Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Only half of Adam Smith, December 7, 2010
I made this book a gift to several of my friends, but only to those I was sure they wouldn't believe everything. There are some obvious cases as Kealey's treatment of Rhenanian capitalism against anglo-american turbo-capitalism or each case when Kealey speaks about Germany. But this is Brit folklore and unimportant. More important is when the private sector and the state do the same and Kealey argues that schools financed privately were free" although the pupils had to pay when state financed schools, free for the pupils, were not free" in her sense. The point is not who financed it but what has been done with the money, a point Kealey is blind on. Certainly in most cases the market knows better, but not in all cases as classical economists know. Inevitably Kealey cited Adam Smith and inevitable she understands only half of his lectures. When Smith and classical economists denounce unproductive labour" they denounce not only most of the money spend by the state but also private money lost for economic growth because the products and services bought are no input into the next economic reproduction cycles. Kealey praises the us-American galleries privately financed. For Smith they have the same economic importance as useless Government spending in basic science. Typically, for modern economists unproductive labour" is an aberration. A final point: Generous private donations proceed from wealth normally not earned on a very competitive market. They result very often from some kind of monopoly, unearned income for classical economists. So one might say they are robbed from the consumer and given back graciously. Did we have very competitive markets, Kealey's conviction that nearly everything could be funded privately might receive a blow. It's no surprise therefore, that Kealey ridicules "perfect markets" and favours oligopolies and monopolies in the last chapters. No doubt, this is the way to obtain donations for a government free society.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting but not Convincing, October 11, 2009
This review is from: Sex, Science & Profits (Paperback)
The worst part about "Sex, Science & Profits" is its tabloid title because the content of the book is serious, intelligent, and focused. The book examines Francis Bacon's thesis that government-funded science leads to technology leads to wealth creation, and contrasts it with Adam Smith's explanation that markets and competition create technology which leads to both science and wealth creation. The book's author Terence Kealey overwhelmingly believes that Adam Smith is correct, and despairs at the fact that vested interests and general stupidity have made Francis Bacon's thesis the mainstream belief in the Western world today, limiting both the progress and advancement of science and technology. The book is essentially a tirade written a scientist angry and annoyed at the status quo of too much government interference in science: parents, government-subsidized research, and government-funded science. Terence Kealey believes that markets evolve organically, and when they're permitted to evolve organically then technology will do so as well. Companies that do not invest in research and development will be out-innovated by companies that do, and every company - no matter how small - must invest in research and development in order to have scientists that can understand and communicate in an "invisible college" of scientists. That's why patents are self-defeating: science requires constant communication and co-operation, and if anyone tries to hoard information then that would have negative repercussions for the advancement of science as a whole as well as for that individual. Companies themselves can decide what the proper amount of funding for research is based on its needs, and government subsidies to encourage corporate research are either ineffective or counter-productive. Most pernicious of all is government-funded science which "crowds out" everything else: the best scientists working with the most resources but without proper motivation, incentives, and feedback loops to ensure that their research is efficient and purposeful. I'm always suspicious of neat arguments, and Terence Kealey's arguments seemed too neat to be true. Nevertheless, he does raise interesting questions and concerns about science today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bacon was wrong!, February 12, 2010
This review is from: Sex, Science & Profits (Paperback)
If you ever had anything to do with innovation, you would now that Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) laid the philosophical foundations that to this day define our thinking on how innovation should be driven and funded. Kealey, Vice-Chancellor at Buckingham University in the UK convincingly demonstrates that Bacon was wrong and how we will get countries to become more innovative. The sex in the title refers to the one main stream of Darwinian theory, sexual selection, and the profit, to the other Darwinian force, natural selection. According to Kealey government and academic programs are driven by sexual selection, more show off than real results. The private sector on the other hand, grapple with real problems to be solved, are seeking competitiveness (natural selection!) and clear the way for science eventually to catch up. In the Baconian view science, state funded came first and is subsequently applied to technological issues. You should read the book only if it is for the way in which Kealey shows Bacon's interpretation of Prince Henry, The Navigator be wrong. This is a book that should be required reading for government officials that attempt to manage innovation and also by academics. I have used this book to great effect in consultation with a client in the process of establishing a centre for excellence.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
