A Nobel Prize economist asserts that innovation is key to our country's future. In a New York Times opinion piece, he posed the following questions to Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama:
Individual innovation and creativity in our society are the cornerstones of our economy. They create wealth and improve the nation's welfare. Through innovations, the 20th century became the American Century. Will the 21st century be so as well or will it become the Global Century? How, if at all, would your administration foster innovation in the following areas: the provision of health care for our citizens; an immigration policy that attracts and retains the best; educational policies that increase the value of our human capital, our most important resource; helping people accumulate enough retirement savings; international trade and manufacturing; the evolution of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and neuroscience; the allocation of water, food and energy and the development of alternative energy sources; and, to some, the most important, the environment?
The author is Myron S. Scholes, who shared the Nobel Prize in economics in 1997. He was one of three Nobel Prize-winning economists invited by New York Times editors to frame the questions they most wanted answered by the candidates.
Do you agree that these questions are worthy of the attention of our next president? What would you hope to hear as his response? What else would you ask?
Individual innovation as the cornerstone of our economy is an idea that must be expanded in scope. We all exist within a socio-economic reality, and the individual is the beginning of innovation in every case. Collaboration speeds innovation by joining individual minds together in common pursuits. We honor our society by honoring the individual innovators who have contributed great value to its workings.
But our society is at risk of navigating a path that has been traveled before, one that leads to decline because the curve of individual innovation falters at the hands of mismanagement by society's mass infrastructure.
My question is a simple one I think; when a child is born in America's socio-economic system, shouldn't that child be organized as an owner of the fundamental unit of our society's structure... his/her citizen ID? Why does our system organize itself as the owner of its citizens as commodities under management when there is clearly a structure to free-market democracy that is more empowering? In a socio-economic universe, there is one state more powerful than freedom, and that is private ownership, so why is America not owned by its individual constituents? Why do our children enter the world with a starting value of zero when that is so obviously not the case in reality's terms? Its much the same problem at work in not defining the value of the Earth's assets before we tap into them for industrial purposes... how can we accurately measure GDP without understanding true costs and values?
Will you help give our children the power they ought to have at birth? Will you help to give our children a leg up in the world as the owners of the most powerful socio-economic system in our known universe? Will you help our children own their own citizen ID's so that as individual participants and potential contributors they may establish relationships built on a foundation of accurate value exchange?
Will you support the universally distributed private ownership of the United States of America and provide an appropriate foundation for extending the power and capabilities of our nation around the world and into the future?
You raise an interesting question. One that seems to get obscured too often in partisan rhetoric. Let's take one small example.
In Alaska, each man, woman and child is entitled to a payment from the "Permanent Fund," which is capitalized by taxing each barrel of oil drawn from the ground.
Is this socialism? Rightful payments from citizen patrimony?
If it's the former (socialism), then why don't Alaskan residents consider themselves Marxists? By some counts, Alaska is the most libertarian state in the USA.
If it's the latter, then shouldn't every citizen of the US receive a payment for each barrel of oil drawn from US soil, each board-foot of lumber harvested from National Forest land? In fact, to take it step further, why shouldn't each citizen receive a payment for pollution that's emitted into the national sky? See http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=430
These are not simple questions, but they are well worth grappling with. Where does this take us in terms of thinking about innovation?
With regard to innovation, I believe this takes us to the heart of the matter. Why has innovation in America happened in such a vigorous manner that it has been able to out-compete the rest of the world? Thinking creative thoughts is not relative to the land mass beneath our feet. America is a derivative work of numerous cultures, so its not as if the "American mind" is any more equipped to innovate than any other culture's mental capabilities are. So what is it? Its about organization; the environmental conditions within which innovative ideas are encouraged to flourish... indeed, are encouraged with a myriad of incentives and opportunities. We call it the American Dream... but do we understand how it works and therefore how to make it work better?
The organization of the American Dream at this point in our nation's development is directly tied to the bureaucratic process that manages it's existence and vitality. Lets look at our public school system; the first philosophical question we need to address is it's priorities...does it exist to employ our citizens, or does it exist to educate our children? The American Dream is not alive in an innovative manner in our public school system. Why would we allow that to continue to exist? Its a question of priorities and vision. Is there a better way to do it?
Organization creates environment; An innovative educational system would incubate students as the owners of their own education, as the innovators of future possibilities, not merely the learners of facts that can be tested for proficiency sake. An innovative educational system would bring families into a creative relationship with schools, and local communities into a structural relationship with the future being created in the classrooms that are funded with their tax dollars.
Innovation needs organization so that the environment within which it occurs can achieve a state that is a balanced form of "freedom" and "security". Look at any innovative entity and you will find operational predictability as a result of the ability to take risks in a secure environment. Scientists work in controlled environments for a reason.
This is why our identities matter; owners take care of their private property better than renters respect the commodities they interact with. Citizen owners will work for a freedom that produces social stability and security much more than mere socio-economic participants will. This is the foundation of innovation. This is the beginning of change we need. Perhaps thats a bit corny, but on an evening such as this... it feels appropriate.
Another perspective on the issue is "Intellectual Property", and this is a good article to start conversation around whether our current system can sustain itself in its present form.
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4121&tag=rbxccnbzd1