Friedman Interview

[Jay Andress]

I just watched Charlie Rose interview Thomas Friedman and it was quite a show. I think Friedman's next book will be titled US Government...Dumb and Dumber. One of his main points is that the US government makes "sub-optimal" decisions. He argues that the authoritarian government of China makes much better decisions because it is a top down process versus the US where the process is controlled by the electorate (and Friedman has a very low opinion of the electorate...he said "we need better citizens"). He says however that the US is creative versus the Chinese...who are not creative due to authoritarian rule. His final analysis.... you can solve bad government easier than you can create creativity.

   So innovators....keep up the good work...and hope that the US Government decides to support you....someday....

   

 

[Jerry Schneider]

I agree - it was quite a show. He also noted that engineers are
running the Chinese government, instead of lawyers.


- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Kirston Henderson]

Jerry,

Even if engineers are running an authoritarian government, there is
still no incentive for anyone to innovate because of the attitude that all
intellectual property belongs to the State. Hence, there is zero incentive
to innovate and develop innovative products.

I believe that the records show that the U.S. with it's atmosphere of
freedom of the individual and the right of individuals to profit from their
own innovation has spanned more patents than anywhere else.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail Transportation Systems, Inc.

[Dennis Manning]

Maybe Friedman should add a chapter "California Government - Dumb, and even
Dumber". The California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors has no
one with a technical background, and if there's any one on the staff it's
extremely thin. It shows in the miserable alignments chosen. So California
arguably leads the nation in innovation, and is in the forefront of GHG
policy. It appears that California will lead the nation in polarized debt
ridden do nothing government.

So I agree the innovators have a mighty challenge in both California and the
nation.

Dennis

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>

[Dennis Manning]

Kirston wrote:

 

< Even if engineers are running an authoritarian government, there is
still no incentive for anyone to innovate because of the attitude that all
intellectual property belongs to the State.  Hence, there is zero incentive
to innovate and develop innovative products.

 

    I believe that the records show that the U.S. with it's atmosphere of
freedom of the individual and the right of individuals to profit from their
own innovation has spanned more patents than anywhere else.>

 

A similar charge was leveled against Japan but it scared the pants off of the US as they took our products, made improvements, and greatly advanced the products. I see parallels in what the Chinese are doing. One example is improving on maglev train designs. It's not what I'd call basic innovation but it allows the Chinese to do one hell of a lot catch up. What then? Another may be in area of battery techonology.

 

For a long while after the US was gaining on the British empire in the late 1800 hundreds they out ran us in patents. Patents may not be a good indicator of who is gaining on who. How are the Chinese doing in getting more patents? I suspect their rate of increase is growing faster than ours.

 

Another question is the motive to innovate. Is it simply to get a patent and make a bundle? I think not. It's more complex than that. Humans were innovating long before such a thing as patents came along.

 

I'd say don't under estimate the competition. Empires (economic powers) have had a long history of coming and going as have the fortunes of various species on the planet. I'm betting on natural laws as the final arbiter not self centered Christain beliefs or Islam for that matter. 

 

Too many Americans have grown up in a era when the US was the giant on the planet in the aftermath of WWII. It has lead us to an overblown image of how effective our political system is in competing with the likes of China.

 

All I know is that in the short run the non-innovative Chinese are knocking our blocks off in economic growth.

 

Dennis

 

 

[Jay Andress]

At one time the Chinese Communist Party Politburo Standing Committee (the true ruling group of China) was made up of seven members...five of whom were engineers. At this time there are nine members in the PSC, I can confirm that at least four of them are engineers.

The difference between the US and China is pretty revealing...in US the majority of the government is made up of lawyers.

    I think that this has a strong impact on where we stand with transportation innovation in the US...lots of creative ideas and not much attention from the US government. As Friedman said.."sub-optimal" decisions.

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
new contact info: jay.a...@monomobile.com

[Jerry Schneider]

At 09:06 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote:
>At one time the Chinese Communist Party Politburo Standing Committee
>(the true ruling group of China) was made up of seven members...five
>of whom were engineers. At this time there are nine members in the
>PSC, I can confirm that at least four of them are engineers.
>The difference between the US and China is pretty revealing...in US
>the majority of the government is made up of lawyers.
> I think that this has a strong impact on where we stand with
> transportation innovation in the US...lots of creative ideas and
> not much attention from the US government. As Friedman
> said.."sub-optimal" decisions.

Yes -- but -- where do the CCPPSC-seven get their staff work done and
prepared for their decisions? In most governments, the top people
have to rely heavily on the work of various staff groups. Planners
are particularly cognizant of the fact that they often have to power
to "constrain" the information they provide to the deciders in the
hope that they offer only "good" alternatives to choose from -
unless, of course, the decider's decide what they want and simply
tell the planners to work out the details. Maybe the staff people are
mostly engineers.

Also, based on my limited experience with Chinese doctoral students
(3 of them, who certainly were the best experiences I had, with the
Koreans close behind), I'm not so sure that I can buy Friedman's
contention that they cannot innovate because they lack imagination.

[Jay Andress]

Jerry,

 

  I'm not sure if the Chinese are less imaginative or just less confident that they have the ability to be imaginative, but it is definitely a problem. My daughter does architecture in China and the western architects come up with the ideas and then the Chinese execute the ideas.  One of the funniest assignments, requested by a Chinese client, was to design an office building in China that looked like the White House!

  I  worked with a Chinese graduate student at University of Cincinnati, about 10 years ago (he studied the design and cost of building a MonoMobile track for six months). He was amazing, but not real imaginative. It is no wonder that we are losing out to the Chinese in terms of productivity...but I think we still have them in terms of imagination.

   One part of the problem may be the lack of respect for intellectual property. The Chinese are awful in terms of patent and copyright violation. So why would anyone want to spend the time to execute their ideas if there is no possibility of making money off the patent?

 

                                                                                    Jay

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Michael Weidler]

There is more to life than money. Our culture happens to value money. Perhaps the Chinese have a different philosophy? The basic creed of Communism is "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The problem, of course, is overcoming basic human greed. --- On Tue, 11/24/09, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Friedman Interview

[Jay Andress]

Michael,

 

   I agree that money is not the only driving force for many people but you obviously haven't been to China lately...everything there is about money. I assume you are familiar with the company that put poison in the baby formula because it would register a higher reading for calcium when it was tested...they just executed the company leaders.

   That is obviously an extreme example but bbasically the Communist Party has reached a Faustian agreement with the public...you keep your hands off of government (allow us to govern) and we will keep our hands off capitalism (allow the people to be as capitalistic as they want to be). If the Chinese economy falters the deal could be off with the Communist Party, which is why the Chinese Government is so concerned about raw materials...it is their Achilles heal.

    If the Chinese could make money off of patents they would be there. The problem is the lack of legal protection for IP. The Chinese are trying to do better (ie enforce IP laws) but not having too much success. This is possibly one reason they aren't that creative.

   There are other reasons for this problem but I will spare you.

 

                                                                             Jay

[Jerry Roane]

Michael

Slowing down and reading the creed slower and starting with the first statement.  "From each according to his ability" "From" is the operative word here.  Said in corollary "Take the value of the work of the most able"  The "most able" get tired of supporting the slackers and those who cannot support themselves over longer than a few years and output drops down to a level of performance that is not impressive at any low level of ability within the group.  The first statement of this theory has to be understood from multiple perspectives.  The slacker does great in this version and those unable do better than they would have and in a pure democracy the slackers and unable are able to outvote the doers.  Watch how the TV show survivor plays out with each starving person each given equal voting power by governance of the show producers.  The best, brightest, strongest and capable are voted off first and the winner by attrition are the low performing non-contributing players with treachery and back-stabbing being the key to winning the cash prize money. 

Back to transportation energy sources-- If transportation affords the brightest and best an opportunity to increase their wealth and quality of life then it raises the entire economy.  If individuals opt out of the monopolistic approaches to transportation by providing their own electricity and owning their own energy storage for their needs then innovation and industry streaming from that innovation and commerce will create wealth and plenty for everyone.  Sticking to the collective model will keep us down and stop innovation dead in its tracks as it is intentionally roadblocked by the federal government at the US DOT today.   

Jerry Roane