

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:42:00 +0000

In reply to David Brooks eulogizes the bygone Culture Clash.

This graph shows huge crop yield improvements since 1960:

The modern PC world is only 30 years old, and is hitting a completely new era with flash hard drives and optical/nano chips and cloud computing infrastructure in the next 3 years.

Computer-assisted drug tech is just hitting stride, such as a major breakthrough in finding the genetic origin of ALS. Genome mapping was only finalized in the last decade.

We're in the middle of a major shift from internal combustion to electric vehicles.

US manufacturing output is about the same as China's with 1/9th the workers:

http://www.productgss.com/2011/03/china-manufacturing-edges-out-u-s-in-manufacturing-but-is-no-match-for-u-s-productivity/

http://www.productgss.com/2009/02/made-in-the-usa-isnt-dead-just-different/

There are major advances in alternate energy, as well as decreases in energy consumption.

There are major efforts on environmental cleanup. Maglev & other transportation technologies.

Possibly the only good to come out of our wars is a major advance in medical technology, such as artificial limbs.

It's also useful to understand that compared to the 1800's, the 1900's discoveries were pretty name - nothing life-changing like electricity, refrigeration, automobiles & the internal combustion engine, air flight (ok, 1903, but pretty much there), vaccines and bacteriology, genetics & evolution (plus Lamarckism which we'll see more of a revival over the next decade), the Curies' work on radiation. Even Einstein's theory of Relativity was published in 1905.

What Brooks undoubtedly misses is that it's more of an age for cooperative work than individual heroes. Project Management is picking up as a way of guaranteeing results. Social media and internet collaboration from open source to teleconferencing to telecommuting tie into a connected way of working. Teamwork becomes more important than pure "leadership" - companies can't risk depending on a single hero.

The amount of information processed by kids today might be 100 times what they got in the 1960's in terms of vivid cultural information, access to language, display of scientific principles, access to on-line dictionaries & encyclopedias, even translation services.

What's also missed is what innovation is. It's hard to say that Steve Jobs invented anything. I had the same idea for iTunes as he did as early as 1994, and I certainly was no genius or unique. But iTunes succeeded through organization, not innovation - a successful business model, key agreements with industry professionals plus harnessing the right delivery mechanisms.

One of Steve Jobs' key advantages is Supply Chain Management, an aspect few people think about. Besides being a bastard about sourcing at extremely low prices, he was also a genius at keeping parts & total units delivered on time, as well as cornering the market on key components to give his competitors headaches.

The Mac came from Xerox, and while Apple probably had innovations, the main bit was design and a business case - Xerox was too stodgy to productize its research, but Jobs & Woz paid to get in the door and walked out with all the ideas they needed.

Pixar was a technial innovation by George Lucas - Jobs turned it into a business success, with key Disney deals.

If anything, Jobs was better at killing technology and dumbing down devices if he didn't see an immediate purpose. The iPad was released to ridicule at how much it was missing.

As interesting as "innovation" is, something like distribution is likely much more important. Nokia phones weren't so innovative - they were just great at getting solid phones everywhere in the world. Wal-Mart grew to a behemoth based on innovative distribution technology. Ikea's advantage is distribution and design for DIY construction. Amazon's distribution network is every bit as important as its on-line access, and that network has turned into a successful cloud computing business as well, with data centers the size of multiple football fields.

Even with agricultural productivity, the bigger issue is distribution - famines only occur due to wars and natural catastrophes like earthquakes now - even something like flowers can be sourced from South Africa and distributed around Europe. And I doubt someone like David Brooks has taste for anything as mundane as distribution.

A while ago a well known economist studied the question of how it was possible to walk out of his office in Manhattan and get a sandwich with fresh tomato and lettuce - what were all the processes that went into making this tiny miracle?

Forget all the innovation doomsdayers. It was just 22 years ago that we still had the Cold War with us, staring down Russia and the antagonistic China, concerned about imminent overpopulation.

Now we have a friendly China with no population growth that's rounded the bend in feeding its population, and handling the migration from rural to urban, and starting on the trip to managing the environment.

We have a defanged Russia, with no new military menace (other than ourselves).

We have major innovations in computing, dispersed communications, production and cooperation to drive new growth.

The main thing working against us is an idiotic, vampire banking system that's sucked much of the innovation out of the system. And that's something Brooks seems to support.

email posts allow events like

rmrd0000 — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:13:04 +0000

In reply to David Brooks eulogizes the bygone Culture Clash.

email posts allow events like the Occupy... movement to spread like wildfire. Amazon has lowered the price of it's book and video reader to $200 and libraries are offering new and classic books in ebook fashion. As the technology advances, space requirements for libraries will decrease allowing funds to obtain access to more electronic books. People have access to information more rapidly then they ever have in the past. The innovation has one unnoticed by Brooks.

For lack of anything better to do, I watched Bill Mahrer's show last night. It was shameful how stupid PJ O'Rourke, a supposed bright star of Libertarianism, appeared when pitted against Alan Grayson. O'Rourke had witty comments, Grayson countered with facts. In the past those who spread falsehoods had a time advantage because it took a relatively long time to counter falsehoods. The innovation that Brooks has missed is the rapidity with which any citizen can access data to refute false claims.

Newspapers, magazines, movies, and television have all had to try to innovate to keep up. Small production companies can post webisodes. which if popular enough. can pay production costs and make a profit. The world is innovating. Brooks is stuck in an old medium.