I agree with Venkatesh’s issue over technology, but from the POV that your view of research labs is overimportant. Yes, they have been important, although lesser-sized corporate R&D is very important. Indeed, the creativity of small startup R&D is one reason why larger corporations keep acquiring them. In the computer world, let us not forget that the home computer was an invention of guys in garages, even if IBM muscled in when it became apparent that there was a potential business to be had. [Also let's not forget that the Innovator's Dilemma" was very much a problem for IBM. Not long after it offered its open designs, it tried to lock out competitors with its microchannel architecture - which fortunately failed.] If software in "eating the world", GitHub is a massive inventory of individuals and small groups creating useful software libraries across a wide range of computer languages. The pharma industry is well known for its diminishing new chemical entities and merging corporations. Startups spun out of university research are often the source of novel drug ideas, which Big Pharma acquires to provide funding.
The fiduciary institution of science functions very well for basic discovery, and the mercenary institution of the market functions, tolerably well at cheaply producing known commodities. It is in between that we find ourselves greatly lacking well-working modes and practices.
What role does Regulatory Capture play in incentivizing large companies not to invest in true innovation? Why innovate when you can just regulate your competitors out of business? What role do low capital gains taxes have in incentivizing CEO's to invest free cash flow in share buy backs rather than R&D or wage increases for labor?
I agree with Venkatesh’s issue over technology, but from the POV that your view of research labs is overimportant. Yes, they have been important, although lesser-sized corporate R&D is very important. Indeed, the creativity of small startup R&D is one reason why larger corporations keep acquiring them. In the computer world, let us not forget that the home computer was an invention of guys in garages, even if IBM muscled in when it became apparent that there was a potential business to be had. [Also let's not forget that the Innovator's Dilemma" was very much a problem for IBM. Not long after it offered its open designs, it tried to lock out competitors with its microchannel architecture - which fortunately failed.] If software in "eating the world", GitHub is a massive inventory of individuals and small groups creating useful software libraries across a wide range of computer languages. The pharma industry is well known for its diminishing new chemical entities and merging corporations. Startups spun out of university research are often the source of novel drug ideas, which Big Pharma acquires to provide funding.
The fiduciary institution of science functions very well for basic discovery, and the mercenary institution of the market functions, tolerably well at cheaply producing known commodities. It is in between that we find ourselves greatly lacking well-working modes and practices.
What role does Regulatory Capture play in incentivizing large companies not to invest in true innovation? Why innovate when you can just regulate your competitors out of business? What role do low capital gains taxes have in incentivizing CEO's to invest free cash flow in share buy backs rather than R&D or wage increases for labor?