Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#41

Post by L_Rahman »

rocky1138 wrote: post #8
toomim wrote: post #2

This whole article is assuming that innovation comes from money, and specifically from the money labeled "R&D" in the budgets of nations and companies. Yet, most startups started on shoestrings. Then they got investment from VC firms. These sources of innovation don't come from NSF or Microsoft Research. And American innovation comes from far more than money. The culture of American innovation is a huge factor, which…

I totally agree that the American culture is a huge factor. It's as though this article has it backwards, that because there was money, there were risk takers. But I believe that the culture of willingness to risk is the driving force behind the money and the driving force behind much of that nation's successes. Fortune favours the bold. Secondarily, as public money from governments and money from large corporations…

Funny you mention Oculus as an example of non-funding driven innovation:

> In 2011, Luckey got a dream job working as a technician at the Mixed Reality Lab (MxR) at the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). There, he had a chance to cross deep into VR territory. On Sept. 25, he posted the following on MTBS3D. [These excerpts are condensed and lightly edited.]

He described the experience in a 1500-word narrative titled "Truly immersive (AKA "Holy crap this is real") VR simulation."

via: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a12956/pa...

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#42

Post by mtdewcmu »

hugh4 wrote: post #17
WalterBright wrote: post #11

> Corporate executives, their compensation tied overwhelmingly to short-term gains in the market value of their companies, may be responding accordingly. I hear this all the time, and it's absurd. The high P/Es of innumerable companies (like Amazon) are compelling evidence that investors are well aware of the long game companies play and they approve of it. The charge that companies are eating their seed corn to sati…

>I hear this all the time, and it's absurd. The high P/Es of innumerable companies (like Amazon) are compelling evidence that investors are well aware of the long game companies play and they approve of it. The sorts of people who invest in Amazon are, anyway. Still, it's true. Growth companies think long term. But the moment a company (or other organisation) gets into trouble it starts thinking short term. When you'…

>> But really, the reason that companies don't invest in pure science is not that the value is too far in the future but that the value is too diffuse to capture.

I think so. A lot of the research at Xerox PARC and Bell Labs failed to generate much profit for their parent companies, although it was of great benefit to society, so why should companies continue to operate that way? It's a market failure. The federal government probably needs to pick up the slack and fund more basic research.

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#43

Post by rocky1138 »

L_Rahman wrote: post #41
rocky1138 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree that the American culture is a huge factor. It's as though this article has it backwards, that because there was money, there were risk takers. But I believe that the culture of willingness to risk is the driving force behind the money and the driving force behind much of that nation's successes. Fortune favours the bold. Secondarily, as public money from governments and money from large corporations…

Funny you mention Oculus as an example of non-funding driven innovation: > In 2011, Luckey got a dream job working as a technician at the Mixed Reality Lab (MxR) at the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT). There, he had a chance to cross deep into VR territory. On Sept. 25, he posted the following on MTBS3D. [These excerpts are condensed and lightly edited.] He described the…

That's really interesting! But do you believe Luckey would not have worked on VR if it were not for the job at MxR? I believe he would have, though it might have taken him longer or he may have taken a different path. The innovation stems from Luckey and the culture of risk and it's given a chance to flourish easier through funding than without.

Besides, I was saying that other means have become available as the cost of innovating has been cut, sometimes by orders ot magnitude. Kickstarter, specifically, has replaced a lot of traditional public or large corporation outlets for funding.

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#44

Post by roymurdock »

WalterBright wrote: post #26
roymurdock wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. The stock market is notoriously short sighted. Many investors are playing a game of musical chairs/the bigger fool because they know the economy works in a cyclical fashion with alternating booms and busts. So during boom times (now) investors will continue to push money into the market, pumping up PE ratios, with each investor thinking he/she is smart enough to exit before the next bust. If…

Which companies do you believe are eating their seed corn, and are you shorting their stock?

I just finished my undergrad studies, so I don't have any spare money to gamble on the market. If I did have extra capital, I would keep 95% of it out of the market, use 5% to buy 1-month Facebook put options at a $92.5 strike, wait for a correction in real-estate prices, and use the untouched 95% to purchase some property in Inglewood and Compton, CA.

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#45

Post by mjn »

gjkood wrote: post #10

What about the people angle (as in People, Process, Technology)? I don't know how it used to be 20, 30 or 50 years ago, but if you have sat in a graduate science/technology/engineering course classroom in any US university in the last few years and surveyed the demographic profile of your fellow classmates you might notice something. The percentage of students of Asian ethnicity will probably outnumber all other grou…

According to the NSF's numbers, about 2/3 of doctorates awarded by U.S. universities in science & engineering fields go to U.S. nationals (citizens and permanent residents). The ratio has been fairly constant over the past 20 years, fluctuating within the 60-70% range. Not sure about prior to that.

In absolute numbers, there was a decline in U.S. nationals earning science & engineering doctorates from 1995 through 2002, but the trend is upwards again since 2002.

Chart: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2013/digest/theme1.cfm#cit...

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#46

Post by WalterBright »

roymurdock wrote: post #44
WalterBright wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which companies do you believe are eating their seed corn, and are you shorting their stock?

I just finished my undergrad studies, so I don't have any spare money to gamble on the market. If I did have extra capital, I would keep 95% of it out of the market, use 5% to buy 1-month Facebook put options at a $92.5 strike, wait for a correction in real-estate prices, and use the untouched 95% to purchase some property in Inglewood and Compton, CA.

If you're sure a stock is overvalued, then it isn't gambling :-)

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#48

Post by qudat »

gjkood wrote: post #10

What about the people angle (as in People, Process, Technology)? I don't know how it used to be 20, 30 or 50 years ago, but if you have sat in a graduate science/technology/engineering course classroom in any US university in the last few years and surveyed the demographic profile of your fellow classmates you might notice something. The percentage of students of Asian ethnicity will probably outnumber all other grou…

Nationalism is arbitrary, accumulation of knowledge isn't. It seems like we will still benefit so what's the difference?

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#49

Post by arrel »

WalterBright wrote: post #11

> Corporate executives, their compensation tied overwhelmingly to short-term gains in the market value of their companies, may be responding accordingly. I hear this all the time, and it's absurd. The high P/Es of innumerable companies (like Amazon) are compelling evidence that investors are well aware of the long game companies play and they approve of it. The charge that companies are eating their seed corn to sati…

You're absolutely right. James Surowieki wrote a great (research-based) article on this recently. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/the-short-termi...

Re: American Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation?

#50

Post by Armisael16 »

munin wrote: post #35
gjkood wrote: post #10

What about the people angle (as in People, Process, Technology)? I don't know how it used to be 20, 30 or 50 years ago, but if you have sat in a graduate science/technology/engineering course classroom in any US university in the last few years and surveyed the demographic profile of your fellow classmates you might notice something. The percentage of students of Asian ethnicity will probably outnumber all other grou…

> Fewer US based students are going into graduate STEM programs Because if you're a US citizen, getting a PhD for the money is a racket. Just take your BS in CS over to Silicon Valley and start making bank working on Tinder for Dogs. Want to make six figures and have a shot at a billion dollars? The surest way to NOT do that is to go to grad school. If you're NOT a US citizen, getting a graduate degree is a great way…

There are many degrees other than math and CS, y'know. Physical sciences (and engineering, to some degree) are probably more important when doing the kind of research the article's talking about, and a BS in those fields in by no means a guarantee of a six-figure job.
Post reply on HN