Who are the losers in the product diffusion game

A bigger national share of global high-tech output can mean a bigger national share of good jobs and greater economic prosperity. That is why technology-intensive industries are the source of growing trade friction between the U.

As high-tech industries have become steadily more important to the economic performance of the developed countries, those countries commit to maintaining a local high-technology production base by leveraging both policies and structural differences in national economies for example, the difficulty of Japanese market access. Absent U. We will pay a huge price measured in loss of high-paying jobs, a contracting tax base, declining local communities, and slower economic growth.

We will end up poorer. And it matters not at all whether this outcome is intended or simply the effect of competition between differently organized political economies.

The adjustment problems that follow for the U. Such support can be reactive later at great cost. Or it can be proactive now, aiming to nurture what we know and extend it in ways that address collective needs.

If the government must act, how should it act to maximize the likelihood of a positive payback? A decade ago, in their book Government and Technological Progress , the economist Richard Nelson and his colleagues provided three recommendations for public support to innovation that still hold. The third is to develop mechanisms whereby potential users guide the allocation of applied research and development funds.

First, any "well-defined public objective" ought to have two characteristics. It should be an area of clear common need for national well-being, and where possible, addressing that need should remove an obvious constraint on future prospects for long-term economic growth. After all, if the government is paying the bill, it is entitled to domestic production, even in an age of multinationals.

Third, and perhaps most important, public support should actively pursue diffusion of new technologies into widespread commercial use within the domestic economy.

Aside from the emphasis on commercial market criteria during application development, there are four ways to accomplish this. One is through incentives like investment tax credits or leasing arrangements tailored to encourage early adopters. A second is through education and training. Many of the industries successfully launched through public sponsorship drew from a labor pool trained in the new technologies through federal support.

In effect, a supply of new skills shaped demand to fit its characteristics, rather than the reverse. A third way to accomplish diffusion is by embedding new technologies in public infrastructure wherever possible, thereby making their benefits universally accessible. A fourth way is to adapt the agriculture extension model to industry.

The aim would be to assist the small and medium-sized businesses that underpin local and regional economies in effectively adopting new technologies and methods of production. There is already an elaborate network of state agencies that play this kind of role, often in conjunction with local educational institutions attuned to the needs of local business. Minimal federal funding could help build this network into an effective national industrial extension service and link it to publicly sponsored innovation.

With only marginal effort, these guidelines could be applied to existing federal support of science and technology. But we can go further. Let's imagine redirecting several billion dollars from defense to new commercial technology development.

Using existing work on critical technologies as a point of departure, the Office of Science and Technology Policy or perhaps the National Security Council would invest one-third of the total on nonproprietary research in the sciences underlying the critical technologies, subject to review by the NSF or the National Academies.

Another one-third would be directed to diffusion, via incentives, training, infrastructure, and extension. This spending would focus on existing technologies like those for flexible manufacturing. This funding could also help move critical technologies out of the lab and into manufacture.

For example, demonstration products might be funded or loan guarantees provided for building volume production facilities where private capital markets were known to balk.

The last third would go toward specific nondefense public objectives, where investment is likely to remove constraints on future economic performance. Guided by both technological and commercial market considerations, the resulting technologies should be capable of broad and rapid diffusion into the economy. As serious candidates, consider the following:. The Environment. No matter how much they are opposed by industry, global requirements for ever more stringent environmental cleanliness will not be moderated.

But neither are consumers likely to adjust their demand for jobs and goods according to what is environmentally sustainable with today's technologies. These environmental and economic needs can be treated as antithetical, the position President Bush advanced at the Rio Summit in July. Perhaps ultimately they are. But it is surely an appropriate public responsibility to explore whether they can be reconciled. There are several opportunities that go beyond conventional programs in waste reduction, cleanup, and recycling.

The effort should be directed to replacing existing industrial production with technologies that generate no waste or pollution in the first place. If American's manufacturing stock can be rebuilt around clean production technologies, the economic possibilities for the next century are wide open. New U. Energy and Natural Resources. Almost across the board, American industries are among the least energy- and resource-efficient producers in the industrial world.

If there is motivation to develop the appropriate technologies, dramatic resource efficiencies are possible, as Silicon Valley firms discovered when they reduced their water usage during the last six years of drought. A good beginning would be to study the energy and resource use of major industries like electronics and to evaluate resource-efficient technologies already used abroad. Both tasks are ideally suited to the national laboratories. Once opportunities for improvement are identified, competitive contracts could be offered to develop the necessary technologies, and investment incentives could promote rapid adoption.

Again, new technologies to help sustain resources and enable efficient use would spin off entirely new industries while boosting the competitive position of existing ones.

There is widespread agreement that much of the nation's networks for transportation, power, sewage, water, and communications are eroding and need to be rebuilt. Anyone who has operated a business where the infrastructure is lousy say, the phone networks in Eastern Europe knows the damage it wreaks on efficiency.

Providing modern infrastructure would stimulate not only productivity but also innovations, from low-maintenance structural concretes to optical networks, to take advantage of the new infrastructure. The additional opportunity here would be to fashion new infrastructure that uses emerging critical technologies of the next century new materials, visual systems with flat-panel displays, real-time electronic controls and then to support the development of commercial, domestic capabilities in them through nationwide procurement.

With military spending and the resulting technological and economic benefits it generates declining, these long-term needs are likely to provide the next frontiers of American technological innovation.

More than technological preeminence is at stake. Historically high growth rates, competitive wages, and a growing standard of living all depend on regaining leadership in commercial technological innovation. For twelve debilitating years, the government has refused to invest in America's commercial technology position. It's high time to revive public support and set it to the task. A screenshot of this All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This documentation contains AspenTech proprietary and confidential information Jun 4, It is intended for In order to analyze the gas A Simple Example.

Single Unit Operation Example. Solution to Design Problems. Closing Remarks. Appendix: Codes. This guide is intended to provide a framework of materials for teaching design available on the. HYSYS show Another article is scheduled to appear in CEP soon regarding thermodynamic modeling of mixed. Visual Basic is recommended. Choose appropriate menu item. Oct 3, Aspen Plus. Sequential — Modular approach. Equation — Oriented approach Fired Heater. Key to understanding the notion of a flywheel in the context of business is that as it rotates, it increases output or revenue without increasing input or cost.

A decade ago, to sell more meant having to produce more discs and then ship them to retailers. Soon, key competitive advantages emerge from facilitating and harnessing the creative energies that naturally emerge around game play. Success in the years to come will depend on developing innovative content that leverages an effective combination of these different components.

Sure enough, your game is fun to play and the best ever, but can people watch it, too? Like the item drops in Hunger Games, can viewers send you weapons or a health pack? Is the connective tissue between players strong enough? And, what is your plan to facilitate self-organized play or social clustering? Different types of engagement closely associate with a specific revenue models. We are well past unit sales and are now venturing into new territories which I will explore further in the weeks to come.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to log in. I will also add that in the disruptive and irrelevant banner ad will morph into a more user-friendly reward ad that is an extension to game. As advertisers shift budgets, antiquated game ads will give way to new models that are relevant, safe, fraud proof and blockchain verified.

SuperJoost Playlist Subscribe Sign in. About Archive Help Sign in. Share this post. Predictions, new rev models, and the video game flywheel. Predictions, new rev models, and the video game flywheel The next 10 years in gaming.

In darkness you follow the light. So here goes. Happy New Year everyone! Create your profile. Only paid subscribers can comment on this post Subscribe. Already a paid subscriber?

Log in. Check your email For your security, we need to re-authenticate you. Frank Zazza. Expand full comment. About About. Ready for more? See privacy , terms and information collection notice. SuperJoost Playlist is on Substack — the place for independent writing. Our use of cookies We use necessary cookies to make our site work.

We also set performance and functionality cookies that help us make improvements by measuring traffic on our site. For more detailed information about the cookies we use, please see our privacy policy. This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please turn on JavaScript or unblock scripts.