Comments on: The winner-take-all economy Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: RichardLyonn Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:31:41 +0000 The fundamental issue is that there’s an exceptionally weak correlation between wealth and social contributions in the form of innovation, talent, creativity, and so on.

While some wealthy people are genuinely productive and innovative, many – especially in the CEO and financial classes – are simply game players who understand corporate strategy and financial practices, but have no ability to make a *practical* positive contribution beyond that.

Put simply, we reward the wrong behaviours and talents for the wrong reasons, and mass unemployment – which is a mass denial of potential creative talent – is the result.

The most recent burst of innovation during the 50s and 60s happened during a period of intensive government subsidy of R&D.

The Randian mythology of the colossal genius individualistic inventor is largely nonsense. The reality is that we’re all embedded in cooperative frameworks, and no individual can survive without those frameworks – never mind innovate without their support.

By: Kyle-M Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:35:51 +0000 Very interesting and worthwhile set of interviews.

Robert mentions how at other times in history where there have been technological changes to open up new markets, there has been a similar concentration of wealth as we are seeing today. Presumably then, some time after these changes, the concentration of wealth begins to even out?

Could this high concentration of wealth then be a case of the innovators, those who discover how to best take advantage of the new changes, being able to take the lion’s share of the new wealth opened up, with the rest then catching up with these ideas later?