alt Hacker NewsWas there an expectation that economic busts drove innovation? Am I naive to think booms not busts would be the engine for innovation?
Replies
The narrative I've heard is that it's all about the people. During booms, the smart people are employed and treated well, so stay stuck in the corporate grind. Then their employer goes bankrupt and start their own company.
If you read beyond the headline, the article explicitly addresses this.
The hypothesis was that firms invest in innovation in busts, when the opportunity cost is lower.
The study finds that it’s nuanced and it depends on the industry. Too close to a boom, like an oil firm, and you face high opportunity costs, and innovate less during the boom. There is a sweet spot where you are near enough to benefit from higher capital but not too close to be crippled by opportunity costs
A big reason that people say intrest rate hikes or cost cutting is good because it makes people "work smarter with less" or some other BS or have the economy focus on what matters
Bordain first book have a great argument on bust driving culinary Innovation.
Sure. War and hardship drives innovation.
It seems obvious to me, too, when considered in terms of available capital providing means for experimenting with unproven ideas.
But I think the opposite may legitimately be the intuition for people of generations before ZIRP and the notion of inventiveness when resources are scarce or you're simply out of work. You can see it in the themes of many movies and other media in the 80s and early 90s, too, the hero arc of the inventor down on their luck. I think the idea carried forward for people in their formative years then.