A snippet that happens to dovetail with my own views and therefore will be quoted uncritically.
Tyler also gets it wrong by suggesting we raise the status of scientists. It is engineers and business innovators more generally, whose status needs a boost. Scientists already claim too much credit for social innovation – they have little to do with most of it. Tyler also doesn’t mention over-regulation, a huge barrier to innovation.
This point cannot be made loudly or frequently enough. It might be that we prefer our modern world of rounded corners and calls to the EMS for routine chest pains.
But, understand why we don’t have the world Popular Science promised us. We don’t have it because its illegal.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Aaron W
I don’t know if engineers are held in such low regard compared to scientists. It’s actually about the same.
Also, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs aren’t necessarily discreet groups that never overlap. I know many academic scientists who’ve gone on to found their own companies, or engineers who end up doing what would probably be better considered scientific research. Consider this for example.
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
BSE
“Tyler also gets it wrong by suggesting we raise the status of scientists”
I disagree. From both sides: science doesn’t get enough respect and innovators get entirely too much. Sure, innovation is a wonderful thing, but innovators are generally well compensated for what they do. To the extent that we allow for or encourage innovation, innovators will come forward and do their job without any additional societal encouragement.
In other words, we can leave it up to the market and to heck with all the economic moralizing people engage in when they praise businessmen and innovators.
On the other hand, it’s difficult for the market to adequately compensate scientists for the value they produce, the benefits of which can be enormous but uncertain and likely lying far in the future. The market will never adequately provide for enough science on its own and should be encouraged through every means available.
“But, understand why we don’t have the world Popular Science promised us. We don’t have it because its illegal.”
This is just wrong. Most of those things in popular science we didn’t get, we didn’t get because they were not economical/impractical, while other ideas turned out too difficult (like fusion energy). Not that it never happened that some regulatory barrier was an issue. Give me 5 minutes and I’ll think up an example of a patent being used to chock off innovation. Rather, this sort of thing is small potatoes compared to the other.
I will also point out that regulation can, under the right circumstances, help innovation. Like patents! The bigger issue with regulation is that it encourages a destructive kind of innovation: finding ways around a regulation!
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
engineer27
Well, I’m with you and Robin when it comes to raising the status of engineers
But knowing the way most people drive, it may be a good thing we don’t have flying cars. And Americans in general are suspicious of collision-avoidance systems — not because they might fail, but just because they don’t want their cars telling them they aren’t allowed to drive where they want, even if it is into a wall.
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Wonks Anonymous
People fly in airplanes, but there is a kind of ideological opposition to mass-transportation otherwise. Yglesias has been having fun at George Will’s expense on that. Some people are fans of rail, but the only bus-booster I can think of off the top of my head is Randal O’Toole. Christian Lander had a bit about the uncoolness of busses relative to other forms of public transport in his book, but I haven’t actually read it.
Nick Rowe is one of those who insists on being in control of a car:
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/03/cars-control-and-welfare-economics.html
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
RickRussellTX
> But knowing the way most people drive, it may be a good thing we don’t have flying cars.
That’s a little too easy to say when you don’t have them. What if the somewhat onerous restrictions on small aircraft were more relaxed? Sure, some early adopters would die from low skill. But, people die in cars now. The fact that the market was now OPEN would prompt more investment, more innovation, more safety research, etc.
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
RickRussellTX
This post typifies everything I like about this blog. There are way too many people out there, I count Krugman among them, who believe government intervention can rarely do wrong.
Then there are a lot of conservative/Austrian school economists that believe government intervention can rarely do right.
What distinguishes the writers here is that they understand government intervention will *almost always do something*. Bad results are not ignored, good results are not ignored. Effects must be reckoned against their causes regardless of whether the outcome is desired.
Wednesday ~ March 30th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
JazzBumpa
If you actually look at that thing on the Pop Sci cover, you’ll observe that it is close to impossible to see where the hell you are going. The driver has his head in a place that his chiropractor would not encourage. This is the kind of inventiveness you can use to randomly kill whoever happens to be walking across the meadow.
I could hardly be in more stark disagreement with Rick Russell or this fatuous article. The misrepresentation of Krugman, in particular, is little short of deranged.
Let’s ook at non-residential investment/GDP over the last decade.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/more-on-unemployment-and-investment/
Arrgggh – the dreaded Krugman! But set that aside. There hasn’t exactly been a boom in stifling regulations over the past decade, but investment tanked. I blame resource misallocation.
Tyler also doesn’t mention over-regulation, a huge barrier to innovation.
Got any data to back up that barrier claim? Otherwise, it’s just an opinion.
You might also give some consideration to how much innovation is actually government funded.
Cheers!
JzB
Friday ~ April 1st, 2011 at 5:08 am
Niklas Blanchard
You are correct that the fantastical representation of the monocycle in this old Popular Science magazine is highly impractical…but there is a monocycle that has local jurisdiction (even registration and a “collectors” license plate), that could never be replicated because it is simply illegal everywhere else.
Is it more dangerous than a simple motorbike? Yes. Is the guy not wearing “proper safety gear”? Yes. I would imagine that would send your head spinning. I tool around on a GoPed-type scooter in the summer (to and from work). It is capable of travelling at 45mph (while getting 100mpg), but more importantly; can navigate town roads as capably as a car. It is illegal in both bike lanes and on the street.
Not in most of Europe though (no link), where the Evo2 scooter is manufactured (Italy).
For a crude measure, there is an average of 29,000 patents granted every year. I haven’t done the work, but in a 10 year span, do you think that 290,000 patents make it into working technology? Obviously not. Now I know a lot of patents are basically useless. But even assuming 80% uselessness, would you say that 58,000 patents make it through regulatory scrutiny over a 10 year period to be used in new products?
I’m not sure how you could be in exasperated disagreement with Russell’s posts? Click the link, and then read about the regulatory barriers to “flying cars” (which is a link at Robin Hanson’s blog).
Also, I think you missed the point on his mention of Krugman.
“Got any data to back up that barrier claim? Otherwise, it’s just an opinion.”
Dunno if you favor density (although I assume you do). The largest barriers to dense development (or innovations in living closer to more people) are, in fact, regulatory. Otherwise simple logic would tell us that suppliers would build the tallest buildings possible…and indeed, they do. “Possible” is nearly always a regulatory boundary.
Friday ~ April 1st, 2011 at 11:14 am
JazzBumpa
Interesting. This guy (if he is still alive 5 years later) is about 10 miles from me, and I’ve never heard of him. But in terms of meaningful innovation, don’t you think this example is pretty trivial?
I have absolutely no knowledge of how regulatory scrutiny affects the path from patent to product, so I can’t comment on that issue. From my one excursion into studying patents, I would guess that your 80% uselessness estimate is quite low.
You’ve completely lost me with your last paragraph. I suspect there is some density value at which the quality of life dramatically decreases for everyone. (Like a Laffer curve, I suppose.) Short of that point, as density increases, so does the need for regulation. (And sewage treatment.) You can swing your arms as much as you like in an open field, but not in a crowded elevator. You can raise chickens on your farm, but not in your 6th story walk-up. I hope you agree with the sense of that.
As for the tallest buildings – that is one possibility among many. I see no reason why logic would drive you there.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ March 31st, 2011 at 2:11 am
RickRussellTX
Here’s an exercise for you. Read this article and see how many of these “10 Ways to Make $500″ would be illegal in most US localities.
> There hasn’t exactly been a boom in stifling regulations over the past decade
Some more light reading for you: THE COST OF BEING PUBLIC IN THE ERA OF SARBANES-OXLEY.
Thursday ~ March 31st, 2011 at 2:12 am
RickRussellTX
Sorry, link failure. 10 Ways to Make $500
Thursday ~ March 31st, 2011 at 8:28 pm
JazzBumpa
1) Handiman – legal. I’ve used them
2) Crafts – legal. My sister does this.
3) Photographer – legal
4) Research/polling -Legal – I just got a polling call last night.
5) Self appointed Resale agent – legal
6) Sell services – legal
7) Typing service – legal – my wife did this for several years.
8) Phone solicitation – dicey with the no call list, so let’s say no.
9) Pet breeding – probably not in the city.
10) Delivery and/or chauffeur – will require a license, but legal
So, about 81/2 out of 10. What is your point?
SOX is what people always come up with. Isn’t there anything else? SOX is necessary because accounting rules were routinely honored in the breech. Remember Enron? Tyco? Adelphia? WorldCom? Peregrin? How can a market function with cooked information? Business brought this on itself with unacceptable behavior.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ March 31st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
JazzBumpa
Somehow, I lost the line break on point 8, which turned into a smiley face. Weird.
JzB
Thursday ~ March 31st, 2011 at 11:52 pm
RickRussellTX
I mean legal as in completely legal for the average American living in the average place. Pardon me if I fail to get some links correct here, as I’m citing numerous different articles.
Running a business out of the home is illegal in virtually every city and suburb. By the letter of the law — and practically, if anybody makes a complaint.
Selling homemade baked goods? No, not without a commercial kitchen license and external vendor permit. Maybe your craft is flower arranging — in Louisiana, you’re not aloud to arrange flowers for money without a florist’s license.
Typing letters for others? Watch out, you may end up in jail. Maybe you’re good with computers. you could charge a little to help folks remove viruses? Better not do that in Texas, where computer repair requires a Private Investigator’s license.
Maybe you could use an eye for color and charge a nominal fee to help people furnish their houses? Not in several states, where practicing Interior Design or calling yourself an Interior Designer requires a license.
The list goes on, and on, and on. Professional licensing, overbearing land use rules, etc. If your response is, “well, there’s nothing wrong with licensing and permits”, I would counter that those are exactly the kind of “stifling regulations” that you claim have not come about.
Resource misallocation? Absolutely. The resources are misallocated in favor of incumbent interests, at the costs of consumers and new entrants.
Friday ~ April 1st, 2011 at 10:58 am
JazzBumpa
I’m not going not get into an argument about licensing and regulation. It’s a complex issue with lots of pluses and minuses. We could cite good and bad examples, and beneficial and not-so-beneficial effects for the rest of the decade. But you have moved the goal posts. “Illegal” and “regulated” are entirely different things.
And once a license is acquired, what is there to hold your creativity in check?
Your point about favoring incumbents is valid. But for the most part, regulation costs are inconvenient rather than prohibitive.
Cheers!
JzB