Have you ever asked yourselves why it is that companies, the really cool companies, the innovative ones, the creative, new economy-type companies -- Apple, Google, Facebook -- are coming out of one particular country, the United States of America? Usually when I say this, someone says, "Spotify! That's Europe." But, yeah. It has not had the impact that these other companies have had.
Kemi pyetur veten se si ka mundesi qe kompanite me te medha, dhe e kam fjalen per kompanite e fuqishme, kompanite krijuese, kompanite e koheve moderne -- si Apple, Google, Facebook e kane origjinen e tyre tek nje shtet, Shtetet e Bashkuara te Amerikes. Zakonisht kunder argumenti qe me jepet eshte se Spotify eshte kompani e krijuar ne Europe. Eshte e vertete, por Spotify nuk ka suksesin dhe famen e kompanive te siper permendura.
Now what I do is I'm an economist, and I actually study the relationship between innovation and economic growth at the level of the company, the industry and the nation, and I work with policymakers worldwide, especially in the European Commission, but recently also in interesting places like China, and I can tell you that that question is on the tip of all of their tongues: Where are the European Googles? What is the secret behind the Silicon Valley growth model, which they understand is different from this old economy growth model? And what is interesting is that often, even if we're in the 21st century, we kind of come down in the end to these ideas of market versus state. It's talked about in these modern ways, but the idea is that somehow, behind places like Silicon Valley, the secret have been different types of market-making mechanisms, the private initiative, whether this be about a dynamic venture capital sector that's actually able to provide that high-risk finance to these innovative companies, the gazelles as we often call them, which traditional banks are scared of, or different types of really successful commercialization policies which actually allow these companies to bring these great inventions, their products, to the market and actually get over this really scary Death Valley period in which many companies instead fail.
Une jam Ekonomiste e specializuar ne studimin e marredhenies midis inovacionit dhe rritjes ekonomike ne nivel kompanish, industrish dhe shtetesh. Punoj me politik-beres ne te gjithe boten, kryesisht me politik-beres ne Komisionin Europian, por edhe ne vende interesante si Kina. Qe te gjithe kane nje pyetje ne maje te gjuhes: Ku jane Googl-at Europian? Cili eshte sekreti i rritjes ekonomike ne 'Silicon Valley', i cili eshte patjeter i ndryshem nga modeli i vjeter dhe tradicional i rritjes ekonomike? Eshte interesante qe edhe pse jemi ne shekullin e 21, argumenti qe perdoret per te shpjeguar kete fenomen eshte tregu kundrejt shtetit. Me pak fjale, ideja eshte qe celesi i suksesit per vende si Silicon Valley eshte perdorimi i mekanizmave te ndryshem per nxitjen e tregut. Nje shembull do ishte iniciativat private, kjo ne formen e sektorit te kapitaleve private, te cilat ofrojne financim me rrezik te larte per keto kompanive inovative gje te cilen bankat tradicionale do kishin frike ta benin. Kjo mundesi mund tu jepet dhe duke ofruar politika reklamimi te cilat u japin mundesine ketyre kompanive qe te nxjerrin idete apo produktin e tyre ne treg, duke kapercyer ne kete menyre piken ku shumica e kompanive te tjera do falimentonin.
But what really interests me, especially nowadays and because of what's happening politically around the world, is the language that's used, the narrative, the discourse, the images, the actual words. So we often are presented with the kind of words like that the private sector is also much more innovative because it's able to think out of the box. They are more dynamic. Think of Steve Jobs' really inspirational speech to the 2005 graduating class at Stanford, where he said to be innovative, you've got to stay hungry, stay foolish. Right? So these guys are kind of the hungry and foolish and colorful guys, right? And in places like Europe, it might be more equitable, we might even be a bit better dressed and eat better than the U.S., but the problem is this damn public sector. It's a bit too big, and it hasn't actually allowed these things like dynamic venture capital and commercialization to actually be able to really be as fruitful as it could. And even really respectable newspapers, some that I'm actually subscribed to, the words they use are, you know, the state as this Leviathan. Right? This monster with big tentacles. They're very explicit in these editorials. They say, "You know, the state, it's necessary to fix these little market failures when you have public goods or different types of negative externalities like pollution, but you know what, what is the next big revolution going to be after the Internet? We all hope it might be something green, or all of this nanotech stuff, and in order for that stuff to happen," they say -- this was a special issue on the next industrial revolution -- they say, "the state, just stick to the basics, right? Fund the infrastructure. Fund the schools. Even fund the basic research, because this is popularly recognized, in fact, as a big public good which private companies don't want to invest in, do that, but you know what? Leave the rest to the revolutionaries." Those colorful, out-of-the-box kind of thinkers. They're often called garage tinkerers, because some of them actually did some things in garages, even though that's partly a myth. And so what I want to do with you in, oh God, only 10 minutes, is to really think again this juxtaposition, because it actually has massive, massive implications beyond innovation policy, which just happens to be the area that I often talk with with policymakers. It has huge implications, even with this whole notion that we have on where, when and why we should actually be cutting back on public spending and different types of public services which, of course, as we know, are increasingly being outsourced because of this juxtaposition. Right? I mean, the reason that we need to maybe have free schools or charter schools is in order to make them more innovative without being emburdened by this heavy hand of the state curriculum, or something. So these kind of words are constantly, these juxtapositions come up everywhere, not just with innovation policy.
Por ceshtja me interesante per mua, sidomos duke pasur parasysh se cfare po ndodh ne aspektin politik ne bote, eshte gjuha, arsyetimi, imazhet dhe fjalet konkrete qe perdoren ne keto raste. Shpesh perdoret arsyetimi se sektori privat, sic shihet dhe nga ndarja ne tabele, eshte me inovativ sepse eshte me mendje hapur, mendon jashte korrnizave, eshte me dinamik. Steve Jobs dha nje fjalim shume inspirues te diplomuarve te vitit 2005 ne Stanford, Ideja kryesore e flalimit te tij ishte qe: qe te jeni inovativ duhet te qendroni kurioz, te mendoni se nuk dini mjaftueshem. Domethene personat e sektorit privat ne tabele jane ato kuriozet, mendjehapurit dhe ambiciozet. Europa, nga ana tjeter, eshte me sociale, njerezit jane me te barabarte dhe mireqenia eshte e shperndare ne menyre me te barabarte. Ne Europe njerezit mund te vishen dhe te ushqehen me mire se ne Amerike, por problemi kryesor ne Europe eshte sektori publik. Sektori publik eshte shume i madh, kujdeset per shumicen dhe duke qene e tille nuk ka mundesuar, nxitur, sektorin e Kapitaleve Private dhe reklamimit ne nivelin e duhur. Nuk i ben individet kurioz dhe ambicioz. Gazeta me shume reputacion, disa nga te cilat i blej edhe vete, e shohin shtetin si Gogoli. Si nje perbindesh me shume kembe. Mendimi i tyre eshte qe shteti duhet te rregulloje problemet e vogla te tregut dhe problemet qe prekin shumicen, problemet si ndotja. Por pyetje qe me lind mua personalisht eshte se cfare do jete shpikja e re pas internetit? Ne te gjithe shpresojme se mund te jete dicka e lidhur me energjine e paster. Por mbizoteron mendimin qe shteti, qeveria, te merret me gjerat baze. Te Investoje ne infrastukture, ne shkolla, madje te investoje edhe ne kerkime shkencore jetike sepse kjo eshte ne te miren e shoqerise dhe kompanite private nuk jane te intesuara ne kete pjese dhe mendojne se shteti te lere pjesen tjeter te inovacioneve per revolucionaret. Te lere pjesen tjeter per ata qe duan te mendojne jashte korrnizave. Atyre qe shpesh quhen shpikesit ne garazh, meqenese se disa shpikje jane bere neper garazhe, edhe pse kjo ne fakt eshte me shume nje mit sesa e vertete. Ao cfare une dua te diskutoj me ju ne keto 10 minuta qe kane ngelur eshte qe te mendijme edhe nje here per kete qendrim dhe ta analizojme sepse ky qendrim ka ndikim shume te madh, dhe kjo jo vetem ne politikat e inovacionit e cila eshte fusha per te cilen flas dhe jam e interesuar. Kjo ka ndikim te madh ne konceptin qe ne kemi persa i perket faktit se ku, kur dhe pse duhet te reduktojme shpenzimet publike dhe sherbime te ndryshme shteterore per te cilat sot qeveria po merr kontrata sherbimi. Per shembull, arsyeja pse shkollat duhet te jene te pavarura eshte qe te jene me krijuese dhe te kene me shume pavaresi nga kurrikula e vendosur nga shteti. Ky arsyetim mund te aplikohet ne shume fusha te tjera.
And so to think again, there's no reason that you should believe me, so just think of some of the smartest revolutionary things that you have in your pockets and do not turn it on, but you might want to take it out, your iPhone. Ask who actually funded the really cool, revolutionary thinking-out-of-the-box things in the iPhone. What actually makes your phone a smartphone, basically, instead of a stupid phone? So the Internet, which you can surf the web anywhere you are in the world; GPS, where you can actually know where you are anywhere in the world; the touchscreen display, which makes it also a really easy-to-use phone for anybody. These are the very smart, revolutionary bits about the iPhone, and they're all government-funded. And the point is that the Internet was funded by DARPA, U.S. Department of Defense. GPS was funded by the military's Navstar program. Even Siri was actually funded by DARPA. The touchscreen display was funded by two public grants by the CIA and the NSF to two public university researchers at the University of Delaware. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, she's just said the word 'defense' and 'military' an awful lot," but what's really interesting is that this is actually true in sector after sector and department after department. So the pharmaceutical industry, which I am personally very interested in because I've actually had the fortune to study it in quite some depth, is wonderful to be asking this question about the revolutionary versus non-revolutionary bits, because each and every medicine can actually be divided up on whether it really is revolutionary or incremental. So the new molecular entities with priority rating are the revolutionary new drugs, whereas the slight variations of existing drugs -- Viagra, different color, different dosage -- are the less revolutionary ones. And it turns out that a full 75 percent of the new molecular entities with priority rating are actually funded in boring, Kafka-ian public sector labs. This doesn't mean that Big Pharma is not spending on innovation. They do. They spend on the marketing part. They spend on the D part of R&D. They spend an awful lot on buying back their stock, which is quite problematic. In fact, companies like Pfizer and Amgen recently have spent more money in buying back their shares to boost their stock price than on R&D, but that's a whole different TED Talk which one day I'd be fascinated to tell you about.
Le te marrim pak kohe dhe te mendojme pak per kete ceshtje. Mendoni per gjene me revolucionare qe keni ne xhep, Iphone. Kush mendoni se ofroi fonde per kete mrekulli, per kete gje revolucionare ne Iphone. Cfare e ben telefonin tuaj te zgjuar dhe te vecante? Eshte interneti, nepermjet te cilit ti mund te eksplorosh faqe, fakte, libra etj kudo ne bote; Eshte navigatori i cili arrin te njohe se ku ndodhesh kudo ne bote; Eshte ekran me prekje, gje qe e ben telefonin shume te lehte per tu perdorur nga kushdo. Keto jane gjerat me te zgjuara dhe revolucionare te iphone, DHE.. te gjitha keto jane te financuara nga qeveria. Interneti eshte financuar Nga Departamenti Amerikan i Mbrojtjes. Navigatori eshte financuar nga program Navstar i ushtrise. Madje edhe Siri eshte financuar nga Departamenti American i Mbrojtjes. Ekrani me prekje eshte financuar nga dy fonde publike qe CIA dhe NSF ju dha dy kerkuesve te Universitetit te Delaware. Po te vini re, kam perdorur termat mbrojte dhe ushtri ne te gjitha rastet,. Eshte shume intersant fakti qe kjo ndodh shpesh dhe edhe ne sektore dhe departamente te ndryshme. Industria farmaceutike, te cilen une e kam shume perzemer sepse kam pasur fatin ta studioj ne shume thellesi, eshte rasti konkret ku mund te ngrihet pyetja rreth gjerave revolucionare dhe jo revolucionare sepse ilacet mund te grupohen ne grupe revolucionare ose grupe permisimi. Per shembull, shpikjet e reja molekulare jane ilacet revolucionare, ndersa variacionet e ilaceve ekzistuese-- si psh viagra ne ngjyre apo doze tjeter -- jane me pak revolucinare e me shume te permisuara. Faktet tregojne se 75 perqind e strukturave te reja molekulare, e ilaceve revolucionare, jane te financuara nga shteti. Kjo nuk do thote qe big pharma nuk po investon ne inovacion, sepse ne fakt investojne por ato fokusohen ne marketing dhe ne pjesen e zhvillimit. Ato harxhojne shume para duke blere aksionet e tyre pasi i kane shitur, gje e cila eshte problematike ne vetvete. Kompanite si Pfizer she Amgen kane harxhuar me shume para ne ri-blerjen e aksioneve te tyre per te rritur cmimin e aksioneve ne total sesa ne kerkim dhe zhvillim. Por kjo eshte nje teme tjeter, te cilen ne fakt mund ta kemi ne nje tjeter bisede te TED.
Now, what's interesting in all of this is the state, in all these examples, was doing so much more than just fixing market failures. It was actually shaping and creating markets. It was funding not only the basic research, which again is a typical public good, but even the applied research. It was even, God forbid, being a venture capitalist. So these SBIR and SDTR programs, which give small companies early-stage finance have not only been extremely important compared to private venture capital, but also have become increasingly important. Why? Because, as many of us know, V.C. is actually quite short-term. They want their returns in three to five years. Innovation takes a much longer time than that, 15 to 20 years. And so this whole notion -- I mean, this is the point, right? Who's actually funding the hard stuff? Of course, it's not just the state. The private sector does a lot. But the narrative that we've always been told is the state is important for the basics, but not really providing that sort of high-risk, revolutionary thinking out of the box. In all these sectors, from funding the Internet to doing the spending, but also the envisioning, the strategic vision, for these investments, it was actually coming within the state. The nanotechnology sector is actually fascinating to study this, because the word itself, nanotechnology, came from within government.
Pjesa me interesante ne gjithe kete eshte qe, shteti, ne te gjitha rastet, po bente me shume sesa thjesht te regullonte problemet e tregut. Shteti po formonte dhe krijonte tregun. Po financonte jo vetem kerkimet baze, te cilat jane ne te mire te shoqerise, por po financonte dhe zbatimim e kerkimit. Madje, po vepronte si Kapitalist Privat. Kjo do te thote qe keto programe shteterore, te cilat u mundesuan financim ne hapat e pare ketyre kompanive te vogla, jo vetem qe kane qene shume te rendesishme ne krahasim me Kapitalet Private, por edhe jane bere shume te domosdoshme. Pse eshte kjo do me thoni ju? Sepse sic dihet, Kapitalet private duan fitime ne afate te shkurtra kohore. Ata duan fitimet e tyre brenda nje, tre ose pese vjecari. Inovacionet ne pergjithesi duan me shume kohe per te nxjerre fitimet e tyre, zakonisht 15 deri ne 20 vjet. Dhe pikerisht ketu del edhe argumenti im. Kush po financon gjerat e veshtira? Nuk po them qe eshte vetem shteti. Edhe sektori privat ndihmon shume. Por arsyetimi qe na eshte thene gjithmone eshte qe shteti eshte i rendesishem per te siguruar gjerat baze, dhe jo per te ndihmuar ne ceshtje qe kane risk te madh, ne te menduarit revolucionar dhe jashte korrnizave. Por, ne te gjitha keto raste del se ishte shteti ai qe siguroi financimin e idese se internetit, shpenzimin, vizionimin madje edhe strategjine. Fusha e nanoteknologjise eshte shume interesante per tu studiuar ne kete drejtim sepse vete fjala nanoteknologji eshte permendur per here te pare
And so there's huge implications of this. First of all, of course I'm not someone, this old-fashioned person, market versus state. What we all know in dynamic capitalism is that what we actually need are public-private partnerships. But the point is, by constantly depicting the state part as necessary but actually -- pffff -- a bit boring and often a bit dangerous kind of Leviathan, I think we've actually really stunted the possibility to build these public-private partnerships in a really dynamic way. Even the words that we often use to justify the "P" part, the public part -- well, they're both P's -- with public-private partnerships is in terms of de-risking. What the public sector did in all these examples I just gave you, and there's many more, which myself and other colleagues have been looking at, is doing much more than de-risking. It's kind of been taking on that risk. Bring it on. It's actually been the one thinking out of the box. But also, I'm sure you all have had experience with local, regional, national governments, and you're kind of like, "You know what, that Kafka-ian bureaucrat, I've met him." That whole juxtaposition thing, it's kind of there. Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy. By talking about the state as kind of irrelevant, boring, it's sometimes that we actually create those organizations in that way. So what we have to actually do is build these entrepreneurial state organizations. DARPA, that funded the Internet and Siri, actually thought really hard about this, how to welcome failure, because you will fail. You will fail when you innovative. One out of 10 experiments has any success. And the V.C. guys know this, and they're able to actually fund the other losses from that one success.
nga vete qeveria. Sic kuptohet, une nuk jam tifoze e filozofise se tregut kundrejt shtetit. Te gjithe e dime se ne kapitalizem duhet nje bashkepunim midis sektorit publik dhe privat. Problemi eshte se duke e pershkruar shtetin si nje pjese te domosdoshme por ne te njejten kohe -- psss -- te merzitshme madje edhe si perbindesh te rrezikshem, kemi penguar mundesine e ndertimit te bashkepunimit midis sektorit shteteror dhe privatit. Ne rastet e bashkepunimit midis sektorit publik dhe privat P-ja qe perfaqeson sektorit publik, megjithese te edhe sektori privat P-ne ka, perdoret per te ulur rrezikun. Ne te gjitha rastet qe ju dhashe, dhe sigurisht qe ka edhe shume raste te tjera, sektori publik po ben me shume sesa minimizimin e rrezikut. Ato ne fakt po e ndermarrin rrezikun. Po guxojne. Eshte shteti qe ka menduar jashte korrnizave. Por nga ana tjeter, jam e bindur qe keni pasur eksperience me punonjes te pushtetit vendor apo qendror, te cilet jane tipiket e burokrateve te ngurte dhe qe nuk arrijne te dalin jashte korrizave. Ky konotacion ne lidhje me sektorin publik eshte real, eshte i perditshem. Ky konotacion krijon permbushjen e profecise vetjake. Me nje fjale, duke e menduar shtetin si te pavend dhe si te merzitshem, ne bejme qe keto organizata te jene vertet te tilla duke qene se jane personat qe permbushin kete stereotip qe shkojne te punojne per administraten shteterore dhe ato arrijne te mbijetojne sepse krijohet nje kulture e tille. Ajo qe ne duhet te bejme eshte te ndertojme nje shtet qe vepron si organizate sipermarrese. Para se Departamenti Amerikan i Mbrojtjes te financonte Internetin dhe Sirin, analizoi me shume kujdes se si te perballoje deshtimin, sepse shanset qe kjo mund te deshtonte ishin shume te larta. Inovacioni shoqerohet gjithmone me rrezikun e deshtimit. Vetem nje ne dhjete eksperimente jane te suksesshem. Kapitalet Private e dine kete gje dhe ato arrijne te kompensojne 9 deshtimet me nje rast te suksesshem.
And this brings me, actually, probably, to the biggest implication, and this has huge implications beyond innovation. If the state is more than just a market fixer, if it actually is a market shaper, and in doing that has had to take on this massive risk, what happened to the reward? We all know, if you've ever taken a finance course, the first thing you're taught is sort of the risk-reward relationship, and so some people are foolish enough or probably smart enough if they have time to wait, to actually invest in stocks, because they're higher risk which over time will make a greater reward than bonds, that whole risk-reward thing. Well, where's the reward for the state of having taken on these massive risks and actually been foolish enough to have done the Internet? The Internet was crazy. It really was. I mean, the probability of failure was massive. You had to be completely nuts to do it, and luckily, they were. Now, we don't even get to this question about rewards unless you actually depict the state as this risk-taker. And the problem is that economists often think, well, there is a reward back to the state. It's tax. You know, the companies will pay tax, the jobs they create will create growth so people who get those jobs and their incomes rise will come back to the state through the tax mechanism. Well, unfortunately, that's not true. Okay, it's not true because many of the jobs that are created go abroad. Globalization, and that's fine. We shouldn't be nationalistic. Let the jobs go where they have to go, perhaps. I mean, one can take a position on that. But also these companies that have actually had this massive benefit from the state -- Apple's a great example. They even got the first -- well, not the first, but 500,000 dollars actually went to Apple, the company, through this SBIC program, which predated the SBIR program, as well as, as I said before, all the technologies behind the iPhone. And yet we know they legally, as many other companies, pay very little tax back.
Kjo na ben te mendojme per pasojat e kesaj filozofie. Nese shteti nuk po funksionon thjesht si nje rregullues tregu por me teper si nje krijues tregu, dhe sigurisht qe duke bere nje gje te tille ndermerr rreziqe te medha, cfare perfitimesh ka? Financa na meson mbi marredhenien rrezik - shperblimi dhe ne kete menyre na shpjegon se si disa njerez jane moskokecares ose shume te zgjuar sepse e dine qe kane mundesi te presin, dhe e dine qe nese investojne ne blerje aksionesh, meqenese rreziku eshte me i madh sesa te investosh ne bono thesari edhe shperblimi mund te jete me i madh dhe keshtu shpjegohet marredhenia rrezik - shperblim. Natyrshem lind pyetja: cfare shperblimi mori shteti duke qene se ndermorri nje rrezik shume te madh duke financuar Internetin? Interneti ishte cmenduri ne ate kohe. Mundesia e deshtimit te ketij projekti ishte masiv. Vetem nje i cmendur mund ta mbeshteste, dhe fatmiresisht per ne ato ishin te tille. Normalisht shteti nuk do shikohej si perfitues pervec rastit kur e shikon shtetin si ndermarres rreziku. Pergjigja e ekonomisteve ndaj kesaj pyetje eshte qe shteti shperblehet nepermjet taksave Mendimi eshte qe kompania do paguaje taksa, punet e hapura do te sjellin rritje ekonomike dhe ne kete menyre punetoret do tatohen dhe shteti do marre shperblim nepermjet taksave. Epo fatkeqesisht kjo nuk eshte e vertet. Nuk eshte e vertete sepse ne rradhe te pare shume nga keto vende pune shkojne jashte Amerikes. Le te mos harrojme qe jemi ne epoken e globalizimit, edhe pse ka qendrime te ndryshme ndaj kesaj ceshtje. Por le te mos harrojme qe keto kompani te medha te cilat kane pasur perfitime kolosale nga shteti - Apple eshte shembulli me i mire -- legalisht, paguajne shume pak taksa shtetit ne krahasim me fitimet qe kane. Programi SBIC i dha Apple 500.000 dollar dhe ky program ishte program shteteror. Pavaresisht kesaj keto kompani, ashtu sikur se edhe shume kompani te tjera, paguajne shume pak taksa.
So what we really need to actually rethink is should there perhaps be a return-generating mechanism that's much more direct than tax. Why not? It could happen perhaps through equity. This, by the way, in the countries that are actually thinking about this strategically, countries like Finland in Scandinavia, but also in China and Brazil, they're retaining equity in these investments. Sitra funded Nokia, kept equity, made a lot of money, it's a public funding agency in Finland, which then funded the next round of Nokias. The Brazilian Development Bank, which is providing huge amounts of funds today to clean technology, they just announced a $56 billion program for the future on this, is retaining equity in these investments. So to put it provocatively, had the U.S. government thought about this, and maybe just brought back just something called an innovation fund, you can bet that, you know, if even just .05 percent of the profits from what the Internet produced had come back to that innovation fund, there would be so much more money to spend today on green technology. Instead, many of the state budgets which in theory are trying to do that are being constrained. But perhaps even more important, we heard before about the one percent, the 99 percent. If the state is thought about in this more strategic way, as one of the lead players in the value creation mechanism, because that's what we're talking about, right? Who are the different players in creating value in the economy, and is the state's role, has it been sort of dismissed as being a backseat player? If we can actually have a broader theory of value creation and allow us to actually admit what the state has been doing and reap something back, it might just be that in the next round, and I hope that we all hope that the next big revolution will in fact be green, that that period of growth will not only be smart, innovation-led, not only green, but also more inclusive, so that the public schools in places like Silicon Valley can actually also benefit from that growth, because they have not.
Kjo te ben te mendosh se ndoshta duhet te instalohet nje mekanizem qe sjell me shume te fitim per shtetin dhe jo vetem fitim ne formen e taksave. E pse jo? Nje forme mund te jete duke marre disa aksione te kompanive qe ato financojne. Ka disa shtete qe e kane menduar me kudes kete strategji, prandaj shtete si Finlanda por edhe Kina dhe Brazili, po mbajne aksione kundrejt ketyre investimeve. Sitra financoi Nokian por mbajti aksione gje qe i solli shume perfitime monetare. Sitra eshte nje agjenc fondesh i publike, dhe pas perfitimit monetar fillestar financoi dhe modelet e reja te Nokias. Banka Braziliane e Zhvillimit jep fonde te medha per zhvillimin e teknologjise pa demtuar mjedisin. Ata financuan nje program 56 miliarda, por mbajten aksione ne kete investime. E thene me hapur, nese qeveria amerikane do e kishte menduar me mire dhe te kishte krijuar vetem nje nje fond per inovacionet jam e sigurte qe do kishte pasur me shume perfitim. Sikur vetem 0.5 perqind e fitimit te Internetit te ishte futur ne kete fond per inovacionet qeveria do kishte bere shume me shume para te cilat mund te investoheshin ne teknologjine e paster ne ditet e sotme. Perkundrazi, fondet te cilat duhej te financonin te tilla inovacione jane te kufizuara ne ditet e sotme. Por mbi te gjtiha, ne folem per rriskun e investimit ne inovacion, se si vetem 1 ne njeqind eshte sukses. Sa mire do ishte sikur shteti ta mendoje me strategjikisht per kete duke qene se luan pjesen kryesore, sepse ne fakt kete ka bere apo jo? Kush jane vertet lojtaret kryesore ne zhvillimin ekonomik? Meqenese qenka shteti, eshte e vertet qe roli i tij eshte menjanuar duke u bere te besohet se shteti eshte nje lojtar pasiv ne kete proces? Nuk do ishte mire sikur te kishim nje teori me gjithperfshirese per zhvillimin e ekonomise e cila pranon ndihmen qe shteti ka dhene dhe e lejon ate te marre dicka ne shkembim, te marre perfitimet ekonomike qe meriton. Ne kete menyre, nese revolucioni tjeter i rradhes do te jete krijimi i nje mjedisi te paster dhe teknologjie qe nuk demton mjedisin, ajo periudhe rritje ekonomike jo vetem qe do sjelle ndryshime pozitive dhe perfitime kolosale per themeluesit e saj, por do jete edhe gjithperfshirese ne menyre qe edhe shkollat publike perreth, sic idealisht do kishte qene ne Silicon Valley, te perfitojne nga kjo rritje ekonomike, sepse deri tani ato nuk kane perfituar asgje.
Thank you.
Faleminderit
(Applause)
(Duartrokitje)