ࡱ> y{xY kbjbjWW ==5]BBBVVVV8$DV88(``````$\B````` :,`` . `@B`B`VVBB`  :,BB`' VVP POLICY SECTION . We are moving into a transformed economic landscape with no roadmap and no reliable speedometer. . (Is this mixing metaphors and is the genie scientific knowledge, is that what is new?) And we cant turn back: the geniescientific knowledge and practice -- is out of the jug. We can continue, as we have to our great advantage, to lead the world into the new economic territory. Or we can mess up (should we be that colloquial, I dont know) , stunt and stifle the developmental thrust of the change. But the economic transformation wont stop. Other nations will run with the change to dominate and shape the future, probably our future as well as theirs. Policy actions taken and actions not taken by the US government over the next few years will, as much as anything else, shape Americas economic transformation. Past Policy Successes For the past fifty years, US government policy has played a major role in enabling America to lead in developing information technology --- and just as importantin creating the conditions for America to lead in the use of information technology throughout the economy. Over this long period, the US Government has largely gotten policy right. And not just by blind luck. Applause is due. . (Need to set up this review as a prelude to the next section. Something like: Reviewing the policies that have brought us this far, is consequently, a reasonable start at defining what needs doing next. In that case, make it a new paragraph.)Government got policy right under two important headings: resources -- the intellectual, human, and financial capital needed for the development of information technology -- and rules systems of public and private governance and market organization to make the market for information technology work. Resources: 1) Fundamental Research and Advanced Education Information technology is based on more than two generations of formal, scientific research done mostly at our leading research Universities. Unlike the innovations that launched Industrial Revolution at the dawn of the 19th century, or even the work of Edison and Bell at the end of that century, this technology is not the work of self-taught tinkerers. Clever engineers working in the family garage were standing on an enormous body of research and development based on fundamental, formal academic science. A significant number of scientists and engineers had to be educated, again at the major research universities. before we had the human capital needed to develop advanced versions, and then real world applications, of these basic technologies. Over the years the research and advanced education budgets accumulated to substantial sums. Consider the case of bio-tech, a major branching of information technology. Its history so far has been relatively short and spectacularly successful. For the first thiorty years, bio-tech research remained at the level of the fundamentals and was financed overwhelmingly by government grants. No private company --especially one subjected to the discipline of modern capital markets -- could have made such long-term risky investments. (Indeed these werent investments in technology, but really in science first The technology was later derived from the basic discoveries, and no company could seriously indulge a business strategy based on the uncertainties of basic discovery.) First, it is extremely difficult to keep fundamental results and principles the intellectual property of a single organization. Second, even if a company could have known in advance that the research would yield such extraordinarily promising commercial results, (an impossible condition) modern investment allocation models would have assigned an extremely low value to the very-long term payoffs. Only government or giant, enduring monopolies like the old Bell System largely immune from capital market discipline can undertake long-term, open-ended investment program in fundamental research that will generate not rapid technological applications but basic principles that will then become part of the general knowledge base. Yet the pay-off from NIH and other publicly-funded basic bio-tech research is proving to be spectacular, both in simple economic terms, and in terms of major improvements in the length and quality of life. Lead User Should this come here? My thought was that it comes laterOR, alternatively, the category could be for both basic research and lead useInvesting in and Implementing Technology. Otherwise there is a logical break here.) In the electronics heart of information technology -- chips, computers, software, communications -- government not only played a crucial role in financing the earliest fundamental research, but also acted as a critical lead user. As we all have heard, ENIAC the grandfather of all computers, measured some 150 feet in length, cost millions of 1946 dollars and is now hugely exceeded in computing power by PCs that cost $1000. Who paid for it and for the other first computers? Who paid for the first micro-chips? That role of key, launch user, is largely past.The commercial sector has grown to be so much larger and to move so much faster than the military sector, Governments principal actor in electronics. Numerate and Literate Americans: The third major commitment of government resources was to education.The GI bill and large scale, sustained Federal support for the build-out and build-up of our Universities in the 1950s and 1960s, provided America with a large cohort of scientists, engineers and educated managers who developed the technologies and moved them into the economy. In the 1950s and 1960s the United States had the highest proportion of our labor force educated in college and beyond of any nation. But, as has repeatedly been called to the nations attention, we failed to analogously improve the quality of American education in grades K to 12. RULES For the past two generations US Government rule making and rule eliminating despite ups and downs, ins and outs, kept a strategic focus: create and preserve institutional and market openness and lively competition. Creating and preserving competitive markets I: Deregulation Innovative launch clients are as important to the development of a new technology, especially a new fundamental technology, as innovative producers of that technology. (Do we need to define why. It is not simply the early demand, it is also the matter of adapting the product to the market needs and honing it technically.) Competition-enhancing US government policy played a key role in creating big, innovative lead clients for IT, by deregulating telecommunications, and such big user industries as finance and air travel. (do we want to put dates with these developments)Once telecommunications were deregulated, deregulation in finance, (banking, brokering, insurance) and air travel suddenly freed major companies in those giant industries to experiment with new applications of computing and telecommunications. The newly competitive environment in their own industry gave them every possible incentive to try to gain advantage on their competitors. The other companies had to imitate the innovators, or leap-frog them by developing still newer applications usually in conjunction with IT producers. It provided a big market of eager experimentors for IT firms to innovate new applications. How do these two paragraphs link. They cover some of the same ground with similar words. Suddenly the new economy is equated with networks, which is something that steve wanted avoid. How do we fix that? A quick explanation as to why the US jumped ahead in (actually the issue here is networked information technology) information technology in the past ten years, while others technologically powerful nations such as Japan seem now to have sputtered and lagged behind, must give an important place to the critical role of lead users. In the US eagerly sought new competitive tools and experimented with new organizational forms and new products and services. Ten years ago Japan was whomping (very colloquial) America in the production of advanced consumer electronics, TVs, VCRs, Camcorders, recorders, watches, microwaves. They also dominated memory semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. But Japan, thus far, has lagged way behind on the rush into the new economic landscape. It is not that they did not have access to the basic science, or that they lacked good engineers. But Japan kept its regulated monopoly in telecommunications, so that established companies, and entrepreneurial groups, could not experiment in how they used telecommunications. They could do only what The Phone Company set out for them to do. Japanese banks and brokerages remained regulated, so there was little competitive pressure to seek out new information technology applications to transform their businesses. In brief, both the possibilities of experimenting with new uses for telecommunications and the supply of the lead users eager to do that experimenting were absent. The market was limited, and so was innovation and diffusion. Creating and Preserving Competitive Markets: II: Anti-trust This now has a very repetitive feel. Can we write a grouping paragraph at the beginning of both and then write a story line across all of themright now it is a bit logically choppy. In the very beginning, it was anti-trust that moved the infant transistor technology into the competitive realm. The then-monopoly AT&T was forced to make the new technology -- invented at its Bell Labs -- available to all. Had the transistor remained under monopoly control as AT&Ts developoment review process tried to think of uses for it, recent industrial history would be fundamentally (but unknowably) different. It is highly likely that innovation and diffusion would have proceeded more slowly and narrowly: both fewer innovative products and fewer innovative competitive technoogy firms. It was new companies such as Fairchild, Intel, AMD, National Semiconductor that took the new technology and lead the process of innovation and risk taking that has brought prices down further and faster, and performance up further and faster than with any other major new technology in history. Most of the big, integrated companies that dominated vacuum tubes and consumer electronics RCA, Philco, Sylvania were soon by-passed by the new companies that were born and grew with the new technology. The new, and some re-born, technology producers, often working closely with innovative users, , created new applications, many of which were not, initially, obvious: from automobile door locks and ignitions, through medical imaging and surgical equipment; to ATMs , personal computers and gene sequencers. There probably needs to be a stronger anchor, transition, here. Why and how do we go from the past policy to the present. PolicyLooking ahead This now becomes the third iteration in six pages. Useful to repeat but sequence. American policy has focused its resources on fundamental research and advanced education and its rule making on creating and preserving open institutions and open competition. It has been extraordinarily successful. This choice of focused direction is likely to provide a wise roadmap for policy in the immediate future. Should this come at the beginning? States the whole thing. And in fact it is a restatement of some of it here But the terrain is changing rapidly. There are new conditions, new dimensions that policy will have to address in order to assure that America traverses the new economic landscape successfully, that is, as the world leader and in such a way to bring the benefits of this enormous economic and social transformation to all Americans. Keeping to that path will require considerable political effort and skill, of the kind the previous two generations of Americans were able to muster. Right now there are signs that we are wavering in both our commitment to that effort and perhaps in our understanding of why such an effort is still needed. This strikes me as repeating what came at the beginning. Its Not Like We Have A Choice Ditto. Why dont we do this once. Clear statement of the overall thing. America no longer has a decent choice about making the effort to stay ahead in technology leadership. Over the past twenty-five years we have substantially restructured our economic strengths (in the terminology of economics, the structure of our comparative advantage). Now, we not only enjoy the advantage of technological leadership, we depend upon it. To remain prosperous we must stay significantly ahead in creating and introducing new technologies.Today American firms no longer have the masswive comparative productivity advantage in high-volume mass production that they hed for the first three quarters of this century. Over the past twenty-five years, at great pain to many Americans, we have shed major elements of our ability to compete in the routine production and commercialization of mature technologies. Other nations have moved into that role and we would be poorer like themif we fall back to where we have to slug it out with them on their terms. In brief, we have redesigned our economy, to our great advantage, to specialize in the permanent frontier of new technology. But in so doing, we have signed-on to a path of constant effort, investment and innovation. Resources: Three kinds of resources -- intellectual, human and financial- nourish technological development: Government policy necessarily effects all of them in important ways. Intellectual Capital is built on Fundamental Scientific Research: Basic research creates the next technological frontier. Being close to basic research having a constant flow of personnel back and forth -- is a powerful aid to firms seeking to live on the technological frontier. Financing basic research is necessarily the responsibility of government. Private firms under the discipline of modern capital markets simply cannot do it. . Though it may be difficult to imagine, we are only at the beginning of the technological revolution that is propelling our economic transformation. Right now we are using up our seed corn in so far as investment in research is concerned. Funding for research, outside the biological sciences, has not increased with need and opportunity In most areas, it has fallen as the discretionary spending part of the budget has been squeezed.. Sustaining investment in advanced research may be the necessary first effort, but assuring the quality of that research is just as important. The core strength of American research has lay in the workings of our unique system of research universities. That system had three characteristics that nations around the world are now trying to imitate. 1. Peer Review. Selection of projects for funding is made by committees of scientists (peers). Bureaucrats and politicians keep clear of project selection. This system is beginning to be undermined by politicians who treat major research efforts as pork to be distributed by politicians on the basis of political geography. ((( ????? Openess to Business: American research universities work closely with business to quickly move new technology and young research-trained students out of the university lab and into commercial development. Other nations like France and Germany with distinguished scientific traditions are now attempting to break down the barriers that have separated their research communities from their business communities. ) Open to talent from all over the world: It was, arguably, the arrival of refugee scientists fleeing Hitlers Europe beginning in the late 1930s that launched great scientific research at American universities. We have grown more international since. A visit to the physics, molecular biology or electrical engineering programs at our best universities would find talent professors, researchers, graduate students -- recruited from all over the world. They are not just (?) complements to the program; the premier place in international quality of these programs now depends upon them. Our dependency on foreign educated talent Companies that produce and that use advanced technology and that is just about all of them -- have, or will soon have, the same dependency. The more advanced the technology the greater the dependency on recruiting talent world-wide. Americans are pleased to note the flow of foreign money financial capital -- investing in American high technology companies. We should also note the inflow of human capital highly educated scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs bringing with them their costly, formal scientific education. This is not a flow of cheap labor displacing Americans from the jobs they could fill. Rather they are the critical scarce resource necessary to maintain the quality of Americas leading Universities and the leadership of our technology producer and technology user firms. As is often the case in technology and economic development in the process of doing one thing something else and more important emerges . Highly educated scientists and engineers came to study or to work in the US to fulfill their own dreams of opportunity and excellence while they filled our needs. The numbers have grown. In the new globalizing economy, where companies can design or produce theirn products in almost any country in the world, the ability to attract human capital becomes a critical competitive advantage. And the more human capital you attract the more attractive you become. Make this a positive statement. Americas competitive advantage is based on.our unique ability Americas competitive advantage in advanced technology is less and less based on having more financial capital: there is a global flow. Nor is it based on having superior airports and telephone service: these are rapidly equalizing. It is more and more based on our unique ability to attract the best technology talent. If you want to work with the best, no matter where you are now, you come here. This inflow of human capital does not displace jobs; it creates them. First it is critical to our ability to invent, develop and deploy new applications; but also a new generation of start up firms, who are hiring hundreds of thousands of American workers, is being created by these foreign born scientific entrepreneurs. Americas unique combination of laws and rules plus social and business culture (not to mention the universal dominance of the English language) has given us this critical advantage. Making Americans numerate and literate: When this pops up a second time, it really appear repetive.My view is it should all be integrated America has not invested enough or sufficiently well in education. . In the age of the E-conomy the consequences are more handicapping than in the past. . There are two basic reasons. First, only a relatively small number of scientifically educated people are needed to launch a scientific revolution. But very large numbers of literate and numerate people are needed to apply that technology in just about every area of the economy and work with it. The differences in wages between those with more formal education and those with less has been growing rapidly over the past years. It is one indicator of change and of the severity of the problem. The second major reason is that what was sufficient twenty five years ago as an average level of educational attainment no longer is. Elsewhere in the world, people have made deliberate, enormous and successful investments in education. Planning, design, production for the same products of the same companies can be located anywhere in the world. A high wage country must have an exceptionally productive work force. In a globalizing economy, you cannot stay rich and powerfulwhen you are dumber than the next gThe Idea Economy What is the transition or structural point hereIs there a header that is missing? If not, it is beginning to driftOr is this a sidebar? The E-conomy is an idea economy. It is not an idea economy because development is now driven by ideas. Economic growth has always been motored by ideas: moveable type, steam engines, power looms. But two important changes make the E-conomy an idea economy in a new sense that poses new challenges to policy. The first is the increasing specialization of the US economy on innovation, our newly created dependency on on, staying at the frontier of innovation. We now have an economy that is specialized in the high-value added role of creating and commercializing ideas. The economics of ideas now matters to us in an extremely serious way. Since the economics of ideas stretches both our traditional ways of thinking and the boundaries of many of our legal/economic institutions, we risk making serious blunders. Second, the ideas that the US creates are less and less likely to be embedded in expensive, specialized equipment and processes. True, we continue to make huge investments in dedicated, equipment for the production and distribution of information technologies: it now costs about $2 billion to set up a semi-conductor plant., But increasingly, in the E-conomy the ideas that contain both the costs and the value added, are disassociated from expensive plant, equipment and process. The ideas -- the intellectual property-- that drove the steel, electricity and even auto industries were neither accessible nor of much use to anyone who did not already have giant steel, electricity or auto plants. More often than not the technology was embedded in giant pieces of equipment that could only be used for that one purpose in that one kind of plant. The established companies that dominated an industry in each country worked out ways to share their technologies, but not their markets. When combined with the protections of traditional patent and copyright law the problems of intellectual property, if not fully resolved, were managed quite adequately. There were of course, some problems. The texts of books or songs, and even economics textbooks, could be, and were, copied. -- a shocking disrespect for law and for the proper order of things, but not a serious problem for a major economy. Things are quite different now. Books and songs are still easily copied. But in the digital age it is performances that are copied, and so are movies, molecules and software. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a complex software application or a library of cells for chip design. They can be copied easily, quickly and at virtually zero cost;, and they can be distributed instantly, thanks to the internet, to vast numbers of people at almost no cost. What constitutes and what assures the respect of intellectual property therefore takes on a vastly new importance, especially to the US economy. Furthermore, what kinds of ideas and information should be owned, is neither clear nor the object of a broad consensus. We are reaching a point where new definitions and new rules for property must be made authoritatively, that is, by government. There have been such points before. Past economic transformations have necessitated redefinitions of property rights, economic institutions, and the rules that govern economic activity. I am now very confused. Reading straight through. Consider an example from the early days of mass-production. A little more than a century ago the combination of the telegraph, the railroad and the refrigerated boxcar made possible cheap, mass-produced meat. Chicago based corporations invented the assembly (or rather disassembly) line, mass- dressed the beef in Chicago, shipped it dressed to Boston, and undercut local small scale Boston-area slaughterhouses by a third at the butcher ships. The productive power of mass production could thus be realized -- unless the Massachusetts legislature required for health and safety that all meat sold in Massachusetts be inspected live and on the hoof by a Massachusetts meat inspector in Massachusetts immediately before slaughter. Without changes to get the rules right in this case federal preemption of health and safety regulation affecting interstate commerce America would not have developed a high productivity, mass production Chicago meatpacking industry. Nor without similar changes in rules that govern economic activity would the other mass production industries made possible by the new technology telegraph and railroads been able to transform our economic landscape one hundred years ago. Structural change need enabling changes in the rules that define property and govern economic activity. The economies of scale that could be realized at the end of the nineteenth centurybecause of railroads and the mammoth national market required large-scale investments in mass production factories. But who would commit their savings to a mammoth enterprise over which they had neither control nor the protecting shield of limited liability? Limited liability was an exorbitant new privilege for investors, yet necessary if the possibilities for economic organization opened up by the new technologies were to be realized. Ensuring the national market required preemption by the federal government of local governments regulatory authority. Anti-trust was needed to balance the efficiencies of mass production with those of the competitive market. The E-conomy has advanced to the point where we must reconsider the definitions, protections and limits of intellectual property, as well s many rules that govern economic activity. It is not an easy task. To make the matter even more difficult, this time redefinition cannot be successfully done in one nation alone. This needs to be explained. The section above isnt anchored. Globalization--Policy You know we could anchor the whole thing around globalizationPolicy for an E-conomy in a Global world. Today's problems of creating private business practices to govern the operation of markets and public rules to establish and enforce intellectual property rights are even more difficult because these definitions cannot be successfully done in one nation alone, but instead will apply to the entire globe. Choices made abroad will influence options and possibilities here. And different ways of telling the "global E-conomy" story implies different stakes, concerns, and issues. A first way of telling the story is perhaps least satisfactory. It sees international forces sweeping past the capacity of nations to respond, channel, or control. The rapid development of a broad network creates great gains for each participant just as the value of the telephone increases with the number of those who likewise have phones. But because the network crosses borders, its speed of evolution depends on governments-- often jealous of their sovereignty--and their willingness to promote harmonization, or interconnection, or interoperability. From a purely American vantage point, openness is a matter of the markets for equipment and tools for networks as well. Will U.S. producers of distinctive routers and access hardware have a fair chance to sell their products? Thus in this vision the principal task is to assure efficient harmonization of standards to keep the network global and markets open. This may be a difficult task, becasue rules and arrangements for networks and for services and commerce are being put in place. They may themselves constitute new barriers and obstacles, either intentionally to create advantages for national champions or unintentionally as a reflection of different purposes and values. In this vision the principal task of government is to keep other governments from building barriers to the spread of the network. A second way of telling the story sees national differences in rules and business practice not just as inconveniences but as the reflections and the generators of distinctly national patterns of use and application of information tools. There may be different E-conomy futures, routed in different social principles about matters such as privacy, consumer protection, economic safety nets, and corporate governance. In this second vision, a number of distinct national E-conomies could be generated as new technologies transform and are transformed by different societies: after all, the United States, France, Germany, Japan are not the same; each has distinct patterns of corporate governance, labor relations, and social welfare. In this picture we should expect the rules established and the negotiations between governments to reconcile different sets of national rules for privacy, security, and intellectual property to be as difficult as, say, negotiations over reconciling tax systems or airline landing rights. The United States now has a first mover advantage because it is the heartland of the first wave of internet build-out. But it must as it makes policy ask not only how the rules it makes affect the development of our own system but also how, if others make analogous rules, the long-run interest of network users and U.S. producers will or will not be served. In this vision, the principal task of the U.S. government is to make sure that the differences between national E-conomies do not impede the seamless flow of information and value, while at the same time making sure that enough freedom of action is retained for the U.S. E-conomy to evolve in a way that fits U.S. politics, culture, and society. A third view of globalization is that globalization is not a wiping away of national boundaries but rather a series of often unexpected economic and social challenges from foreign sources. In this innovation-based economy, a successful comparative advantage or productive position in one phase is no guarantee of leadership in the next. Indeed, the label "globalization" emerged along with the unexpected Japanese challenge to American manufacturing discussed above. And the response of American producers was not a matter of imitation but of first understanding the value of Japanese innovations in production, and then creating distinctive strengths that fit American practices: becoming not more like them but more like us. In this global economy it is not obvious what the source of the next market and technology disjuncture will be. It is not clear whether it will manifest itself as a challenge to established American comparative advantages or as a complementarity to the American economy. The great challenge to American manufacturing preeminence in mass production came from Asia. The challenge to American producers of networking technology may well come from Europe. Already the clear European surge in wireless application and deployment has led many American producers to turn to Europe to commercialize and hone innovations. And within Europe it is the Finnish economy that appears to be the hot spot of entrepreneurship and innovation--a happening that was unpredicted early in this decade, when discussions of the Finnish economy focused on the length of the depression that would be induced by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The three stories of globalization point to the stakes and tasks. American leadership today depends on sustaining the transformation at home, on assuring that the interconnected global network works with common or compatible national rules and with open markets for equipment, and in using innovations in business practice and technology deployment both as benchmarks to spur innovation and as sources of lessons to be learned and absorbed. Flexibility and Inclusion Important, but not quite set up. The E-conomy is about structural transformation, about doing new things and doing old things very differently in different organizational structures It demands flexibility in order to generate prosperity and rewards adaptability. Many observers in Europe and Japan credit the superior performance of the American economyover the past ten years to its superior flexibility. In the US, government aims at keeping markets open and competitive. New companies can be created quickly and easily. New institutions, such as venture capital firms, can assess risk and provide capital. Stock options and other forms of payment via ownership rights make it possible, with very little real money, to recruit a work force willing to share the risks of a new venture in exchange for a share in the potential gains. Dense networks of supplier firms permit access to key materials, components and capabilities, ranging from financial management right through manufacturing itself. But this new flexible system for structuring and restructuring business, best exemplified in the Silicon Valley system, is only the tip of the flexibility iceberg. For the big benefits in productivity to be realized, flexibility has to characterize the organizations that use or should usethe new technologies; that means the entire economy. Flexibility is discomforting; it is, by definition, up-setting. Institutions and people resist change. Flexibility must be based on inclusion. At best all Americans should see the benefits of this transformation and share in them. If the benefits are neither broadly understood, broadly seen as accessible and broadly shared, the transformation will be stunted, at whatever economic price. Policy aiming at flexibility must, therefore, aim at inclusion. Effectiveness demands fairness. Good point, but lost by the time we get here. Needs to get stated clearly and upfront. Three policy areas are critical for for inclusion/flexibility.. The first is education. Formally educated Americans find it easier to adapt to new organizational forms and the need for new skills as their jobs change, or to switch companies. Education is the key to productivity, flexibility and inclusion. It starts at the quality and orientation of education in our public schools serious achievement in math, reading, writing; hands-on experience with Internet based research and communication. It extends through specialized training and life-long training and education programs. The second is full-employment. Nothing makes flexibility easier than full employment. Our economys ability to sustain full-employment rests on correct macro-economic policy by our government. Finally, there is a broad set of specific policies that aim at removing obstacles to flexibility and inclusion such as portability of pensions and health insurance. END END END END END --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then:Flexibility/onclusion. Why need flexibilityand how others are , with great difficulty, trying to get to where we are in ability to move resources into new activites and transform exisitng ones.. Flexility if it is to suceed over time, and be worth its real costs, must be built on inclusion. At best;, all americans should see the benefits of t his transformation and share in them. If they dont , the results will be both inefficient and unfair. For if the benefits are negihter broadly understood and broadly shared, the transformation will be halted, at whatever ecnomoic price. Access is key. There are the areas of small, useful poltical actions. Getting information technology into the hands of all school kids, so that they can both beennfit from it as students and learn how to use it. There is t he need to make pensions and health insurance and the like portableso that americans can contemplate changing jobs wit hout sacraficing their personal security. But the major hopes for inclusion lie in education and macro-economics sustaining a full employment enviroment and improving education.. The all come together in the idea of maintaiining flexiblility thorugh inclusion..ecuation, macro..makes transistions so much easier. Macro eduication Problem of funding for experiment and development medical technolgoies as leadiang research hospitals find their high cost structures needed for training and research under severe pressure from new medical financing systemonly hope in medical area is precisely new developments and on cusp of major breakthroughs .. Note: small change in rules for pension funds years ago, uncorked a relatife flod of pension funds into high trisk, high return, new technology Risk takaing in companiesmaintain and improve system, employees share in risks and in potential gains..stock optionscertainly for technology employees level..diffused into companies. PAGE 1 PAGE 19  Something about Bell labs here.  Oecd should have this, probably late 60s volume..  somethng about bell labsoff budget, nice and steady.  Try to find a pr sheet from MIT where they claim that MIT faculty and students have created the 10th largest economy in the world or something like that  cite among others saxinian for Public Policy Inst. Of Calif.  Need footnote and slide here  footnote and a second exmple: say for fibre optic backbone orsomething like tht..global crossing.  Ask barad.  Need a bunch of references here, even a quote or two. ~HK " $ b D F ]^_me !kqrsR5A!!!!""F""μHh9fHHh 9fHHh 9fHHh 9fHHh 9fH5CJHh9fHHh9fHcHdh9fgHHh9fHH* j0JU5cHdh9fgHHh9fH6Hh9fH3QRop# $ / b f dCEƀ9dhdhdQRop# $ / b f klrsQR>!@!( ((..////0o23L48889999j;>?zA{ACCdE G{ImMnMMNPRR/SqTnVpVYX[][^V_`+c eehhiiiinjojNlOl_o`oqqLsg\klrsQR>!@!( ((..////0o23L48889 d !dd"# $ (D(((../////V/p///////0 13334K4L488899<<>>??@@}AACC{IIIKHh 9fHHh9fH W j0JU5CJHh9fH5Hh9fH5Hh9fHHh9fHHh9fHHh9fHHh9fH5Hh9fH55Hh9fH29999j;>?zA{ACCdE G{ImMnMMN d&dd&dDC$Eƀ d !ddKKnMMMMAPBPRRRS.SWW`F`ggghiiiiijmjZ[.R !"#${tqtltq0JmH0J j0JUHh'9fHHh&9fHHh)9fHWr9F Wr9FHh%9fHcHdh%9fgHHh$9fHj0J5UHh#9fH5Hh#9fHHh!9fHcHdh!9fgHHh 9fH55 j0JU*NPRR/SqTnVpVYX[][^V_`+c eehhddDC$Eƀ!9f d&dhhiiiinjojNlOl_o`oqqLsMsuuwwnxoxdFC$Eƀ$9fLsMsuuwwnxoxyyL{M{~~́\T Sf (XYXߎbu|ǒȒ˒]&23456XYŔa$1ijk  GoxyyL{M{~~́\T SdDC$Eƀddf (XYXߎbu|ǒȒ˒]dd$%&2345XYŔa$1ijkdh&`#$$&'-.01256YZŔƔ)+ab$%12kH* j0JU0JmH0J j0JU/ =!"#$% [(@(NormalCJmH :@: Heading 1$d@&5@@@ Heading 2$d&d@&5@ Heading 3$d@&C$EƀS9 5W9F<A@<Default Paragraph Font, @,Footer  !&)@& Page NumberDC@DBody Text Indentd&d0+@"0 Endnote TextCJ6*@16Endnote ReferenceH*8<GALScZ~k$X,k47k "K$kNRT[9NhhoxkOQSUVXYZLskPWUnknown John Zysman !t!t/7*7&)&G'P'((((22=2E222;;DDEEIIeNqNPPaal loossww3xBxzz~*~HOx{09HPYbouȉщpxϊ׊} 7;<Gnjь+,34GIUVb}ÍύӍۍ9>biʏ45[_u}ؑޑ*/lS_5;0? | K U n|!'O`37 !OP]u ?$J$$$V&_&s''((j)w)*+P+n+!-$-^-d-/0 0!022_5l555G6P69 999::;;>!>T@[@@@9CHCDD^EnEEEFFnGzGHHIIKLLL?MJMN NHNONO#O\OcODPOPQQQQSSTT*W3W{W|W5YAYZS[C^L^``!a/aefjjllrrsmtyz){|||y}{}]~d~ DτψԈÉ$=GPU}ȎʎÏʏ457V‘ʑl Steve Cohen7C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policysundaypm.asd Steve Cohen7C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policysundaypm.asd Steve Cohen7C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policysundaypm.asd Steve Cohen)C:\Steve\fall99\policydraft,tuesdaypm.doc Steve Cohen)C:\Steve\fall99\policydraft,tuesdaypm.doc Steve Cohen)C:\Steve\fall99\policydraft,tuesdaypm.doc Steve Cohen)C:\Steve\fall99\policydraft,tuesdaypm.doc John Zysman-D:\technet\segments\policydraft,tuesdaypm.doc John Zysman>C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policydraft,tuesdaypm.asd John Zysman>C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policydraft,tuesdaypm.asdJly  4ʝhho(.hho(.Jly 4@||ds||k@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"qh9f)9f99 v<20dGo: Steve Cohen John ZysmanOh+'0p   , 8 DPX`hGo:o: Steve Cohentev Normal.dot John Zysman10nMicrosoft Word 8.0@ա@.X7@8 @a v՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp  BRIEitl<j Go: Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{A17890E8-66C5-11D3-BA3B-080009C1632E}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\^_`abcdefgijklmnoqrstuvwzRoot Entry 0 F [  ' |4C1Table`` C]WordDocument8@,@SummaryInformationC(hP:HDocumentSummaryInformation8\6DDH4CKHpCompObj 0j\6DObjectPool\ '  ' <@(C0C C  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q