I would have to agree with the sentiment embodied in the last line here. Remember, Edison didn’t figure out how to build a lightbulb without first finding 2,000 ways not to build one.
Innovation of this kind is no different. It's high risk with unknown reward. Just because a rocket explodes does not mean it failed, far from it.
Risk and Progress always go together, hand in hand.
Just imagine the synergies that could have happened if the government had a less bone-headed view of industry. Great history lesson here Madeline - really helps to understand our past so we don't repeat it. The good news is that in general the view on the Hill is much more favorable and those in DoD are starting to get the message...even if we haven't yet changed the processes that view profit as something to control rather than value something to maximize. Well done!
Absolutely agree with your final statements. I was getting very upset with the reaction of the society (at least a part that I saw on the internet) with the 'just rich man in a rocket spending millions when people [insert anything that people need money for]'. Like you said, they could be just retired and on constant vacations. Instead they are pushing the boundaries of what humanity can do and create foundations of the Future.
I hope that in the life I've got I'll be able to also help build some of that and not just be a bystander.
As for the main topic of the article, this was a very interesting history. I wasn't aware of how bad things were in US politics at that time. Makes me wonder if war with China starts, would US repeat it's feats of WW2 innovation and production? Same for EU, will we get our act together now with the threat of WW3?
This sounds so unsustainable, do we humans need a threat of this level to have efficient governance structures and unleashed innovation with real world quick implementation of this innovation? I really hope there is a better way. Otherwise that would also be another way in which AGI or ASI could outdo humans, it's not bound by ineffective management.
I'm sympathetic to the underlying argument here, and agree that profit margins are a terrible target.
I'm not sure I agree they *only* indicate efficiency, however; taking the examples of the ultra profitable gunpowder and steel industries in wartime, exceptional profits, if maintained, indicate a failure of competition. This competive failure could indeed be due to one company being so much better than its competition... Or it could be due to barriers to entry, to sheer luck (being in the right place at the right time), or indeed to failures of contracting policy.
A couple of questions for you:
1) I struggle to believe that companies make high capital, production line decisions based on a potential world war, so the resulting profits hardly function as an incentive to investment. Where do you see the taxpayer value there in allowing those profits in public contracts (again, not saying we should target profit margins, but rather that government negotiators should have negotiated harder).
2) Given the clear cost/learning curves associated with mass production, and the very low volume nature of contemporary military production and procurement***, do you think the US and other NATO countries should generally do less individual development and specification, and if so, how do you balance concerns about sovereignty here?
***My personal takeaways from the war in Ukraine are
1) That NATO has vastly overemphasised quality over quantity as a peacetime luxury; and
2) Manoeuvre warfare mindset is proving extremely difficult to dislodge in the minds of military planners, despite its repeated failures in both counterinsurgency and peer competitor warzones over the past 20 years.
I would have to agree with the sentiment embodied in the last line here. Remember, Edison didn’t figure out how to build a lightbulb without first finding 2,000 ways not to build one.
Innovation of this kind is no different. It's high risk with unknown reward. Just because a rocket explodes does not mean it failed, far from it.
Risk and Progress always go together, hand in hand.
Just imagine the synergies that could have happened if the government had a less bone-headed view of industry. Great history lesson here Madeline - really helps to understand our past so we don't repeat it. The good news is that in general the view on the Hill is much more favorable and those in DoD are starting to get the message...even if we haven't yet changed the processes that view profit as something to control rather than value something to maximize. Well done!
Absolutely agree with your final statements. I was getting very upset with the reaction of the society (at least a part that I saw on the internet) with the 'just rich man in a rocket spending millions when people [insert anything that people need money for]'. Like you said, they could be just retired and on constant vacations. Instead they are pushing the boundaries of what humanity can do and create foundations of the Future.
I hope that in the life I've got I'll be able to also help build some of that and not just be a bystander.
As for the main topic of the article, this was a very interesting history. I wasn't aware of how bad things were in US politics at that time. Makes me wonder if war with China starts, would US repeat it's feats of WW2 innovation and production? Same for EU, will we get our act together now with the threat of WW3?
This sounds so unsustainable, do we humans need a threat of this level to have efficient governance structures and unleashed innovation with real world quick implementation of this innovation? I really hope there is a better way. Otherwise that would also be another way in which AGI or ASI could outdo humans, it's not bound by ineffective management.
I'm sympathetic to the underlying argument here, and agree that profit margins are a terrible target.
I'm not sure I agree they *only* indicate efficiency, however; taking the examples of the ultra profitable gunpowder and steel industries in wartime, exceptional profits, if maintained, indicate a failure of competition. This competive failure could indeed be due to one company being so much better than its competition... Or it could be due to barriers to entry, to sheer luck (being in the right place at the right time), or indeed to failures of contracting policy.
A couple of questions for you:
1) I struggle to believe that companies make high capital, production line decisions based on a potential world war, so the resulting profits hardly function as an incentive to investment. Where do you see the taxpayer value there in allowing those profits in public contracts (again, not saying we should target profit margins, but rather that government negotiators should have negotiated harder).
2) Given the clear cost/learning curves associated with mass production, and the very low volume nature of contemporary military production and procurement***, do you think the US and other NATO countries should generally do less individual development and specification, and if so, how do you balance concerns about sovereignty here?
***My personal takeaways from the war in Ukraine are
1) That NATO has vastly overemphasised quality over quantity as a peacetime luxury; and
2) Manoeuvre warfare mindset is proving extremely difficult to dislodge in the minds of military planners, despite its repeated failures in both counterinsurgency and peer competitor warzones over the past 20 years.
Great article, and I love the Simpson mime!
haha thank you!