
The Economy’s Hidden Problem: We’re Out of Big Ideas - BWStearns
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-economys-hidden-problem-were-out-of-big-ideas-1481042066
======
ChuckMcM
Sheesh. I always disagree strongly with this mindset. The false dichotomy that
if an idea doesn't immediately raise everyone's standard of living it isn't a
"big idea."

There are several technologies on the horizon that can change everything (as
Steve Jobs would say)

Real virtual reality - For a big chunk of the world who need to see it to
understand it, that will open the doors to a learning, design, and
experiencing new things.

Carbon based circuitry - the first all carbon integrated circuit will be 10x
faster and 5x more efficient than the best silicon out there. This will put
even more amazing compute and sensory power into everyday devices. We chuckle
at wizard's wands but they make for a easy to carry universal remote.

Graphene based charge storage. So often we throw energy away in friction
brakes because that is easier than reusing it. Charging gear in seconds to run
for hours. Recapturing more solar energy both from visible light and latent
heat.

Fusion power for unlimited base load power. Completely re-defining the
economics of industry, water supplies, transport, and urban HVAC.

Genetic designs, e.coli that synthesize chemicals of our choice without risky
refineries. Curing genetic diseases not just treating them, repairing organs,
limbs, brains, with targeted stem cells.

Robotic automation that can assemble or disassemble thousands of different
products. Reducing waste, eliminating toxic dumping, and allowing us to get
ahead of the clean up curve.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Some of those ideas end the need for large chunks of an economy, and that's
not a bad thing.

------
drawkbox
If we don't have millions of robots in space, at least collecting energy and
exploring, we still have lots and lots to do, many things can still be
improved.

Once we do have AI and robotics in the reach of programmers then I bet we
haven't even began to realize all the things we don't have now. I am a
contrarian in that if computers added more work then so will robots, there
will be more to do because there is more you can accomplish and unseen needs
will arise. People could build companies and products almost individually like
software today. When you lower the groupthink and bureaucracy around
ideas/innovation, let individuals run with it, then it always opens up.

We could still do electric highways (interstate system for electric cars),
drones are just getting started, ai/self driving or automated function free us
up to do many other things, medicine/health advancements, virtual worlds that
really improve your life, pipes that don't degrade, water desalinization,
solar, we still need massive jumps in broadband and new ways to
send/store/archive data (always will be a problem) and many many more.

We don't even really know the bottom of the ocean or the inside of the planet
we live on really, robots will help us in that as well. So much to still
explore, learn and innovate on.

Another Musk or Tesla could come along and open up ideas we had no idea were
possible spawning all kinds of innovation and quality of life improvements.

~~~
AstralStorm
Generally, space travel needs some sort of better engine to matter. Order of
magnitude or many better.

A real breakthrough.

Maybe something out of left field in physics. Or maybe just tossing old
fashioned hydrogen bombs.

Current space travel does not scale even at maximum efficiency possible.

------
borgchick
I don't think it is the ideas we lack, it is the focus on money. Ideas that
won't make tonnes of money don't make it into reality.

It's not, "hey, is that idea going to help people/planet/____"?

It's, "hey, is that idea going to make me rich?"

~~~
xcasperx
First time I've seen someone discuss the triple bottom line in the wild.

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-
line.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp)

~~~
danbruc
But don't a lot of policies like for example a carbon tax indirectly reflect
components of a triple bottom line in the bottom line of businesses? I would
argue that making externalities show up in the annual report has been part of
economic policies for a long time.

~~~
xcasperx
I honestly just meant the term, but to what you are saying, I think it
depends. If a company outsources their work force to a sweatshop in Asia is
that following the TBL? Maybe, but probably not. It will, however, cause their
stock price to go up and make them more competitive in their market.

Most public companies only started reporting a sustainability report about 4
years ago.

[http://www.ga-institute.com/nc/issue-master-system/news-
deta...](http://www.ga-institute.com/nc/issue-master-system/news-
details/article/flash-report-eighty-one-percent-81-of-the-sp-500-index-
companies-published-corporate-sustainabi.html)

------
danbruc
_None of this has translated into meaningful advances in Americans’ standard
of living._

 _Regulations have raised the bar for commercializing new ideas while
directing a growing share of innovative effort toward goals with benefits,
such as cleaner air, that don’t translate into gross domestic product._

So cleaner air does not count as improved standard of living just because it
does not show up¹ in the gross domestic product? This seems more a case of a
broken metric than a broken development.

¹ On a second thought, it may actually show up in the gross domestic product
via healthier people with less sick days and less medical spendings.

~~~
maxerickson
It will probably show up as _increased_ medical spending.

The people who live longer due to the regulation will probably need more care
to treat things not related to the regulation.

------
Kaibeezy
well covered in _The Rise and Fall of American Growth_ by Robert Gordon -
[http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10544.html](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10544.html)

Paul Krugman reviews it here -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/books/review/the-powers-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/books/review/the-powers-that-
were.html)

bottom line: several key technological leaps can't really ever happen again -
electrics, indoor plumbing, motor vehicles, air travel, telecom - these made
huge fundamental changes in living standards - no comparably huge changes
remain

i'd say: fusion power might be one - automated cars, considering our
dependence on them in current suburbanism - cheap orbital access - brain
augmentation - life extension - a foolproof recipe for homemade pho

~~~
nickff
Given Krugman's history of predicting the future (i.e. saying the internet was
incremental like the fax), I view his endorsement as an indictment of the book

~~~
panarky
Krugman was also a very lonely voice going against conventional wisdom and
time has proven him right on some big bets.

Contrarian Call #1 - He called bullshit on the rationale for the Iraq war very
early.

Contrarian Call #2 - His models showed that the stimulus and bailouts after
the financial collapse would not cause runaway inflation.

If you read his review of the book (not an endorsement) you'll see that it's
Contrarian Call #3 -- that maybe the bulk of productivity improvements from
the internet have already been achieved.

Let's discuss the ideas, evidence and models, not take ad hominem shortcuts.

~~~
nickff
To clarify your criticism, the definition of ad hominiem (from Wikipedia) is:
"argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted
by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making
the argument...".

I criticized him as having a bad history of predicting things (not his
personality, position, or viewpoint), and history is the best predictor of
future performance. Krugman said that the internet was similar to the fax
(back in the 1990s), and was wrong; however, I will grant that Krugman may not
be as bad as other NYT columnists.

Krugman, circa 1995: _" By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the
Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."_

------
milkytron
> There are more scientists and engineers in the U.S. than ever before. None
> of this has translated into meaningful advances in Americans’ standard of
> living.

It seems like this article is attempting to state a problem that doesn't exist
to create a stir. No meaningful advances recently? I cannot take this
statement seriously when I now have the entire internet easily accessible in
my pocket at all times compared to 10 years ago. I can talk face to face with
my grandmother miles away from the comfort of my room. And virtual reality
seems to be on its way to becoming a game changer for many industries if (or
when) it catches on.

> Electric cars, for example, cost more and perform worse than equivalent
> gasoline cars; the batteries subtract space and add weight, and mileage is
> limited especially in extreme temperatures.

This statement has for too many variables to me to accept as true. There are
many different ways to measure performance of a car. If the writer is talking
speed performance, the Model S blows every competitor out of the water.
Mileage is a different story, but maintenance from what I've seen appears to
be cheaper (no oil changes, belt/chain replacements, etc). And the batteries
and motor take up less space when compared to the engine and drivetrain of
comparable vehicles. Maybe now electric isn't the most economical choice, but
it seems like that's slowly changing.

His point about slowing growth in tech certainly may be true, but some of the
statements he makes towards the affects of this lack of growth seem backwards
to me.

~~~
serge2k
> If the writer is talking speed performance, the Model S blows every
> competitor out of the water

in 0-60 time.

> And the batteries and motor take up less space when compared to the engine
> and drivetrain of comparable vehicles

Lots of weight though.

I still think the article is rubbish. The Model S is a pretty damn good
electric car.

We are right on the brink of VR and AR being everyday life.

The past 10 years have revolutionized computing, again.

~~~
milkytron
> in 0-60 time.

Ah yes, I should've been more specific and said acceleration instead of speed.

This is what I was talking about when I said there are a lot of variables to
measure performance lol.

------
carsongross
The era of the (ambiguously) heroic technologist is perhaps coming to a close.

I hope the next era is one of craftsmanship, an apollonian counterpoint to
repair some of the damage of the closing dionysian era.

------
sbierwagen
Non regwalled link: [http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/the-economys-hidden-
prob...](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/the-economys-hidden-problem-were-
out-of-big-ideas/ar-AAldSxv)

------
eli_gottlieb
Have we somehow run out of big ideas before achieving cool scifi stuff, or are
we just not allowing people to _try out_ big ideas?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Exactly. Pick up any half-decent sci-fi book, or even rewatch Star Trek: TNG.
There's plenty of cool stuff left to be done, and even more _improvements_ to
things that are already here.

The real problem is that current economy doesn't let those ideas grow.

~~~
nickjarboe
I'm hoping, as the "duck and cover" generation dies out, we might see a
renaissance in nuclear engineering. Some revival is going on at the moment,
but civilization only worked on nuclear ideas for about 30 years (1940-1970).
We barely touched the surface. I imagine Musk would have a nuclear rocket
division, if that was politically acceptable. Maybe a nuclear technology
ecosystem is only possible off Earth.

------
AnimalMuppet
Big ideas take a long time to play out. Take electricity, for example. Maxwell
published his equations in 1861. Yet useful new applications of electricity
were still coming out in the 1960s (microwave ovens).

Or take transistors. They were invented in 1948. What we call "electronics"
didn't really start happening until about the 1970s. Moore's Law didn't really
slow down until maybe 2005.

The problem is that we don't have a big idea that has already substantially
begun taking off at the right time. But there are some candidates:

Genomics.

Low-cost solar.

Fusion.

If any of those really takes off (with genomics being very likely to do so),
then will have the next idea that we'll ride for decades.

~~~
ronald_raygun
I agree. I work in AI and I feel like it gets a lot of the brunt of the "game
changing" tech hype, but to be honest if someone solved fusion that would be
an absolute societal game changer.

~~~
foobarian
I keep wondering when some dictatorship will sidestep rules and use genetic
tech (crispr et al) to breed smarter humans. Maybe such humans could then
figure out FTL, fusion, teleportation, and other Star Trek stuff.

~~~
aetherson
Well, I think you'd probably have to start with some vague idea how to use
genetic tech to breed smarter humans. The problem is pretty far from an
ethical one right now. Nobody has the faintest idea how to do it.

(Also: if it were possible to breed generally smarter humans using genetic
technology, I have a somewhat hard time believing that there are a lot of
dictators who would be like, "Subjects who are way smarter than I am? SIGN ME
UP!")

------
cs702
That's what happens when researchers are pressured by management to publish,
publish, publish... which forces them to pursue quick-payback, incremental-
research projects instead of dedicating themselves to difficult questions and
taking on long-term projects with uncertain payoffs. With few exceptions (AI,
for example), this is the norm in most fields. Ask any PhD student.

~~~
devoply
I dunno what big ideas out there are not being investigated to some extent.
It's just that we've saturated the domain. Anything you can imagine we've done
something about it. I mean we don't have teleportation. We will soon have
robotics to do everything. We will soon be colonizing space. I mean there is
only so much you can do in the world and we're already doing it. Infinity is
saturated. The problem is that we can't make society work with what we have
invented. So the problem is not that we don't have ideas. The problem is that
we can't make society work in the way that it has, and that's a good thing.
But not for people who run society who don't want to lose power. But their
time is up.

Shareholders are irrelevant. CEOs are irrelevant. And management is
irrelevant. Just like employees are irrelevant. Anyone in the future can come
up with an idea and be empowered to bring that idea to market through
manufacturing done by robotics which is completely automated. You tell mama AI
what to make and it makes it on demand for whoever wants it. Society needs
complete re-engineering with completely new rules.

That's really the big idea. And yes we can not work on that within the
framework of current system. Because it's transcending the system and
requiring new rules.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Barring some massive breakthroughs my guess is planet earth has far too few
resources for that to become reality.

~~~
devoply
Resource constraints are an optimization problem. Some things don't get made
because other things need to be made which are more important for the system
to function. Right now these resource constraints are not even optimum. In
that we waste tons of resources for no good use. We call this stuff garbage,
packaging, waste food that's simply thrown in the trash. These are
optimization problems that AI can solve much better than we ever could. It
simply means that some things get made, and some things don't. It's as it is
already, but probably much better.

In the end the only reason to choose Capitalism is people. People are
difficult to manage. Capitalism makes them easier to manage and to motivate
them. Without people, you don't need Capitalism. Machines are not lazy.
Machines don't need motivation. Machines don't need the sort of human
management. Machines are faithful. Machines are true. Long live the machines!

~~~
AstralStorm
Nah, we don't even need AI to optimise such problems we made away.

There is enough will, but said waste is also known as marketing and pandering
to the human tastes.

------
transfire
Actually I have plenty but no economic means to implement them. Bet that's
true for more than a few people.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
This is probably true for a lot of people. The biggest problem with the
concentration of wealth is that it limits innovation.

A small group of people have all the resources they want to to play around
with. They are now the bottlenecks to innovation.

~~~
ap22213
We currently have 10s of millions of highly educated scientists, engineers,
programmers, technicians in the world. We have tools to collaborate and
communicate. Global GDP is like 100 trillion.

With that magnitude of resources available, we should be able to do big
things. But, those with the capital have pretty much everything they need, so
there's little motivation.

------
RachelF
Personally, I don't think we are out of ideas - perhaps we are just trapped in
a local minimum for a while.

Much Internet innovation is stifled by two factors:

1\. The current economy of the Internet is paid for by advertising, which goes
to two main players; Google and Facebook. A system of micropayments never
successfully took off, but bitcoin or its successors may yet.

2\. Few startup companies aim to IPO anymore like they did in the 1990's. This
results in them being bought out and assimilated into larger, less creative
established organisations.

Generally, in the USA, startup company formation is now at its lowest level
since 1977. In general we have fewer and fewer but larger and larger
companies. This allows for less "creative destruction".

RnD investment is more risky than lobbying investment.

------
adocracy
Fuck that noise. I'm building big and WSJ can suck it.

------
kusmi
Not bad, the decision to cut the article right there. Of course, it's just
clickbait, but very precisely executed. Makes me curious to know if WSJ
editors use analytics software to engineer these.

If not, perhaps I can interest you in a demo of one? If you don't see an
increase in turnover, well make the trail period free!

------
geooooooooobox
Didn't physicists of the old once say they were close to closing in the the
grand theory of everything, it was Max Plank or someone who was told by some
Physics Prof that Physics as they knew was completely discovered .. point
being there will always be a big idea around the corner that will surprise
everybody

~~~
candiodari
Yes but the situation is very different. We have fast declining productivity,
and nothing seems to be able to arrest that.

Now what is declining productivity ? Well, it's a measure of how much you
make, on average, from one unit of human labour. In other words: how much can
one single average human produce, given the odds of them having a job (so
automation is not really a positive factor for productivity anymore).

This is a critical figure for lots of reasons. Firstly, it's effectively an
upper bound on average income (not average pay, as unemployed people should be
included in the average). It's the maximum amount you can possibly spend, as a
nation, on average, on a human, per year, without going in debt. So one might
say, the maximum you can spend, sustainably.

Of course the current productivity figures have already been propped up
majorly by unsustainable debt spending, which won't be possible in the future
unless we start really growing the economy again. And let's face facts here :
if Obama's Government and FED spending couldn't do it (and they didn't),
nothing can.

So that means the average "value" available to a single American, or citizen
of the world in general, needs to go down from this point forward. Note that I
didn't say money, and in fact, Trump's fiscal spending, assuming it happens,
will increase the money, but increase prices more. So everyone who isn't dirt
poor or 0.001% or so will have to deal with less means available on a
sustained basis from here forward. Less living space, less food, less
traveling, ... unless we get productivity rising again.

The theory that is making the rounds is that we're demand-bound. And indeed,
you find support for this all around. The concept is that productivity is
lagging because producers are demand bound. We have to idle car factories
almost 30% of the time worldwide and still have more cars than can be sold.
Oil is in a price trap, and despite a 60%+ drop in price production went up by
maybe 5% (of course oil is famous for it's price elasticity, but still).
Chinese exports and even total production are flattening (assuming you take
the real figures of what amounts pass through harbours, not the Chinese
state's frankly untrustworthy figures, even those show lower growth though).

On the plus side, this does seem to be the idea behind Trump's trade sabotage.
Fix the demand problem by taking non-American supply out of the picture
through isolationism and/or tariffs. That may work. Of course, historically,
it's also caused more than a few wars. But keep in mind, it won't be Trump
that goes to war, nor will America likely be the target.

So if we are indeed demand-bound, well ... euhm ... Keynes had a solution for
that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism)
(an economic analysis of the situation will immediately show however that just
building a military doesn't work. You have to actually blow up more than a few
countries to make this work. WW2 did that for Keynes)

~~~
geooooooooobox
I wonder what does the advent of ideas have to do with the average joe? The
collective doesn't seem to be important here

~~~
candiodari
These are large scale economic issues. It makes little sense to discuss one
idea, in one line of business. It only really makes sense to look at the whole
and what is happening there.

------
basicplus2
Economic Growth relies on a pyramid system, the hidden problem is in
exploiting new resources (people eg slavery and stealing other countries
resources) is getting harder

------
duaneb
I'm not sure what medicine has to do with the economy. If you're a for-profit
business, you're a terrible doctor.

