Perhaps concentrated wealth will inspire a nation of innovative problem-solvers. But if the view of many economists is right - that it sometimes discourages innovation - then we should worry.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We begin to change the world when we stimulate long-term prosperity using technology. There is not a problem that's large enough that innovation and entrepreneurship can't solve.
Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity.
If we didn't have greed, market economies wouldn't be as innovative as they are. But in my view, greed has to be contained by the fear of losses, so there has to be a system where, if you take too much risk, you go into bankruptcy. You don't systematically bail out people who take excessive risks.
Ultimately, innovation depends on the people with advanced skills who have the ideas, and on the business risk-takers willing to back them.
As I continue to believe that innovation and entrepreneurship are the key drivers to our economic future, it's frustrating to hear such little cogent discussion around it.
Great wealth could make an enormous difference over the next decade if they sensibly support the scientific elite. Just the elite. Because the elite makes most of the progress. You should worry about people who produce really novel inventions, not pedantic hacks.
When your focus is social change and not financial change, why wouldn't you want to share that openly? Innovation only succeeds when it's shared.
Societies advance through innovation every bit as much as economies do.
Innovation is serendipity, so you don't know what people will make.
If you are realistic about how our present society works, the economic clout - and a lot of the political clout, frankly - is in the business sector. And it's the locus of innovation.
No opposing quotes found.