Here’s a webinar video of a discussion I had recently with Kevin Gomez and his colleague at the Institute for Economic Inquiry at Creighton University’s School of Business.  We discussed my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments and the future of “permissionless innovation” more generally. My thanks to Kevin and his team at Creighton for inviting me to join them for a fun discussion. Topics include:

• why evasive entrepreneurialism is expanding
• the growth of innovation arbitrage
• the difference between technologies that are “born free” versus “born in captivity”
• the nature of “the pacing problem” and what it means for policy
• the problem with “set-it-and-forget-it” & “build-and-freeze” regulations
• technological risk and the potential for “soft law” governance
• sensible legislative reforms to advance permissionless innovation (such as “the innovator’s presumption” and “the sunsetting imperative”)
• how the COVID crisis potentially opens the Overton Window to much-needed policy change

We hear a lot today about the importance of “disruptive innovation,” “deep technologies,”  “moonshots,” and even “technological miracles.” What do these terms mean and how are they related? Are they just silly clichés used to hype techno-exuberant books, articles, and speeches? Or do these terms have real meaning and importance?

This article explores those questions and argues that, while these terms are confronted with definitional challenges and occasional overuse, they retain real importance to human flourishing, economic growth, and societal progress.

Basic Concepts

Don Boudreaux defines moonshots as, “radical but feasible solutions to important problems” and Mike Cushing has referred to them as “innovation that achieves the previously unthinkable.” “Deep technology” is another buzzword being used to describe such revolutionary and important innovations. Swati Chaturvedi of investment firm Propel[x] says deep technologies are innovations that are “built on tangible scientific discoveries or engineering innovations” and “are trying to solve big issues that really affect the world around them.”

“Disruptive technology” or “game-changing innovations” are other terms that are often used in reference to technologies and inventions with major societal impacts. “Transformative technologies” is another increasingly popular term, albeit one focused mostly on health and wellness-related innovations.

However one defines them and whatever one calls them, it is clear, as a 2015 report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) argued, that, “the list of potentially disruptive technologies keeps getting longer.” “Inventions previously seen only in science fiction,” the WEF report said, “will enable us to connect and invent in ways we never have before.”

More concretely, when people use these terms in reference to existing technologies, or ones currently on the drawing board, they often mention innovations like:

• Artificial intelligence / machine learning / robotics
• 3D printing / additive manufacturing
• Self-repairing / self-building objects
• Driverless cars / flying cars (VTOL), supersonic transport
• Private space travel / lunar mining
• Clean power / alternative energy production
• Genetic editing & life extension technologies
• Implantable tech / human augmentation
• Hyper-connected devices / wearable fitness / sensor tech / IoT
• Precision medicine
• Neural networks
• Quantum computing
• Nanotechnology / synthetic biology
• Immersive technology (AT & VR)

This is just a partial list of the type of technologies that experts mention when discussing “moonshots,” deep tech,” and other “disruptive” or “transformative innovations.” What unifies them more than anything else is the potential for major improvements in human well-being. Significant advancements in these areas could lead to substantial jumps in human welfare, health, and longevity.

Definitional Limitations

These terms have some problems and limitations, however. For example,“moonshots” conjures up thoughts of large, expensive government programs that are centrally-directed in a top-down fashion. Writing in The New Atlantis last year, Mark P. Mills argued that the notion of “ technological miracles ” can be taken to unrealistic extremes and he specifically cautioned against getting caught up in “moonshot fallacies” as well as “Moore’s Law fallacy.”

The “moonshot fallacy” is commonly heard in policy discussions whenever a policymaker or pundit insists that, “If we can put a man on the moon, then we can…” fill in the blank with your prefered aspirational goal du jour . But as Mills points out, this sort of talk often represents highly unrealistic, wishful thinking. “It is true that engineers have achieved amazing feats when tasked with particular, practical goals. But not all goals are equally achievable,” he correctly argues.  

“Moore’s Law fallacy” refers to the fact that innovation in the physical world of atoms is usually much harder and more costly than innovation in the digital world of bits. “If energy technology had followed a Moore’s Law trajectory, today’s car engine would have shrunk to the size of an ant while producing a thousandfold more horsepower,” Mills observes. The time horizons for big change are almost always going to be significantly longer in the physical world even with the increasing digitization in society and “ software eating the world .”

“Disruptive technology” is also a problematic term because its common use is quite different from Clayton M. Christensen’s original explanation of the term in his widely-cited Harvard Business Review articles from 1995 and then 2015 . “The original notion of disruption aimed to describe why great firms can fail,” Josh Gans explained in his recent book, The Disruption Dilemma . “Today, use of the term has gotten out of control,” he says. “As a concept, disruption has become so persuasive this it is at risk of becoming useless.”

Gans makes a good point. Not everything can be disruptive. Moreover, some techno-evangelists get carried away with such rhetoric regarding the “disruptive,” “transformative,” and “miracle”-working” potential of various technologies.  

But Sometimes Dreams Come True

Despite these definitional controversies or rhetorical excesses from some overly-exuberant tech boosters, these terms retain real meaning and significance.  

It is easy to ridicule dreamers, but quite a bit of life-changing innovation begins as a dream of some sort. Without a doubt, a great many “moonshots” will never get off the ground, and many “deep” technologies will end up sinking into the ocean of irrelevant or failed technologies. But that’s OK! It is in the process of risk-taking, experimentation, and failure that wisdom is generated and meaningful improvements in social and economic well-being come about.

It’s easy to talk about “trial-and-error” without thinking much about the “error” part of the process. It is only through constant experimentation and failure that we learn how to do things more efficiently and create or improve goods and services.

Perhaps the most straightforward definition of “technology” is Ian Barbour’s: “the application of organized knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems of people and machines.” But organized knowledge requires lots of trials and lots of errors–by both people and machines–in order to find workable solutions to the tasks we hope to accomplish.

To the extent that we would like to see more technological improvements, we need more “dreamers” who hope to change the world. Entrepreneurs are the key to this process because, by their very nature, they refuse to settle for the status quo. They dream of a world that can work differently; one in which they can improve their own lot and (whether intentionally or not) improve the lot of humanity simultaneously. “What entrepreneurs do,” venture capitalist Vinod Khosla argues , “is they imagine what feels impossible to most people, and take it all the way from impossible, to improbable, to possible but unlikely, to plausible, to probable, to real!”  

That is why entrepreneurialism is so important , and it is also why shouldn’t roll our eyes when people dream about “moonshots” and the ways in which “deep technology” might “disrupt” and “transform” society for the better.  

While we should always keep both feet firmly rooted on the ground, there is nothing wrong with looking skyward and dreaming of a better future. Indeed, as a society, we should seek to foster a culture of innovation that rewards entrepreneurial dreaming and daring, because in seeking to make the world a better place, progress and prosperity become reality.  

Additional Reading

Donald J. Boudreaux, “What’s Your Moonshot?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Mercatus Original Video , November 16, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/videos/whats-your-moonshot .

Joseph L. Bower & Clayton M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review , January-February 1995,   https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave .

Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor & Rory McDonald, “What Is Disruptive Innovation?”  Harvard Business Review,December 2015, https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation.

Tyler Cowen, “Is Innovation Over? The Case against Pessimism,” Foreign Affairs , March/April 2016, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2016-02-15/innovation-over .

Swati Chaturvedi, “So What Exactly is ‘Deep Technology’?” LinkedIn , July 28, 2015, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-what-exactly-deep-technology-swati-chaturvedi .

Mike Cushing, “Moonshot Projects – Innovation or Wishful Thinking?” Enterprise Innovation , http://www.enterpriseinnovation.com/articles/moonshot-projects-innovation-or-wishful-thinking .

Vinod Khosla, “We Need Large Innovations,” Medium , January 1, 2018, https://medium.com/@vkhosla/we-need-large-innovations-58e3eaaf8138 .

Josh Gans, The Disruption Dilemma (MIT Press, 2016), https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/disruption-dilemma .

Mark P. Mills, “Making Technological Miracles,” The New Atlantis , (Spring 2017): 37-55, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/making-technological-miracles .

Albert H. Segars, “Seven Technologies Remaking the World,” MIT Sloan Management Review, March 9, 2018, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/seven-technologies-remaking-the-world .  

Adam Thierer, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom , (Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016),   https://www.mercatus.org/publication/permissionless-innovation-continuing-case-comprehensive-technological-freedom

Adam Thierer and Trace Mitchell, “The Many Forms of Entrepreneurialism,” The Bridge , August 30, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/many-forms-entrepreneurialism  

Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge , February 5, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/making-world-safe-more-moonshots

World Economic Forum , Deep Shift: Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact (Geneva, Switzerland: September 2015), 3, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf .

Yesterday was National Lemonade Day. Over at the Mercatus Bridge blog, Jennifer Skees and I used the opportunity to highlight the increasing regulatory crackdown on kids operating ventures without first seeking the proper permits from local authorities. We ask, “wouldn’t it be better to teach them the value of hard work and entrepreneurial effort instead of threatening them with penalties for not getting costly permits to do basic jobs?” Here’s our answer:

Today is National Lemonade Day. For many Americans a lemonade stand was their first experience in entrepreneurship. But unfortunately, this time honored tradition that teaches the value of hard work, entrepreneurship, and innovation may be under threat from overzealous grown-ups.

Should we really force kids to get licenses to start lemonade stands, sell bottles of water outside a ballpark, or mow lawns for a little extra money? And wouldn’t it be better to teach them the value of hard work and entrepreneurial effort instead of threatening them with penalties for not getting costly permits to do basic jobs?

Recent news stories have highlighted examples of kids being confronted with local regulations that essential tell them not to be entrepreneurial until they’ve gotten someone’s blessing–or else face fines or other penalties for those efforts.

Out in San Francisco, for example, a neighbor threatened to call the police on an eight-year-old girl selling water to raise money for a trip to Disneyland after her mother had lost her job. The neighbor berated the little girl for “illegally selling water without a permit.” Luckily, national outrage seems to have fallen in favor of this rogue entrepreneur instead of “Permit Patty.” But this is far from an isolated case.

Another story went viral earlier this year involving kids and lemonade stands. Country Time lemonade pledged to pay the fines received or the permit cost for children’s lemonade stands. Who thought we’d reach the day when we need a Lemonade Legal Defense Fund? But just prior to the launch, Stapleton, Colorado police were called to shut down the lemonade stand of  four and six year-old brothersfor failing to have a business license. Kids who probably can’t read or fill out the necessary forms are expected to obtain a formal license for a tradition that dates back about 120 years.

Kids are confronted with other meddlesome local permitting rules even when they aren’t selling food or beverages. The town of Gardendale, Alabama made news last year after attempting to charge a teenager $110 for a business license for mowing neighbors’ lawns during the summer to earn money for a mission trip. A local professional lawn service had apparently pressured local parents about the need for kids to have licenses to mow. The city later clarified teenagers would be allowed to mow lawns for a little extra money without needing a license to do so as long as the work was part-time and they were students.

Should we have expected kids to seek permits in these cases? Some sticklers might say yes, we should. After all, it’s the law!

But complying with the law is costly in two important ways. First, the actual fees can be exorbitant. In San Francisco, for example, the filing fee for a “peddler’s permit” costs $330-$525 depending on whether you are selling non-food or food items. Then, if you get the city’s blessing, you have to pay an additional $166-$624 annually for a license to serve the community. It’s safe to say that most kids and their parents probably could not afford that expense.

But the more important cost might be the mental transaction costs or general hassles associated with navigating the labyrinth of red tape that entrepreneurs must confront to get new ventures started. The very act of going through a laborious, confusing, and time-consuming permitting process will be too much for many to bear, especially kids. When a mother tried to get a license for a lemonade stand in Texas, she was told that an inspection by the health department would also be necessary because of the “bacteria that can grow in lemonade.” As a result some children and parents have gotten creative by not “selling” these dangerous products but instead offering it “free” but accepting donations.

The costs of permitting have important real-world implications. They are sending a clear message to kids and their parents: Don’t even bother trying to be entrepreneurial unless you are willing to deal with a world of regulatory pain. Worse yet, to the extent they learn anything by attempting to comply with such silly rules, it’s probably only a lesson in how to manipulate a political process for your own gain. All too often, many incumbent businesses who already worked their way through the system figured out how to exploit it for their own gain to keep competitors out. They then become the guardians of the licensing systems

This is what Philip K. Howard, chair of Common Good, calls this  The Death of Common Sense, in a book of the same name. “Like sediment in a harbor,” he argues, rules and regulations in the US have accumulated, “until most productive activity requires slogging through a legal swamp. “It’s degenerative,” he says. Indeed, laws and regulations like these sap the entrepreneurial spirit of young Americans and discourage them from taking the initiative and learning important skills they will use throughout their lives.

A common refrain of just about every generation of adults is that the younger generation doesn’t work as hard as their generation did. Such “kids-these-days!” complaints are almost always off-base. But they are particularly outlandish when it’s the adults who are acting juvenile by refusing to reform illogical and costly rules that do nothing to protect the public but make it harder for young people to pursue their dreams and engage in entrepreneurial activities.

We shouldn’t actively encourage kids to break the law, of course. But what happens when rules and regulations utterly defy common sense, as these and countless others do today? Perhaps a little “evasive” entrepreneurialism and civil disobedience is the answer. Luckily, public interest law firms like the Institute for Justice, the Goldwater Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation already exist to defend our general right to earn a living. Sometimes it will be necessary to push our luck against what Goldwater’s Timothy Sandefur calls “the Permission Society” if we hope to get policymakers to wake up to the illogical and unfair nature of archaic old licensing regimes.

Luckily some states have started to realize that these burdensome licensing and permitting requirements may have gone too far and at least in some cases are not serving their original purposes. For example, Utah recently passed a law that exempts lemonade stands and other similar child-run businesses from permitting requirements. And recently health inspectors helped a Minneapolis 13-year-old get the necessary permits and paid the costs of the licenses to keep his hotdog stand open. But on a broader front, the right to earn a living is tied both to the value of entrepreneurship and the right to innovate. It is far too easy for incumbents to use licensing schemes to keep out new innovations like ride-sharing and home-sharing. Instead of focusing on raising requirements to prevent new innovations and protect existing industries, we should look to the right to earn a living as a way to even the playing field by reducing the burdens for everyone.

Kids are used to asking permission from their parents, but what are we teaching them when every attempt to do a job or earn a little money also requires endless permission slips from the government? Studies have shown that helicopter parenting makes children struggle emotionally and behaviorally later in life. Imagine how much worse that problem is when the government serves as the ultimate helicopter parent, demanding constant permission to engage in any kind entrepreneurial acts? It seems if we want to stay a nation of innovators and entrepreneurs, the least we can do is tell the kids to stick to asking “Mother may I?” of just their mothers.

Additional Reading:

• Jennifer Skees, “Do You Need a License to Innovate?”, The Bridge , June 29, 2018.
• Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge , February 5, 2018.
• Jennifer Skees & Trace Mitchell, “Will The Electric Scooter Movement Lose Its Charge?” The Bridge , July 18, 2018.
• Jennifer Skees, “Should You Be Able to Fix Your Own iPhone,” Plain Text , June 18, 2018.
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” The Bridge, August 1, 2018,
• Adam Thierer, “The Pacing Problem and the Future of Technology Regulation,” The Bridge , August 8, 2018. 
• Adam Thierer, “Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience: Basic Definitions,” The Bridge , July 20, 2018.

“Why hasn’t Europe fostered the kind of innovation that has spawned hugely successful technology companies?” asks James B. Stewart in an important new column for the New York Times (“A Fearless Culture Fuels U.S. Tech Giants“).

That’s a great question, and one that I have tried to answer in a series of recent essays. (See, for example, “Europe’s Choice on Innovation” and “Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation.”) What I have suggested in those essays is that the starkly different outcomes on either side of the Atlantic in terms of recent economic growth and innovation can primarily be explained by cultural attitudes toward risk-taking and failure. “For innovation and growth to blossom, entrepreneurs need a clear green light from policymakers that signals a general acceptance of risk-taking—especially risk-taking that challenges existing business models and traditional ways of doing things,” I have argued. And the most powerful proof of this is to examine the amazing natural experiment that has played out on either side of the Atlantic over the past two decades with the Internet and the digital economy.

For example, an annual Booz & Company report on the world’s most innovative companies revealed that 9 of the top 10 most innovative companies are based in the U.S. and that most of them are involved in computing and digital technology. None of them are based in Europe, however. Another recent survey revealed that the world’s 15 most valuable Internet companies (based on market capitalizations) have a combined market value of nearly $2.5 trillion, but none of them are European while 11 of them are U.S. firms. Again, it is America’s tech innovators that dominate that list.

Many European officials and business leaders are waking up to this grim reality and are wondering how to reverse this situation. In his  Times essay, Stewart quotes Danish economist Jacob Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who notes that Europeans “all want a Silicon Valley. . . . But none of them can match the scale and focus on the new and truly innovative technologies you have in the United States. Europe and the rest of the world are playing catch-up, to the great frustration of policy makers there.”

OK, but why is that? Again, it comes down to those different cultural attitudes about risk and the stark differences over the potential lessons to be gained from allowing firms, business models, and entire professions to fail and/or be significantly disrupted.

Stewart quotes German economist Petra Moser on this point. He noted that “Europeans are worried. . . . They’re trying to recreate Silicon Valley in places like Munich, so far with little success,” she said. “The institutional and cultural differences are still too great.” In Europe, stability is prized,” she says. Here’s the key passage from the Stewart piece elaborating on this point:

Often overlooked in the success of American start-ups is the even greater number of failures. “Fail fast, fail often” is a Silicon Valley mantra, and the freedom to innovate is inextricably linked to the freedom to fail. In Europe, failure carries a much greater stigma than it does in the United States. Bankruptcy codes are far more punitive, in contrast to the United States, where bankruptcy is simply a rite of passage for many successful entrepreneurs.

Moreover, he notes, “Europeans are also much less receptive to the kind of truly disruptive innovation represented by a Google or a Facebook.”

And that remains the heart of the problem for Europe. What many leaders there fail to appreciate, as I noted in my earlier essays, is that:

Innovation is more likely in systems that maximize breathing room for ongoing economic and social experimentation, evolution, and adaptation. Societies that appreciate those values—and allow them to influence both social norms and policy decisions—are likely to experience greater economic growth. By contrast, those that deride such values and adopt a more precautionary policy approach are more likely to discourage innovation and languish economically.

The remarkable aversion to failure and its affect on deterring entrepreneurialism and long-term growth in Europe and elsewhere cannot be overstated. As I will argue in a forthcoming book chapter on this topic, we can conclude, paradoxically, that individuals, institutions, and countries that over-zealously seek to avoid the possibility of certain short-term failures are actually far more prone to potentially far more dangerous and systemic failures in the long-term. Put more simply: the more you try to avoid all the little failures, the harder you fail more generally. This is Europe’s fundamental predicament circa 2015.

Of course, changing long-entrenched cultural attitudes toward risk and failure can be challenging and take many years, even decades. But the path forward–at least in terms of legal policy and regulatory reforms–has been charted by Larry Downes in his new Harvard Business Review essay, “How Europe Can Create Its Own Silicon Valley.” EU policymakers, he correctly observes, will “have to learn to appreciate in the first place the profound role regulation (or the lack of it) plays in the creation of economic value in the Internet economy.” Downes then continues on to itemize some of the policy changes that would help put Europe on the right track to unlock the amazing entrepreneurial spirit that lies dormant across the continent.

Whether or not the Europeans are willing to take those steps remains to be seen. Regardless, the lesson for U.S. policymakers should be clear: If you want to continue to produce world-beating tech innovators, you must avoid Europe’s overly precautionary and highly risk-averse approach to policy. “Permissionless innovation” remains the better default policy position toward new entrepreneurs and technologies, no matter how disruptive they may be in the short-term.

Writing last week in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Moffett noted how many European countries continue to struggle with chronic unemployment and general economic malaise.  (“New Entrepreneurs Find Pain in Spain“) It’s a dismal but highly instructive tale about how much policy incentives matter when it comes to innovation and job creation–especially the sort of entrepreneurial activity from small start-ups that is so essential for economic growth. Here’s the key takeaway:

Scarce capital, dense bureaucracy, a culture deeply averse to risk and a cratered consumer market all suppress startups in Europe. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, a survey of startup activity, found the percentage of the adult population involved in early stage entrepreneurial activity last year was just 5% in Germany, 4.6% in France and 3.4% in Italy. That compares with 12.7% in the U.S. Even once they are established, European businesses are, on average, smaller and slower growing than those in the U.S.  The problems of entrepreneurs are one reason Europe’s economy continues to struggle after six years of crisis. The European Union this month cut its growth forecasts for the region for this year and next, citing weaker than expected performance in the eurozone’s biggest economies, Germany, France and Italy. This week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development delivered its own pessimistic appraisal, with chief economist Catherine Mann saying, “The eurozone is the locus of the weakness in the global economy.” […] Europe’s unemployment crisis may be eroding a deeply ingrained fear of failure that is a bigger impediment to entrepreneurship on the Continent than in other regions, according to academic surveys. “Fear of failure is less of an issue because the whole country is a failure, and most of us are out of business or have a hard time paying our bills,” said Nick Drandakis of Athens, who in 2011 founded Taxibeat, an app that provides passenger ratings on taxi drivers.

I found Moffett’s article interesting because I write a lot about entrepreneurialism, innovation, long-term economic growth, and the public policies that facilitate all these things. This has also been the subject of an excellent Cato Institute online forum about “Reviving Economic Growth,” which asked leading economists and policy experts to answer the following question: “If you could wave a magic wand and make one or two policy or institutional changes to brighten the U.S. economy’s long-term growth prospects, what would you change and why?”

Many of the entries in that forum dealt with the importance of removing barriers to new start-ups so that entrepreneurs can help spark new innovations and spur economic growth. My entry, which was entitled, “Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation,” kicked off with a quote from the great Joel Mokyr: “Why does economic growth… occur in some societies and not in others?” I noted that “debate has raged among generations of economists, historians, and business theorists about that question and the specific forces and policies that prompt long-term growth.” Generally speaking, however, there actually exists a great deal of consensus about the importance of small business entrepreneurship and the need for openness to change if an economy is going to grow. (See the studies from Ian Hathaway and Robert E. Litan that I cite in my essay among many others.)

Which brings us back to the situation in Europe. It seems clear that strong cultural and legal impediments to change exist in many European countries and that they discourage risk-taking and prevent the formation of new ventures. Many of us here in the United States worry about similar impediments and their impact on entrepreneurialism, but as those statistics in Moffett’s article make clear, the situation in Europe is far more grim. While some European policymakers seem willing to acknowledge that the deck has been stacked against innovators across the continent, few seem willing to embrace a comprehensive liberalization agenda to begin clearing away the legal and regulatory impediments that are negatively affecting startups and creating economic stagnation there. The primary reason for that goes back to the values and attitudes problem that Moffett highlighted in his article: When a country or continent’s culture is so deeply averse to risk and the possibility of disruptions or failures, then the exact sort of risk-taking that is so essential to economic growth will become increasingly difficult.

This was the focus of my Cato essay and it is what I meant by embracing a culture of permissionless innovation. As I noted in my essay, “many scholars and policymakers [often] speak of innovation policy as if it is simply a Goldilocks-like formula that entails tweaking various policy dials to get innovation just right,” which leads them to propose an endless litany of programs and policies to jump-start innovation and economic growth. But this puts the cart before the horse. Getting values right first is what really matters. Here is how I put it in my essay:

For innovation and growth to blossom, entrepreneurs need a clear green light from policymakers that signals a general acceptance of risk-taking—especially risk-taking that challenges existing business models and traditional ways of doing things. We can think of this disposition as permissionless innovation and if there was one thing every policymaker could do to help advance long-term growth, it is to first commit themselves to advancing this ethic and making it the lodestar for all their future policy pronouncements and decisions.

While there are limits to how much policymakers can influence these attitudes and values, any serious effort to foster the positive factors that give rise to expanded entrepreneurial opportunities must begin with an appreciation of how growth-oriented innovation policy begins with the proper policy disposition toward risk-taking and the possibility of significant economic and cultural disruption. As I put it in my recent book on the importance  Permissionless Innovation as a vision for innovation and growth, “living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public policy upon them—means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.”

But let’s be clear about what the “permissionless innovation” vision is all about, because it is not the same as anarchy. As I noted in the Cato essay:

Permissionless innovation is not an absolutist position that rejects any role for government. Rather, it is an aspirational goal that stresses the benefit of “innovation allowed” as the default position to begin policy debates. It switches the burden of proof to those who favor preemptive regulation and asks them to explain why ongoing trial-and-error experimentation with new technologies or business models should be disallowed.

Again, it’s about getting attitudes and incentives right. Specifically, it’s about being willing to embrace risk-taking and even failure, because that is the only way you get growth. As the old adage goes, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”  And our recent experience with the Internet and the Information Revolution offers the perfect case study of why getting values right and embracing a culture of permissionless innovation matters so much. As I noted in my Cato essay,

permissionless innovation powered the explosive growth of the Internet and America’s information technology sectors (computing, software, Internet services, etc.) over the past two decades. Those sectors have ushered in a generation of innovations and innovators that are now the envy of the world. This happened because the default position for the digital economy was permissionless innovation. No one had to ask anyone for the right to develop these new technologies and platforms.

The U.S. got policy right by getting our values right first. Thanks to a series of very smart pronouncements and decisions in the early and mid-1990s (all detailed in my essay and this Medium essay), digital age entrepreneurs were given a clear green light to take risks without fear of a political backlash.

Unfortunately for European innovators, a different message was sent from the start, with layers of “data directives” and other red tape encumbering new ventures. As a result, it’s hard today to name many innovators in this arena which originated in Europe. Instead, Europe’s household Internet names are mostly American companies. Europe is hoping to reverse that with the rise of the Internet of Things, since many European companies appear poised to become global leaders on that front. For that happen, however, the continent’s attitudes toward risk-taking will have to evolve to accommodate these highly disruptive technologies.

In particular, the Internet of Things will raise a variety of privacy and security-related concern (see my new 93-page paper on this), as well as economic-related fears associated with automation and job disruption. These are serious issues that deserve serious consideration and constructive solutions. But if Europe decides to put the Internet of Things revolution on hold in an attempt to preemptively plan for every theoretical downside, then they will miss the boat again and potentially lose many of the amazing benefits that will accompany these new innovations. Again, if you live in fear of the future, then an innovative future won’t happen. And looking backwards and holding onto the past is no way to grow an economy or achieve long-term prosperity.

A few gems from George Gilder’s 1990 masterpiece Microcosm: the Quantum Revolution in Economics & Technology as I work my way through the book:

Predatory Pricing. Gilder details how early microchip manufacturers created wholly new markets put Say’s law into action: supply creating its own demand.  Not only did these companies introduce new technologies, but they created demand by slashing the prices of those technologies by multiple orders of magnitude (10-10,000x) even before they figured out how to lower production costs enough to make even a small profit. While such practices would later give rise to charges of “predatory pricing” and “dumping,” Gilder explains:

Selling below cost is the crux of all enterprise.  It regularly transforms expensive and cumbersome luxuries into elegant mass products.  It has been the genius of American industry since the era when Rockefeller and Carnegie radically reduced the prices of oil and steel. (122)

The Learning Curve: Gilder explains the dynamic by which prices drop so consistently in innovative new industries:

Early in the life of a product, uncertainty afflicts every part of the process. An unstable process means energy use per unit will be at its height. Both fuels and materials are wasted. High informational entropy in the process also produces high physical entropy. The benefits of the learning curve largely reflect the replacement of uncertainty with knowledge. The result can be a production process using less materials, less fuel, less reworks, narrower tolerances, and less supervision, overcoming entropy of all forms with information. This curve, in all its implications, is the fundamental law of economic growth and progress. (125)

The Curve of the Mind: Gilder explains the broader implications of the Learning Curve to the competitiveness of the market economy, and how easily yesterday’s giants can become tomorrow’s easy prey:

Firms that win by the curve of mind often abandon it when they establish themselves in the world of matter. They tight to preserve the value of their material investments in plant and equipment that embody the ideas and experience or their early years of success. They begin to exalt expertise and old knowledge, rights and reputation, over the constant learning and experience of innovative capitalism. They get fat. A fat cat drifting off the curve, however, is a sitting duck for new nations and companies getting on it. The curve of mind thus tends to favor outsiders over establishments of all kinds. At the capitalist ball, the blood is seldom blue or the money rarely seasoned. Microcosmic technologies are no exception. Capitalism’s most lavish display, the microcosm, is no respecter of persons. (113)

Socioeconomic Empowerment. As Gilder explains, the revolution of the Microcosm drew on, and empowered, the a diverse array of the downtrodden, both native-born and foreign:

The United States did nor enter the microcosm through the portals of the Ivy League, with Brooks Brothers suits, gentleman Cs, and warbling society wives. Few people who think they arc in already can summon the energies to break in. From immigrants and outcasts, street toughs and science wonks, nerds and boffins, the bearded and the beer-bellied, the tacks’ and uptight, and sometimes weird, the born again and born yesterday, with Adam’s apples bobbing, psyches throbbing, and acne galore, the fraternity of the pizza breakfast, the Ferrari dream, the silicon truth, the midnight modem, and the seventy-hour week, from dirt farms and redneck shanties, trailer parks and Levittowns, in a rainbow parade of all colors and wavelengths, of the hyperneat and the sty high, the crewcut and khaki, the pony-railed and punk, accented from Britain and Madras, from Israel and Malaya, from Paris and Parris Island, from Iowa and Havana, from Brooklyn and Boise and Belgrade and Vienna and Vietnam, from the coarse fanaticism and desperation, ambition and hunger, genius and sweat of the outsider, the downtrodden, the banished, and the bullied come most of the progress in the world and in Silicon Valey. (114).