Saturday, December 23, 2017

Facts or Fantasy

The VoxEu site has writings from generally far left academics. This one from VoxEu is rather disconcerting. They state:

Differences in ability, as measured by test scores in early childhood, explain very little of these disparities. Children at the top of their 3rd grade mathematics class are much more likely to become inventors, but only if they come from high-income families. High-scoring children from low-income or minority families are unlikely to become inventors. Put differently, becoming an inventor relies upon two things in America: excelling in mathematics and science and having a rich family....

 Children who grow up in areas with more inventors – and are thereby more exposed to innovation while growing up – are much more likely to become inventors themselves. Exposure influences not just whether a child grows up to become an inventor, but also the type of inventions he or she produces. For example, among people living in Boston, those who grew up in Silicon Valley are especially likely to patent in computers, while those who grew up in Minneapolis – which has many medical device manufacturers – are especially likely to patent in medical devices. Similarly, children whose parents hold patents in a certain technology class (e.g. amplifiers) are more likely to patent in exactly that field themselves rather than in other closely related fields (e.g. antennas).

 The data they used seems to be from the 19th century. If one looks at any entrepreneur, almost all, they are smart, yes, but are both risk takers and self assured. The rich kids all too often go into secure slots such as Law or Banking. Rich kids are not great risk takers. They are wealth expanders not wealth creators. All one need to do is examine the Silicon Valley set. Perhaps the rich kids do politics, and we see what happens there, but in doing something which requires risk, not for a rich kid.

Look at Corporate executives, they get there by having others take risks. If it works they then take credit, if it does not they have a victim.

I feel in my opinion and based on my experience that the conclusions in the noted piece are baseless when one looks at the current environment.

After all, what should one expect from academics.

Also having a patent is often a distraction. Patents work for large companies as strategic competitive tools. For a lone entrepreneur that can be a mill stone. Defending a patent is costly and often fruitless.