ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: TEDxSussexUniversity – Mariana Mazzucato – The Entrepreneurial State

ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: TEDxSussexUniversity – Mariana Mazzucato – The Entrepreneurial State

Here’s Great Tip: TEDxSussexUniversity – Mariana Mazzucato – The Entrepreneurial State

Here is Something You Should See…

MARIANA MAZZUCATO is a Professor in Economics at the University of Sussex, where she holds the RM Phillips Chair in Science and Technology Policy. She is interested in the interactions between technological change, economic growth, and the ways that industries are structured. Her recent work has looked at the leading role of the State in fostering innovation, and hence the implications of ‘austerity’ for Europe’s ability to be an ‘Innovation Union’. In her last book The Entrepreneurial State she argues that active State investment has been the secret behind most radical innovations, and that this requires economists to analyse the State as market ‘maker’ and market ‘shaper’ not just market ‘fixer’.

16 Replies to “ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: TEDxSussexUniversity – Mariana Mazzucato – The Entrepreneurial State”

  1. Sigh…my fellow Americans really do upset me at times. I love (hate) these comments "shill for communism" and of course "Obama" had to be brought up. Besides the fact Obama has been 100% in the pants of big business/wall street, look up the size of government (and this overall government) and notice that under Obama the size of state has been declining overall! This is not lies or crazy propaganda, it's fact. It can be checked out, do it. Anyway, what she says isn't that crazy. Even in the 1800s gov funded/started up much and let the private sector go from there. Gov funds much research, esp with military. Just drop the dogma and realize the state can play a positive role, and both our parties (yes even the Dems) aim to slash gov, which hurts us! Open your eyes and mind, quit supporting ideas that harm us overall. 

  2. The system prevailing in the US and UK is _already_ socialism — socialism for the corporations. Our legal system allows them to socialize the cost and risk and privatize the profits for the big corporations and the thieves that run them.

  3. "Entrepreneurial government" would invariably increase the demand for Socialism, because what justification could there possibly be if the taxpayers take all the risks while private capitalists get to keep all the profits.

  4. The presentation, in my opinion, is more inclined to Objective economics thinking. I am about to get her book and get reading. Does anybody have any suggestion on books that address about prudent state spending in third world countries, and about regulations. Thank you! Just email me at [email protected]

  5. She seems to want to give an intellectual backing to the Obama "You didn't bulid that" fallacy, offsetting the fact that countries with minimal government intervention have tended to grow the fastest, including the US during the 19th century when the government's share of the economy was miniscule.

  6. So in one hand we have an organization which makes us an "offer we can't deny" just like the Mafia does, with high probability to lose our money due to higher risk taking & on the other hand someone who has to convince us to invest on him with higher probability to get the job done.

  7. This is a really interesting talk. It fits well with what Ha Joon Chang writes about there being no such thing as a "free" market and the work that Steve Keen and others have done to show that the mainstream economist's view of market equilibrium is a fiction built on dodgy mathematics. V important: if we are ever going to rebuild our slumped economies and rescue a generation from unemployment, we need to look at how economies actually work, not fantasies about a "dynamic" private sector.

  8. I agree that wdednam's comment is not spam. It is a reasonable contribution to the debate: he points out that Nuku Calvocoressi is wrong to present our choice as being between welfare and investment spending: "the "proportion" of total public spending going to welfare (social spending) in the US is about the same as it is in Europe: about 50% of total public spending." It is becoming more and more obvious that we should not allow private actors to socialize risks and privatize profits.

  9. It's a pity someone feels they have to mark wdednam's comment as spam. He was just stating that the same proportion of total public spending was going to welfare in the US as in the Scandinavian countries. Must be because the other commenter has nothing substantive to reply with.

  10. Very interesting – it appears that the balance in government spending in Europe may be wrong relative to the US with too high a proportion of government spending going on welfare and too low a proportion on state investment in technology etc. that has the potential to increase productivity and therefore wealth in the medium to long term.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.