Innovation Economics:
is the conscious practice of investing in innovation as a method for driving economic prosperity. Innovation is the science of change and economics is the science of incentives.
Money is fictitious:
Money does not represent gold or silver, it represents your productivity. The value is held in the productivity, not coins or bank notes. Debt represents future productivity and savings represents past productivity. It’s very simple.
So if the word “money” and the word “productivity” mean the same thing, they should be interchangeable. Right?
As a test, try the following:
Every time you hear someone use the word “money”, simply insert the word “productivity”. Try it with the kids, your boss, the news broadcast, or your favorite politicians. If their statement still makes sense, then it is likely a logical statement. If the statement is confused, reversed, or makes no sense whatsoever, then this is where we need Innovation Economics.
The Reversal:
- “Mom, can I have some [productivity] to buy an ice cream cone?”
- “We don’t have enough [productivity] to invest in R&D”
- “There isn’t enough [productivity] in the budget so we must cut education programs”.
The Confusion:
- “It concerns me that Facebook has yet to find a [productivity] model that seems likely to secure its future.”
- “Icelandic [productivity] collapse is heard around the world”
- “Global Warming costs too much [productivity] to solve”
The Ridiculous:
- “Wall Street Executives earned excessive [productivity] in 2008”
- “State of Washington opens more liquor stores to raise much needed [productivity]
- “Lawmakers from both political parties have criticized banks for failing to use the taxpayer [productivity] for lending to help stabilize the hard-hit U.S. economy”.
It’s really fun to play this game when you start getting bored with the endless dribble of spin. You can even go backwards; hear “productivity” and insert “money”. Pour yourself a glass of wine, sit back to the nightly news and you may start noticing some interesting trends.
Discussions related to engineers, infrastructure, airplanes, teachers, doctors, police and firefighters, etc., tend to get The Reversal. Discussions related to innovation industries such as social media, environment, and social causes tend to get The Confusion. Discussions related to gambling, marketing and advertising, money shuffling, law suits, Wall Street, and various forms of speculation, are simply The Ridiculous.
It will make you wonder why we would need a Web 3.0 Semantic Web. We really need a Web 3.0 de-Semantic Web.
