6 Months Later
August 27, 2018
I was a fairly early adopter of LinkedIn, joining I believe way back in 2008. Ten Years ago I thought it was cool to leave an on-line ” resume” on the web just to save myself the trouble of having to send it to people and, in fact, it was also a good way to stay in touch with other people I met professionally or personally. This was long before Facebook, as for me, but I’m not writing this article as a tribute to LinkedIn, I’m writing it as proof to myself, that the topic I’m trying to convey is very real.
In January 2015, the Roosevelt Institute gathered 30 experts and practitioners in technology, education, finance, and economics to discuss the next American economy. We asked them what they would do today to ensure a good economy 25 years from now and published a selection of their answers – ranging… (rooseveltinstitute.org)
Because I’ve been on LinkedIn for so long, I have a tendency to take it for granted. Even though its become one of the Net’s so-called ” unicorns” , I used it more to find out where other people worked, not so much as a site to build my OWN career. But as years have passed a new generation, of course, comes along and decides you can’t HAVE a career unless you’re on LinkedIn. But thats not what I’m writing about either. I just reread the article I wrote 6 months ago, mostly as a test to see how well LinkedIn’s ” User Graph” worked with ” inbound” content. I’ve been writing articles for years…for my blog, other people’s blogs, sometimes just for the fun of it. But I also work in digital advertising. I want to see what it takes and what tools I have to not just create content, but create an audience for it.
My first article was not a blockbuster, I only wrote about the block chain because that was what was on my mind at the time. Of that 13 people read it and 2 people liked it. That may not seem remarkable but it actually surprised me. I expected maybe a head hunter or two, killing time before heading out to ” cocktail hour” . But to my surprise the likes were from old friends that I highly respect and admire, but for some reason, I haven’t been in touch with for quite awhile. Too long.
Realizing that, as far as I’m concerned, LinkedIn is reaching its full potential as a way to ” keep in touch” , with both friends and complete strangers. So with that being said, I’m more than willing to share whats on MY mind. To that end, let me focus on a theme that both friends AND strangers should find compelling…the Age of Innovation. Innovation has always been a sign of humankind’s ” progress” , but not like its going to be in this century. We’re almost ready to make the ” Big Leap” . I don’t use the word ” almost ” lightly. After all, although there are some remnants (mostly bad) of 20th century ” thinking” , as I wrote in my last article, 2018 is pretty much the same as 1918, all the sweeping changes of the next 80 years were in their infancy, but everyone knew, in one way or another, they were coming.
Stay tuned for part 2…
To this end, it is imperative that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission abandon the outdated dogma espoused by scholars and jurists of the “Chicago School,” which holds consumer welfare as the sole metric by which proposed mergers should be evaluated. (rooseveltinstitute.org)
Firstly I would make this point very clear that technology is not the solution to 21st century education, technology is simply a tool to aid education and learning, also technology should not be told as a separate schools subject, but as a tool, technology should be used in all classrooms. (edtechreview.in)
It is based more on smart support for the building blocks of innovation and entrepreneurship — and less on capital accumulation, budget surpluses or social spending. (theglobalist.com)
This new economic doctrine on the block — called “innovation economics” — reformulates the traditional model of economic growth so that knowledge, technology, entrepreneurship and innovation are positioned at the center of the model — rather than seen as independent forces that are largely unaffected by policy. (theglobalist.com)
Innovation economics — also called “new institutional economics,” “new growth economics,” “endogenous growth theory,” “evolutionary economics” and “neo-Schumpeterian economics” — is based on two fundamental tenets. (theglobalist.com)
In contrast, “innovation economics” recognizes the reality that a global, knowledge-based economy requires a new approach to national economic policy based less on capital accumulation, budget surpluses, or social spending and more on smart support for the building blocks of private sector growth and innovation. (itif.org)