A true innovation economy would be OBSESSED with lifting the tens of millions of people out of poverty who could be innovators if they weren’t worried about food, shelter, etc.

If the most meaningful gains to economic growth come from game-changing innovations (electricity, Internet, etc.), then it seems reasonable to ask: “Does this public policy increase or decrease the pool of individuals who have a decent shot at a huge innovation?”

I found @tylercowen’s book Stubborn Attachments convincing in arguing that economic growth is of enormous consequence. So it has me thinking more about increasing our shots on goal, as it were. And it seems like sheer numbers are our easiest path. Get more people more chances.

This ends up cutting across conservative and progressive policies. Regulatory burdens should probably be a real concern. Basic needs should probably be universally ensured. A culture of work/achievement probably still matters, but not a Puritan, 19th century conception of labor

We should probably celebrate Elon Musk’s accomplishments more and let him take more shots at weird stuff, but also stop idolizing him since there are 10,000 geniuses out there who haven’t been discovered because they are picking through garbage to find a meal

And as @spencerhall rightly points out, human dignity is not dependent on one’s genius or potential for innovation....