Progress To Be Achieved – Chasing What We What We Don’t Have
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Practicing thinking can become an addictive habit – you may not figure things out, but it sure makes for some interesting thoughts. Doing some thinking and research into the ideas of others about economic development and diversifying Nevada’s economy, I was struck by the outline of what makes up the “New Economy”, written about in the study “The 2008 State New Economy Index – Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States.” The Nevada Economic Development folks have put a good deal of stock in the ideas considered in this report, including it on their website for the rest of us to get, if we are so inclined to give it a look.
An important pillar in the make-up of the “New Economy” is innovation – “the development and adoption of new products, processes and business models.” In weighing (or perhaps weighting) the evaluation of future prospects for states, the leading question is posed, “Can states spur and take advantage of the next innovation wave – technologies such as robotics, clean energy, biotechnology and nanotechnology – or will the next wave of technology-powered growth not emerge in time to prevent a transitory slowdown after the digital revolution eventually runs its course?”
Having any chance in the emerging global and highly competitive future we are going to, we’re told by the New Economy report – “If states are going to meet the economic challenges of the future, they will need to make the promotion of innovation a larger part of their economic development policy framework.” Further, “innovation is not just ‘high tech’” – “It is also about all sectors and organizations learning, adapting and changing. Properly conceived, a state innovation agenda benefits workers, firms and regions that depend on manufacturing as well as those that depend on information technology, and high school and community graduates, as well as PhDs.”
At the risk of accidentally fitting into the negative connotation that I’ve learned is a failing of conservative wackos from progressive author, Michael Lux…it seems that our only hope for progress is to be found in becoming addicted to change and innovation. Unless we continue to chase what we don’t have, we’re going to be left out of the limited-time offers we can actually never obtain, but still should be striving to pursue.
Michael Lux bemoans conservative ideology for its defense of the status quo and opposition to reform and progress – the promotion of fear instead of hopeful embrace of change. But what about the idea of change (or innovation) simply for the sake of change (or innovation)? Is that truly a mission which cannot be questioned?
It Might Be Why Private Initiative Cannot Be Trusted:
The research that I’ve been doing and the thinking I’ve been giving to the subject has been motivated by the question of whether a “private option” (as in non-governmental solution) can be instituted into the recommendations that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group will be working to develop. Is more and bigger Nevada government the only solution to improving Nevada’s standing in those key quality-of-life components that have been identified? Can private sector initiative and actions accomplish as much on their own accord as would be possible through the auspices of government programs?
If you think about what’s at stake for the interests involved it becomes more evident why the constant drive for what you don’t have is so critical. This has nothing to do with being willing to adopt and adapt to change – it has to do with an addiction for change that accomplishes desired outcomes.
It does make sense – when you don’t accept the restrictive limitations of government serving as an impartial referee for individuals to pursue their own interests with maximum opportunity for success or failure – and instead you believe that government central-planning can make more sense of it all, delivering to each as they have need…requiring contributors to provide as they have ability. If the private enterprise sector, driven by competition and self-motivation for full development, were to be relied on, the progress they would seek might be based on thoughtful pursuit. The risk might be satisfaction with advancements that didn’t provide funding for those who don’t contribute. Equal outcomes, regardless of merit, would likely not be accomplished if you left individual freedom take precedent over the interdependence of the community.
We need to have the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group establish strategies for improving Nevada’s standing in economic diversification, education, energy use, health and human services, job creation, public transit/transportation and public safety because without chasing what we don’t think we have – there’s no reason for the Nevada Legislature to work on “revenue stabilization strategies”… we’d have state government getting by with what they had instead of reaching deeper into taxpayer wallets.
Practicing thinking can become an addictive habit – you may not figure things out, but it sure makes for some interesting thoughts. Doing some thinking and research into the ideas of others about economic development and diversifying Nevada’s economy, I was struck by the outline of what makes up the “New Economy”, written about in the study “The 2008 State New Economy Index – Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States.” The Nevada Economic Development folks have put a good deal of stock in the ideas considered in this report, including it on their website for the rest of us to get, if we are so inclined to give it a look.
An important pillar in the make-up of the “New Economy” is innovation – “the development and adoption of new products, processes and business models.” In weighing (or perhaps weighting) the evaluation of future prospects for states, the leading question is posed, “Can states spur and take advantage of the next innovation wave – technologies such as robotics, clean energy, biotechnology and nanotechnology – or will the next wave of technology-powered growth not emerge in time to prevent a transitory slowdown after the digital revolution eventually runs its course?”
Having any chance in the emerging global and highly competitive future we are going to, we’re told by the New Economy report – “If states are going to meet the economic challenges of the future, they will need to make the promotion of innovation a larger part of their economic development policy framework.” Further, “innovation is not just ‘high tech’” – “It is also about all sectors and organizations learning, adapting and changing. Properly conceived, a state innovation agenda benefits workers, firms and regions that depend on manufacturing as well as those that depend on information technology, and high school and community graduates, as well as PhDs.”
At the risk of accidentally fitting into the negative connotation that I’ve learned is a failing of conservative wackos from progressive author, Michael Lux…it seems that our only hope for progress is to be found in becoming addicted to change and innovation. Unless we continue to chase what we don’t have, we’re going to be left out of the limited-time offers we can actually never obtain, but still should be striving to pursue.
Michael Lux bemoans conservative ideology for its defense of the status quo and opposition to reform and progress – the promotion of fear instead of hopeful embrace of change. But what about the idea of change (or innovation) simply for the sake of change (or innovation)? Is that truly a mission which cannot be questioned?
It Might Be Why Private Initiative Cannot Be Trusted:
The research that I’ve been doing and the thinking I’ve been giving to the subject has been motivated by the question of whether a “private option” (as in non-governmental solution) can be instituted into the recommendations that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group will be working to develop. Is more and bigger Nevada government the only solution to improving Nevada’s standing in those key quality-of-life components that have been identified? Can private sector initiative and actions accomplish as much on their own accord as would be possible through the auspices of government programs?
If you think about what’s at stake for the interests involved it becomes more evident why the constant drive for what you don’t have is so critical. This has nothing to do with being willing to adopt and adapt to change – it has to do with an addiction for change that accomplishes desired outcomes.
It does make sense – when you don’t accept the restrictive limitations of government serving as an impartial referee for individuals to pursue their own interests with maximum opportunity for success or failure – and instead you believe that government central-planning can make more sense of it all, delivering to each as they have need…requiring contributors to provide as they have ability. If the private enterprise sector, driven by competition and self-motivation for full development, were to be relied on, the progress they would seek might be based on thoughtful pursuit. The risk might be satisfaction with advancements that didn’t provide funding for those who don’t contribute. Equal outcomes, regardless of merit, would likely not be accomplished if you left individual freedom take precedent over the interdependence of the community.
We need to have the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group establish strategies for improving Nevada’s standing in economic diversification, education, energy use, health and human services, job creation, public transit/transportation and public safety because without chasing what we don’t think we have – there’s no reason for the Nevada Legislature to work on “revenue stabilization strategies”… we’d have state government getting by with what they had instead of reaching deeper into taxpayer wallets.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/30/2009 9:17 AM 
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: The role of government Nevada Nevada Tax Study Economic Development
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: The role of government Nevada Nevada Tax Study Economic Development
Comments