New era of internet innovation or stagnation

We have smartphones and supercomputers, large data and nanotechnology, and gene therapy and stem cell transplants. Companies, universities and governments spend about 140 trillion dollars a year on research and development, more than ever before. with these technological changes and advances in technology, we tend to believe that the present is the most innovative era.

However, in the near future, no one's invention has been able to catch half of the toilet in the picture. Simple lines and intuitive user interface, humble toilets change the lives of millions of people. At the end of 19th century, people in the early 20th century not only invented modern sanitary facilities, but also invented automobiles, airplanes, telephones, radios and antibiotics.

Modern science has failed to create any invention with similar influence, which is also a growing number of thinkers claiming that the pace of innovation has slowed. Interestingly, pessimists not only include academics, such as Robert, an American economist who proposed a non-innovative toilet experiment, but also entrepreneurs, such as Facebook's venture capitalist, Thiel.

If pessimists are right, the consequences will be serious. The economy can grow by increasing investment: more manpower, investment and education. But the continued growth in income and welfare to the necessary output per capita makes it necessary to make better use of the resources we already have. If the rate of innovation and innovation spreads, other conditions are unchanged and growth rates will decline.

Doom, pessimism and productivity data

Since Malthus predicted that humans would starve to death, human ingenuity has proved that his doomsday prophecy is unreliable. But the impact of innovation seems to be getting smaller these days. For example, the average life expectancy of people in the United States since the 1980 has been much slower than in early 20th century. Travel has experienced a century of rapid growth, and the current rate of growth is usually much slower than in the previous generation, at least in developed countries. According to Gordon, productivity data also provide evidence to pessimists that productivity took off in the middle of 19th century, accelerated in the early 20th century, and remained until the early 1970, followed by a sharp drop in the 1990, after the popularity of computers Rose, followed by a fall in 2005 years or so.

But this model is not as completely pessimistic as the pessimists claim. Even in developed countries, life expectancy is still growing. Although the productivity growth after electrification was not steady, it also had several peaks; the rapid decline after 2004 was mainly due to the economic crisis rather than the lack of innovation. Further, it is premature to conclude that the impact of innovation on contemporary influences.

Contemporary contributions to technological progress are mainly in information technology (IT). Just as electrification allows energy to be used outside of the building, and thus changes the world, computer and communication technology enables people to carry out operations and connections far beyond human capabilities, thus altering people's lives and business models. But as with learning to use electricity, companies need time to learn how to use these technologies, so it may take decades to fully perceive the impact of these technologies.

Computer processing capabilities have brought significant progress beyond the IT field. 3D printing technology can bring new industry changes. Automatic vehicles, such as the unmanned cars produced by Google, will be full on the streets in 10 years. A prosthetic limb will be as free as a person's natural limbs.

Although it is too early to say how much the impact of those inventions is, globalisation should make current innovations more productive. More people are involved in innovative work than they did 100 years ago: The Japanese, Brazilians, Indians and Chinese are involved in inventions that were invented by American and European inventors.

Spend a little money--spend more

Therefore, there is reason to believe that the 21st century innovation will spread quickly, but also beware of the obstacles to innovation, the government is the biggest threat.

The smaller the government, the easier it is to innovate. Industrialists can introduce new processes or change product designs without being said by government officials to break the rules. Today, the test of drugs and the control of factory sewage is more stringent, this is a good thing. But government officials tend to make more unnecessary rules for the public good; Even some rules aimed at promoting innovation have not played a role. The Western intellectual property system, for example, is a mess because it approves too many patents of dubious value.

The government itself obviously does not have a positive innovation. Productivity in the public sector is mostly stagnant. Unions often succeed in discouraging governments from releasing indicators of achievement, while indicators of achievement have proved to encourage managers to innovate elsewhere. If the health and education sectors are more open and receptive to change, it technology will do much to promote productivity growth in the field.

Before the 1970, rapid growth in developed countries benefited from public input in infrastructure construction (including sewerage systems) and basic research: The Green Revolution in computers, the Internet and food technology was rooted in scientific research without direct commercial objectives. The most powerful example of government spending is war: drone technology and prosthetic technology, not to mention jet engines, are bittersweet proofs of the startling new developments. Even in times of financial stress, there is still a need to invest in basic research areas such as carbon collection and storage.

The rewards are plentiful for these things – Governments that have done a better job of removing corporate barriers, reforming the public sector and investing wisely. The risk of a slowdown in innovation does exist, but it can be avoided. As most of the human fate of the face, occurs or not, by the person not by day.