经济与社会科学2016web.stanford.edu编辑精选
想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
入门 · 约 60 分钟读完前置知识：宏观经济学基础、全要素生产率概念
导读
这篇论文（Bloom、Jones、Van Reenen、Webb 等人的经典研究）探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。例如农业产量提升、芯片摩尔定律延续所需的科研人员数量都大幅增加。
HN 关注点：HN 读者长期关注创新放缓与摩尔定律终结的讨论，这篇论文用定量证据支持“低垂的果实已被摘完”的观点，引发关于科研投入、资本与创新的激烈争论。
后来怎么样
该论文成为研究经济增长与创新生产率的标志性文献，'ideas getting harder to find' 被广泛引用，引出大量关于科研效率下降的后续实证研究，并影响了关于研发投入政策的讨论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 1 补充 2
补充政府科研支出下降可能是创新减少的重要原因，企业研发无法替代
我猜测“好想法”减少至少与政府科研支出下降相关，甚至可能有因果关系（从 1970 年代占 GDP 的 2% 降到 2014 年的 0.78%）。考虑到整个美国科技产业最初都是由政府研究催生的，企业研发很难替代政府研究那种长期、非逐利的视角。此外，缺乏政府资助的研究可能导致市场竞争减弱，更利于既有垄断者——因为研究主要来自大公司研发部门，新进入者无法竞争。我没有实证证据，但值得思考。
lavrov查看英文原文
I would speculate that the decrease in "good ideas" is at least correlated with, and probably causally related to, the decrease in government spending on research (2% of GDP in the 1970's to 0.78% of GDP in 2014[1]). Considering that the entire US technology industry was originally supported and sparked by government research, I would imagine that a large part of the problem is that corporate R&D is a poor substitute for the longer-term, non-profit-driven perspective of government research. Further, I wonder if, in general, lack of government-funded research leads to less competitive markets that are more amenable to established monopolists, since in that scenario, research is emerging primarily from corporate R&D departments and emerging players in markets can't compete. I don't have any empirical evidence, but I think interesting to consider. [1] http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/
质疑问题在于资本垄断，好想法因缺钱而无法与资金充足的坏想法竞争
不是好想法越来越难找，而是资金不足的好想法竞争不过资金充足的坏想法。投资者更愿意资助熟人手里的糟糕点子，而不是陌生人的好点子。市场在各个层面都被垄断，好想法敌不过纯粹的资本。
jondubois查看英文原文
It's not that good ideas are getting harder to find, it's that poorly-funded good ideas can't compete against well-funded bad ideas. Investors are more interested in funding terrible ideas from people they know than great ideas from people they don't know. The market is monopolized on every side and good ideas can't compete against sheer capital.
补充零利率环境让资本泛滥，大公司用廉价资本碾压竞争者而非真正创新
在近八年零利率或负利率（QE 是负利率的一种形式）之后，有两件事导致了这个现象：一是几乎所有合理的想法都已被尝试过，大多花的是纳税人的钱；二是某些行业（最著名的是美国石油业的一部分）本质上是坏想法，但人们极其希望它们成功，这些公司靠资本注入维持利润。很多公司用信贷和资本去做经济学家以为它们用利润做的事：分红和回购。实际上自 2015 年左右以来，不少公司的自由现金流持续恶化。政府让大公司以极低成本尝试各种想法，它们也部分利用这一点让其他人无法尝试——Uber、Deliveroo、达美乐都用资本在价格上击败了所有合理的配送公司，想成为下一个亚马逊，但并没有成功。
candiodari查看英文原文
After close to 8 years with zero or negative interest rates (QE is a form of negative interest rates), there's 2 things causing this: Anything -reasonable and otherwise- has been tried. Mostly on the taxpayer's dime. A number of industries, most famously big parts of the US oil industry, but they won't be alone, are bad ideas that people really, really, really want to see working. Therefore those companies have been using capital injections for profits. It should be called a Ponzi scheme, but in some ways it isn't. A lot of companies have been using credit and capital to do what every economist assumes they use profits and free cash flow for : pay dividends and share buybacks. In reality for quite a few companies free cash flow has been steadily worsening since 2015 or so. So we have the double whammy of the government making it VERY cheap for huge companies to try every idea under the sun, which of course they have partially used to make it impossible for others to try (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo and Domino's pizzas have used capital to beat every reasonable delivery company on price, the idea being to become the next Amazon, and of course, they have not become the next Amazon. And I would say that Amazon itself is also a "become monopoly - then jack up prices" play that so far hasn't even succeeded in part 1 of that. Their stock has done well, not because Bezos has kept his promise, but because of his reports of progress). So has every idea been tried ? Of course not. But due to sustained easy credit it has become very hard to try new ideas. Those of us working for huge companies best prepare for a few leaner years.
支持发明巅峰在 1880-1900 年；许多技术快速发展后撞墙，如航空业
这并不是新观点。发明的真正巅峰在 1880-1900 年前后：钢铁生产终于成熟、电力已被认知、基础机床已存在、蒸汽动力运转良好。爱迪生当时最活跃，他的“发明工厂”目标是每两天一个小发明、每三周一个大发明——到处都是唾手可得的发明机会。有些技术会快速发展后撞墙：航空业从 1903 年莱特兄弟首飞到 1960 年代末发展迅猛，产出了波音 747/737、协和、SR-71、土星五号，此后改进就微不足道了。尽管 1960 年代的技术文献预言了高超音速客机、单级入轨飞船、核动力星际火箭甚至反重力研究，但都没发生。
Animats查看英文原文
This isn't a new idea. The real peak for invention was around 1880-1900. Steel production finally worked, electricity was known, the basic machine tools existed, and steam power was working well. That's when Edison was most active. His "invention factory" had a goal of a minor invention every two days and a major invention every three weeks. There were so many easy hits available waiting to be invented, and the tools were there to build them. Some technologies develop rapidly and then hit a wall. Aviation developed rapidly from the Wright's first flight in 1903 to the late 1960s, which produced the Boeing 747 and 737 (both still in production), the Concorde, the SR-71, the C-5A,and the Saturn V. Since then, improvements have been minor by comparison. Yet technical documents from the 1960s project vast improvements - hypersonic ballistic transports, single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft, atomic-powered interplanetary rockets, and fusion drives. Even antigravity was studied seriously. Didn't happen.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
- 视频与演讲
历次讨论
- 2016Hacker News 讨论帖182 分 · 106 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选没有人会因解决从未发生的问题而获得赞誉（2001）
Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened (2001)
讨论组织为何总奖励“救火”而忽视防患于未然：预防性维护和流程改进因问题没有发生而不可见、难以归功，危机处理却因戏剧性和可量化而获得资源与晋升。
经济与社会科学2015 · 1,232 分 · 474 评入门 · 约 20 分钟