In terms of energy production, fossilįuels are quite powerful. “Clean energy” is a very important issue, for reasons of climate change, but it won’t be a job creator in a useful sense. Basic research is often what economists call a “public good” and it offers economic and health returns for many years to come. It is one reason why the United States is the world leader in medical research and development and I would expand its funding, provided it Particular grants and on many important fronts the N.I.H. has done a very good job in promoting medical innovation and this is in large part because it allocates funds on a relatively meritocratic basis Congress doesn’t control For instance, do you think the National Institutes of Health should receive more money? Could and should the federal government play a bigger role in financing clean-energy research? Should financial aid for colleges and graduate programs be increased? Should government agencies hold colleges more accountable for results - as is, ever so slowly, starting to happen with high schools? And obviously this is not an exhaustive list of possibilities. I’m interested in your view about what policies might speed up innovation and thus economic growth.
As you put it, we have picked much of the low-hanging fruit. You argue that a slowdown in breakthrough innovations has caused a slowdown of economic growth in recent decades, not just in this country but around the industrialized world. Pearlstein added, “a spirited debate is under way on economics blogs about Cowen’s view that the Internet may not really be the productivity bonanza Nick Schulz of the American Enterprise Institute wrote, in Forbes, “It’s possible the most important nonfictionīook this year won’t be published on paper.” Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post also praised the book, in his column this
0 kommentar(er)
