« On press freedom | Main | Conceptions of politics »

September 11, 2020

Comments

aragon

Sorry I had not seen the Telegraph story!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/09/11/cummings-plan-create-uk-trillionaire-tech-giant-admirable/

If anyone else missed it. Was it in the OP?

Of course Hugo and a_dude are right, I don't see a solution from Cummings. (The EU has the same strategy of building local champions).

Ever since Blue Streak the British State and industry, have been selling out to the Americans, the Big Bang etc.

And the state supported innovation has proved to be a successful strategy for other countries, (see above) while the UK pursues short-term (FIRE - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) returns.

As for Boris (moonshot) Johnson, the moonshot is a vaccine not Test and Trace which is an outsourced clusterf*ck.

Perhaps the solution is to go open source, like the openRAN, and RISC-V. British industry is hollowed out by outsourcing, so we could start with import substitution/self-sufficiency.

Innovation happens when difficult problems as solved and customer needs are met (this also requires changes to the uneven wealth distribution). With open source anyone can join the game. Intellectual property just protects the incumbents.

A better mouse trap is the route to profit and innovation is driven by competition (not IP rights).

Fund the Universities as a public good (education) and centres of research.

Softbank played at Silicon Valley, with a vast cash pile and failed We work, Uber etc).

A blind man could have see the potential of Deepmind and ARM (is by good fortune) an established company. No picking winners required, just patient capital and not selling out to the US (Golden share in return for Capital).

Education alone is not sufficient, but also investment in research, including basic research, and no outsourcing.


Weiko

Mirowski has a very interesting and new take on markets. http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/PDF/int/Mirowski.pdf
- Markets Come to Bits:
Evolution, Computation and Markomata in Economic Science and lecture - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfbVPDNl7V4

aragon

Sorry I had not seen the article in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/09/11/cummings-plan-create-uk-trillionaire-tech-giant-admirable/

The analysis is OK but where are the solutions?

The British state has been selling out to the Americans since Blue Streak. Who was the third nuclear power.

Blue Streak too expensive for the Britain, TSR2 ditto, now we d9n't even try, we can buy what we need from others...But world trade is a zero sum game. (e.g Thatcher teminates the APT, now we buy Pendalinos from the italians).

The EU has the same policy oflocal champions hence Galileo and now the UK revives One Web.

Capitalism is just how the rich capture the spoils, FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) performs this function for the UK elite.

Hugo points out the City is too short term and performs no useful function for the real economy - just state aid for the super rich.

The examples of Japan, Taiwan, China, and South Korea the Chaebols were not an accident)

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/republic-samsung

And yes, even the US military industrial complex including DARPA and the NASA moonshot, just disproves the foundation for intellectual property and the lone researcher (or even Capitalism).

Is it finally time for change at the chaebol?

"because of concern over cronyism and cross-ownership. Ordinary South Koreans are also increasingly questioning the consolidation of wealth among a handful of families and the stifling effect they’ve had on small businesses and startups."

The danger of capture and corruption.

However the case for state funding of research (and education) is clear, since Japan ate our lunch.

The solution is to abandon intellectual property, and go open source.

Want profits? Build a better mouse trap!
Innovation is driven by competition.

The city is not too big to fail, but too expensive to keep.

Don't abandon projects at the first hurdle, or say they are too expensive to proceed, or gifting them to the Americans or Europeans.

Technology is how mankind advances, just look at the failure of African states. Cronyism and corruption are signs of decay, just like intellectual property.

Deepmind was doing novel things, the definition of innovation, it is not hard to identify.

Who had a practical use for the electron (they even got the charge wrong, the internet came from DARPA and the WWW emerged from CERN).

Let people explore the laws of physics and materials etc, and other people apply them to the needs of the public.

This is how society progresses, the needs of the many not the few elites.

p.s
I might have slipped a concept or too in there!

N. N.

The Beatles anecdote is widespread but spurious.

First, as Mark Lewisohn's research for his Beatles biography has shown, Decca did not reject the Beatles as such, but made a complicated counteroffer, acceptance of which would have seen them on Decca, but which was rejected by Brian Epstein.

Second, at almost exactly the same time Decca auditioned and signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes, another guitar group. This is said to have been because they were from Essex and thus easier to deal with than a group from Liverpool.

Third, be that as it may, the Beatles' audition tape just isn't very good. I for one would not have signed them based on that.

aragon

Are my posts disappearing sorry for any dups.

Sorry I had not seen the article in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/09/11/cummings-plan-create-uk-trillionaire-tech-giant-admirable/

The analysis is OK but where are the solutions?

The British state has been selling out to the Americans since Blue Streak. Who was the third nuclear power.

Blue Streak too expensive for the Britain, TSR2 ditto, now we d9n't even try, we can buy what we need from others...But world trade is a zero sum game. (e.g Thatcher teminates the APT, now we buy Pendalinos from the italians).

The EU has the same policy oflocal champions hence Galileo and now the UK revives One Web.

Capitalism is just how the rich capture the spoils, FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) performs this function for the UK elite.

Hugo points out the City is too short term and performs no useful function for the real economy - just state aid for the super rich.

The examples of Japan, Taiwan, China, and South Korea the Chaebols were not an accident)

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/republic-samsung

And yes, even the US military industrial complex including DARPA and the NASA moonshot, just disproves the foundation for intellectual property and the lone researcher (or even Capitalism).

Is it finally time for change at the chaebol?

"because of concern over cronyism and cross-ownership. Ordinary South Koreans are also increasingly questioning the consolidation of wealth among a handful of families and the stifling effect they’ve had on small businesses and startups."

The danger of capture and corruption.

However the case for state funding of research (and education) is clear, since Japan ate our lunch.

The solution is to abandon intellectual property, and go open source.

Want profits? Build a better mouse trap!
Innovation is driven by competition.

The city is not too big to fail, but too expensive to keep.

Don't abandon projects at the first hurdle, or say they are too expensive to proceed, or gifting them to the Americans or Europeans.

Technology is how mankind advances, just look at the failure of African states. Cronyism and corruption are signs of decay, just like intellectual property.

Deepmind was doing novel things, the definition of innovation, it is not hard to identify.

Who had a practical use for the electron (they even got the charge wrong, the internet came from DARPA and the WWW emerged from CERN).

Let people explore the laws of physics and materials etc, and other people apply them to the needs of the public.

This is how society progresses, the needs of the many not the few elites.

aragon

I can't read next page (I have lots of
ad/javascript blockers)

But my two am post did'nt make.

probably for the best... sorry

aragon


Article on stae aid and the EU

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/15/the-tyranny-of-the-eus-state-aid-rules/

TL;DR

It's about the control not the spending (as always with the EU)


Next page, just confuses those used to just scrolling down and adds nothing. Typepad is not a piece of paper.

Blissex

«And where are the successful UK finance companies?»

What matter "politically" is not whether the companies are doing well, but whether their executives and other top stakeholders are doing well, and they are doing splendidly as ever.

«Despite $$$ galore and massive government backing, the UK banks are in the toilet.»

Depends on how you look at it: they are big and have large market shares, With most finance companies, especially on the commercial side, profitability is not part of the story.

Blissex

«I am deeply worried about the UK. It could have been a force in technology. I struggle to understand how it has let so many key technical innovations be acquired by US companies cheaply at an early stage.»

That is quite a bit older than ARM, DeeMind, etc. Ther UK problem is scale (addressable market an capital markets too small) and what "Hugo Evans" and I said about investors just wanting to make the quickest profit on sure bets, instead of bets on longer term huge payoffs with small probabilities.

Also, tech largely means creating conditions for the resurgence of trade unions, and after the "who governs the UK" question the english establishment want that question to be never asked again. They much prefer low value-added dispersed low capital intensity businesses like sandwich shops to manufacturing plants etc.; those are best sited in jurisdictions where trade unions are illegal or grun by authoritarian governments.

Blissex

«It's about the control not the spending (as always with the EU)»

The article on Spiked is the usual set of ignorant misconceptions about the EU, where the technocratic EU Commissions does regular beatings of the member states who are subjugated to it.

The single good insight that the article has is that it acknowledges that state aid rules are part of the EU's *competition* rules, and that leads to the correct explanation:

* State aid is perfectly legitimate in the EU, and indeed many member countries and the EU itself with its puny budget do quite a bit of state aid.

* But is is legitimate only if it is either unilateral but non-discriminatory among members, or discriminatory but agreed by all members, that is:

** A member state can decide for example to give stare aid to car manufacturers, but then it must give it to car manufacturers *from any member state*, it cannot deny it to those from other members states to give an advantage to those in its own state. This is like for procurement.

* All member states (or a qualified majority) can however agree to give state aid to a specific state's industries, for example as part of the EU's regional ("levelling up") policy, which discriminates against rich member states in favour of poor states, by common agreement.

* So what is forbidden is state aid that is both unilateral and discriminatory, which is exactly what the english government have always wanted to do, for example to benefit UK based finance and foreign-owned assembly plants.

This is not an issue of control by a tyrannical EU Commission bullying member states, but of preventing a spiral of unilateral and discriminatory subsidies that would gave a too huge advantage to rich member states and eventually destroy the single market and the EU itself.

The EU is a *union* of equals, not a free trade area where the big players can outspend the smaller players to squash them, and decisions are taken to preserve that unity.

Blissex

The SPIKED article on state aid contains among many others this true gem about the Withdrawal Agreement:

«Such treaties are only meaningful as fair agreements between sovereign parties, and intrinsic to sovereignty is the right to amend or walk away from such agreements.»

Try to imagine a situation where international treaties were subject to *unilateral* amendment by each of the parties to the treaty. Who would bother?

England rules the waves! England Waives the rules!

Some brexiters haven't yet realized that it is the USA that rules the waves and waives the rules as they please. Churchill realized it in 1943 as he said to some time later to V Bonham-Carter:

"When I was at Teheran [in 1943] I realized for the first time what a very small country this is. On the one hand the big Russian bear with its paws outstretched -- on the other the great American elephant -- and between them the poor little British Donkey"

GrueBleen

I dunno about that Hayek bloke, you'd think that maybe somebody as emphatic about "finding out where [humanity] has been wrong" might have just spent a bit more time finding out the many times and places that he's been wrong.

georgesdelatour

@Blissex

"...tech largely means creating conditions for the resurgence of trade unions"

Is Silicon Valley heavily unionised?

My impression is, even the global giants of tech employ relatively few people, compared with traditional industries.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad