Agricoltura, Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
agricoltura | info | prezzo | dati | produzione
The US economy has been expanding wildly for two centuries. Are we witnessing the end of growth? Economist Robert Gordon lays out 4 reasons US growth may be slowing, detailing factors like epidemic debt and growing inequality, which could move the US into a period of stasis we can't innovate our way out of. Be sure to watch the opposing viewpoint from Erik Brynjolfsson.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED
Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector
Commento
-
His 'Macroeconomics' is to me the best text book on the subject. Thanks, Gordon.
-
There is no shortage of innovation here. The fundamentals of successful innovation is forward thinking, realistic assessment of potential markets and willingness to take on risk.
-
Even Adam Smith said that there is correlation between demographics and economic growth. If you found any place on earth where there's is real optimistic realistic future of economic growth you have to go to some Sub Saharan African countries (Kenya, Ghana, etc) or China and other Asian countries. The grim reality for US, Europe and other traditional OECD countries is stagnation or very very slow growth.
-
Combinatorial innovation?
-
This guy does not know as much as Andrew McAfee or Erik Brynjolfsson. He sees some of the same problems, but not the same causes or solutions.
-
0:36 翻译写错了, 是80%的音速飞行.
-
I know in the future economist will be obsolete. Didn't call the 08' crash but can do growth projections based on a foggy concept of innovation. Condoms are more 'innovative' than motor cars - condoms are vital for managing population growth and disease prevention and the continuity of the species - engines toss carbon in the air like a petulant child in a sand box contributing to climate change and the death of the species. Anything can be innovative because the concept was created by marketers to sell goods and services. This incorrigible old dude needs to retire and get out the way.
-
Twi words: Industrial internet and internet of things.
-
Why has the growth grown from 0.2% in 1300 to 2%? Did the speaker do research on that?
Well, it's likely because of what is known as Moore's Law; innovation is exponential rather than linear. The increase in innovation speeds up rather than slowing down or staying the same. Sure, the examples made in the speech sound like important inventions. It's hard to imagine future innovation that can top those. But could people in 1900 imagine computers? iphones? rockets that can reach the moon? The internet? Bitcoin? Hardly. The future will see innovation we cannot even imagine or perhaps even comprehend with our current level of knowledge. And that will fuel the growth of the future.
-
10:10 "My name is Colpants"
-
Robots are going to automate production and create abundance for all.
-
Cool! Bad news has a lots of entertainment value. Thorium Nuke Reactors!, now and for the FUTURE!
-
10:50 I would much rather have water then electricity.
-
Thumbs down for comparing Edison to actual great inventors.
-
A good look back, but lacks any vision on a fututre based on curent trajectories: medicine (stem cell research for example), technology (robotics as another example), on-line education, democracy in developing countries, etc. I agree that population is a serious issue. But he missed environmental sustainability as a potential "headwind" altogether. And I am sorry, debt is not a serious problem it is a political ruse used to maintain a higher level of inequality in the developed nations. I would give this talk a B-.
-
The impediment to growth is debt and corporatism and probably not in that order.
That is all.
-
The banker's debt-money requires growth. As others have mentioned, failure to address a trans-humanity threshold is a significant oversight. Of course, we are apples and trans-humans will be oranges. So this is anthropocentric macroeconomics.
-
As a doctoral level professional recently retired at 62, I paid 14% of my income in to SS for 30 years. I now receive just under $1500 per month. I could live 1 more day or 10 more years. In addition it is TAXABLE income and since my wife is still working we are in the 25% tax bracket. Anyone who calls SS an "entitlement" is an uneducated moron.
-
Maybe we need another great philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume,..
to answer this question.
The US economy has been expanding wildly for two centuries. Are we witnessing the end of growth? Economist Robert Gordon lays out 4 reasons US growth may be slowing, detailing factors like epidemic debt and growing inequality, which could move the US into a period of stasis we can't innovate our way out of. Be sure to watch the opposing viewpoint from Erik Brynjolfsson. TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector
Commento
His 'Macroeconomics' is to me the best text book on the subject. Thanks, Gordon.
There is no shortage of innovation here. The fundamentals of successful innovation is forward thinking, realistic assessment of potential markets and willingness to take on risk.
Even Adam Smith said that there is correlation between demographics and economic growth. If you found any place on earth where there's is real optimistic realistic future of economic growth you have to go to some Sub Saharan African countries (Kenya, Ghana, etc) or China and other Asian countries. The grim reality for US, Europe and other traditional OECD countries is stagnation or very very slow growth.
Combinatorial innovation?
This guy does not know as much as Andrew McAfee or Erik Brynjolfsson. He sees some of the same problems, but not the same causes or solutions.
0:36 翻译写错了, 是80%的音速飞行.
I know in the future economist will be obsolete. Didn't call the 08' crash but can do growth projections based on a foggy concept of innovation. Condoms are more 'innovative' than motor cars - condoms are vital for managing population growth and disease prevention and the continuity of the species - engines toss carbon in the air like a petulant child in a sand box contributing to climate change and the death of the species. Anything can be innovative because the concept was created by marketers to sell goods and services. This incorrigible old dude needs to retire and get out the way.
Twi words: Industrial internet and internet of things.
Why has the growth grown from 0.2% in 1300 to 2%? Did the speaker do research on that?
Well, it's likely because of what is known as Moore's Law; innovation is exponential rather than linear. The increase in innovation speeds up rather than slowing down or staying the same. Sure, the examples made in the speech sound like important inventions. It's hard to imagine future innovation that can top those. But could people in 1900 imagine computers? iphones? rockets that can reach the moon? The internet? Bitcoin? Hardly. The future will see innovation we cannot even imagine or perhaps even comprehend with our current level of knowledge. And that will fuel the growth of the future.
Well, it's likely because of what is known as Moore's Law; innovation is exponential rather than linear. The increase in innovation speeds up rather than slowing down or staying the same. Sure, the examples made in the speech sound like important inventions. It's hard to imagine future innovation that can top those. But could people in 1900 imagine computers? iphones? rockets that can reach the moon? The internet? Bitcoin? Hardly. The future will see innovation we cannot even imagine or perhaps even comprehend with our current level of knowledge. And that will fuel the growth of the future.
10:10 "My name is Colpants"
Robots are going to automate production and create abundance for all.
Cool! Bad news has a lots of entertainment value. Thorium Nuke Reactors!, now and for the FUTURE!
10:50 I would much rather have water then electricity.
Thumbs down for comparing Edison to actual great inventors.
A good look back, but lacks any vision on a fututre based on curent trajectories: medicine (stem cell research for example), technology (robotics as another example), on-line education, democracy in developing countries, etc. I agree that population is a serious issue. But he missed environmental sustainability as a potential "headwind" altogether. And I am sorry, debt is not a serious problem it is a political ruse used to maintain a higher level of inequality in the developed nations. I would give this talk a B-.
The impediment to growth is debt and corporatism and probably not in that order.
That is all.
That is all.
The banker's debt-money requires growth. As others have mentioned, failure to address a trans-humanity threshold is a significant oversight. Of course, we are apples and trans-humans will be oranges. So this is anthropocentric macroeconomics.
As a doctoral level professional recently retired at 62, I paid 14% of my income in to SS for 30 years. I now receive just under $1500 per month. I could live 1 more day or 10 more years. In addition it is TAXABLE income and since my wife is still working we are in the 25% tax bracket. Anyone who calls SS an "entitlement" is an uneducated moron.
Maybe we need another great philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume,..
to answer this question.