Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
And I don't mean politics. I keep hearing people talk about this election as "the most important election in our lifetime," but I have a hard time believing that. It's important, sure, but the goofy optimistic patriot in me refuses to believe that government -- liberal or otherwise -- can ever tamp down the American sprit of progress and innovation.
Reason #1, a 5 megabyte hard-drive from 1956, being loaded onto an airplane:
Reason #2: A 5 giga byte hard drive, circa 2001:
And Reason #3: A 1 tera byte hard drive, circa 2011:
Okay, it's a cliché, I know. But it's a useful thing to remember -- from 1956 to deep into Obama's appalling presidency, we've had innovation and progress. It's not as if it doesn't matter who is president, or who is in charge, but it's worth noting that America doesn't stop, whether the top tax rate is 90% -- as it was in 1956 -- or a lot lower, as it is now, and was in 2001.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
If only we could apply Moore's Law to Politics and Economics, I'd be optimistic.
Having seen what Socialist Government can do to innovation in the UK (it still exists, but barely), I'll stick with my belief that this is the most important election everrrr in the US.
There is probably some Law somewhere that says that Government always gets bigger and more expensive -- kinda the opposite of Moore's Law. Mrs Thatcher called it the ratchet, so we could call it her law?
So, how does the Federal Budget compare now with 1956? Oh, and Pan Am went out of business long ago.
Moore's Law doesn't apply to everything.
Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:20pmApr '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
The election is the most important if you believe as many do that it will be the last. Most of us agree with you that it won't; I also happen to agree with Kevin Williamson that there is no support in the electorate for cutting spending on the scale that we need; therefore, I anticipate at least four more years of ridiculous spending regardless of the outcome.
Is unfathomable optimism a symptom of RINO squishiness? I think it is. McCain refused to say that we ought to fear an Obama presidency -- but we had much to fear from his service, both directly and in the indirect consequences of a decline encouraged by its most influential input (leadership or the opposite thereof).
You've got a point about innovation continuing under all sorts of circumstances, except that you give no information about which marginal tax rates applied to the innovators and their investors. A lot of rich people and corporations find ways to avoid paying high taxes when they're in effect -- did strategies like this protect the capital that supported the cited innovations?
If we survive, your optimism will not have been much comfort.
When will we thrive again?
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
The reason this is the most important election is simple:
Good government cannot actually do that much good. The best it can do is get out of the way.
Bad government, on the other hand, can do a lot of bad.
May '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Even the Soviets invented new technology but I wouldn't use them as an example of a free society. They were a very well educated society. Your optimism seems more like pollyannaism than rational thought.
Sep '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
New technology is great but it also comes with consequences. I was never afraid of the 1984 scenario primarily because it was impossible to watch and keep track everyone. Now precisely because there are fast computers and cheap storage a government is fully capable of using this technology against the citizens. Already there is face recognition technology which is enabled by newfound processing power and more and more cameras. We are all numbered and counted. I could go on.
I am not a luddite, I realize innovation is better than stagnation, but the power of information technology is massive. It has changed our society quite rapidly and we aren't well-equiped as humans and as a society to deal with it all.
As we become more dependent on this infrastructure, the government gains power exponentially with the ability to regulate said infrastructure. This is one of the very reasons this election is indeed critical.
May '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Rob, you might want to note that a good deal of the technical innovation that has happened since 1956 has come at the hands of small companies with new ideas. Your Apple i-Pod above is a perfect example of a small company that was innovative.
The question behind this election is are we going to continue down the road of corporatism and punitive taxation where small companies are driven out of business? Or, are we going to open the flood gates to a better future by getting the govt. out of the way?
The three front runners, Obama, Romney and Gingrich do not seem to be the ones to follow the second path.
Dec '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
My first thought on Rob's post was that the term is terabyte.
I am surprised by pessismism and apparent myopia in the some of the comments. For example, yes, PanAm went out of business, but Southwest got started in the meantime and is doing very well. The technology example was just one, but I think a great, example of how the American spirit found new opportunities. The IT profession is also one that grew up without unions at a time when some of the industries that were heavily unionized failed, often because of those very unions.
I'm no scholar or world traveler, and admittedly poorly read, but there is something very special and different about the American ethos. I believe that difference is a source of REAL hope and change. Sure, we can go down another road if we are not careful, but it is far from being a "pollyanna" to be enthusiastic about that potential.
Mar '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Rob, part of me that wants very much to believe the same. Maybe it's some of the same charmingly naïve City of Angels optimism in our bloodstreams (I grew up in L.A., from 1971-'91). I have an irrepressible creative drive that makes it hard for me to imagine "going Galt", as tempting a symbolic gesture as that might be. That part says disregard the statist politicians' agenda, and just do what I would have done anyway -- invent, innovate, create, for the sake of something bigger than their small managerial mindsets can envision. I can't help but feel that way, even though it troubles me that my attitude undermines the negative feedback that ought to compel correction of bad business policies.
Still, I think 2012 is critical. Progressivism is a ratchet, and government programs that put down roots are never dismantled. Progressivism implemented at the national level is dangerous precisely because, by design, there is almost no escape. A few are able to game the system and work around onerous tax rates and regulations, but there will be an overall damper on economic activity. If we can't dismantle ObamaCare now, we never will.
Mar '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
I say all this despite my current despair that both Romney and Gingrich are managerial progressives who won't fight hard enough to save America, and Paul is unfit to lead on critical foreign policy matters. For the election to matter, I concede we need better choices than we have.
There's also some cognitive bias at work here: Yes, we've seen some astonishing innovation in the past 55 years. But what other wonders might have come to pass, or perhaps been achieved sooner, in a more business-friendly climate? What's the opportunity cost of high-tax big government?
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
The only way I could agree with Rob is if he specified that the Presidential election is not that important. That is true, because the President has limited authority to screw up the laws and the economy in a significant way.
However, Rob did not write "the most important Presidential election in our lifetime," but instead wrote "the most important election in our lifetime."
That includes the Senate and the House.
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
As many have pointed out, the difference between older tax rates and now is that no one actually paid the top marginal rates. There were so many loopholes, deductions, and carve outs that the effective tax rate was actually lower than it is now.
(Moral of the story: "simplifying the tax code" might sound like a good conservative cause, but a more effective tax regime makes confiscation of private wealth easier.)
Innovation is a market function. The market chases profits. Profits fund innovation and investment. Anything that disrupts this cycle, attempts to guide it, or tries to skim money from a step, is going to reduce the amount of innovation we get.
The simple question that needs asking: is our country moving in a less restrictive/confiscatory direction, or a more restrictive/confiscatory direction?
Dec '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
When I first joined the navy (early '90s) we still used that first hard drive. I went to a school to learn how to work on it. The electronics on it was crazy. Only a few will understand what this means, but it was a positive logic system using negative voltages. There was a bit of boat trivia that the smallest hydraulic system on the submarine was the one that ran the heads in and out of the disk stack on the missile fire control system.
On a side note, I'm not so sure that third picture is actually the drive referred to by the article. It looks like a miniaturized version of a regular magnetic disk drive since it has a round disk and an obvious head arm. SSD's don't have moving parts, just chips. Here's a comparison picture:
May '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
My first job was helping an oil company move to new offices (among other tasks). I helped load a giant dinosaur computer onto a truck. It must have been 5'x5'x3'. We put it onto the truck's hydraulic lift, but it was hanging off. So two guys went up on the lift with it as I, the youngest and weakest, stood on the ground and prayed it wouldn't roll off and crush me.
Agreed. But my hope is in individual Americans, not in American government. A general optimism is admirable, but hope should be directed by reason.
As Steyn has argued, technology has enabled politicians to micromanage our lives in a way medieval kings never dreamed. Technology is morally neutral.
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Sure, there's innovation going on in a lot of areas - but notice that the area of largest innovation - computers and the internet - is also the least-regulated of all the major industries.
Look at what's happened in more regulated industries:
In private and public aviation, innovation has slowed to a crawl. Light airplanes are still using engines designed in the 1930's. There is no more supersonic transport.
In Pharma, annual patent applications are declining as the regulatory burden for drug certification grows.
In energy, the U.S. has completely stopped building nuclear reactors, and major components of the grid have not been upgraded in decades due to regulatory burdens. Refineries are decades old and over-stressed because it's too hard to build new ones.
In architecture, major new buildings are snarled in red tape. Ten years later, there's still a hole where the WTC was.
In space, we're now farther away from being able to put a man on the moon than we were when Kennedy gave his moon speech, and for the first time in decades the U.S. doesn't have a manned spaceflight capability.
I could go on...
Jun '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Can someome help me. I'm trying to download this thread to a floppy disk on my HP 286?
Jul '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
There's a new 'trick' in the governments tactics and it should be more obvious to everyone that government is now counting on the innovative nature of Americans to make BIG government possible. Why cut the budget when we can 'invest' in making new technology that will drive the new economy? But the genius of innovation is the black swan quality of it all not the central management of making it happen.
Government today is being very wily, they are adjusting their tactics to accomplish their goals of social engineering. Why take over and have to run everything when we can just regulate everything and the risk remains in the hands of the companies and we just look like good guys trying to make the world a better place. We can push where we want but no one will really see the fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
So 'encourage' the innovators, even try a little side capitalism when you can get away with it, can you say 'insider trading'? And if done very carefully we can force innovation and reap the rewards... the games afoot. Big government wants to stay big.
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
No you're not.
Why must you turn this thread into a den of lies?
;-)
May '11
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
I'd like to help but the cassette tape storage on my TRS-80 Model 1 got fouled with the keyboard of my Altair 8800.
Aug '10
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Did you check the write-protect tab? If it's broken, you can use a bit of electrical tape to fool the disk drive.
This thread reminded me of one of my favorite obsolete tech words: "chunking". As in, "I just chunked the old 286, this new 386 will last us for YEARS!"
The term came from the deep, satisfying sound a 286, 386, or 486 computer made when you chucked it into a dumpster. Nothing celebrates the death of obsolete hardware quite like the sound of 70 lbs of metal crashing into an outdoors bin.
I recently tossed an old mp3 player into the plastic trash can next to my desk. The tiny little "clink" it made was rather disappointing.
Re: Three Reasons to be Optimistic about 2012
Robb Penney:
Government today is being very wily, they are adjusting their tactics to accomplish their goals of social engineering. Why take over and have to run everything when we can just regulate everything and the risk remains in the hands of the companies and we just look like good guys trying to make the world a better place. We can push where we want but no one will really see the fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
So 'encourage' the innovators, even try a little side capitalism when you can get away with it, can you say 'insider trading'? And if done very carefully we can force innovation and reap the rewards... the games afoot. Big government wants to stay big. · Dec 29 at 11:11am
Agreed! And what's more insidious, there is no shortage of venture capital available for even pie-in-the-sky stuff. There's zero reason why the government needs to do this. Even the so-called "green" investments are getting funded privately. Put it this way: if Sequoia Partners lost $500 million on Solyndra, who would care, except the partners? When the gov't does it, you care, and end up paying.