Alex Tabarrok on how ideas trump crises

Translator: Mads Gammelgård Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

The first half of the 20th century

Første halvdel af det 20. århundrede

was an absolute disaster in human affairs,

slog fuldstændig fejl for menneskeheden

a cataclysm.

det var en katastrofe.

We had the First World War,

Vi havde Første Verdenskrig,

the Great Depression,

depressionen i 30'erne,

the Second World War

Anden Verdenskrig,

and the rise of the communist nations.

og de kommunistiske landes grundlæggelse.

And each one of these forces

Hver og en af de kræfter

split the world, tore the world apart,

splittede verden, rev den fra sig selv,

divided the world.

delte verden.

And they threw up walls --

De skabte mure,

political walls, trade walls,

politiske mure, handelsmure,

transportation walls,

transportmure,

communication walls, iron curtains --

kommunikationsmure, jerntæpper,

which divided peoples and nations.

som adskilte mennesker og nationer.

It was only in the second half of the 20th century

Først i anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede,

that we slowly began to pull ourselves

begyndte vi langsomt at skubbe os

out of this abyss.

væk fra afgrundens rand.

Trade walls began to come tumbling down.

Toldmurene begyndte at vælte.

Here are some data on tariffs:

Her er nogle fakta om told:

starting at 40 percent, coming down to less than 5 percent.

Startende på 40 procent, til nu mindre end 5 procent.

We globalized the world. And what does that mean?

Vi globaliserede verden. Og hvad betyder det?

It means that we extended cooperation

Det betyder, at vi udvidede samarbejdet

across national boundaries;

henover nationale grænser.

we made the world more cooperative.

Vi gjorde verden mere samarbejdende.

Transportation walls came tumbling down.

Transport forhindringerne forsvandt.

You know in 1950 the typical ship carried

I 1950 fragtede et typisk skib

5,000 to 10,000 tons worth of goods.

mellem 5.000 og 10.000 ton varer.

Today a container ship can carry 150,000 tons;

I dag fragter et containerskib 150.000 ton.

it can be manned with a smaller crew;

Det har brug for en mindre besætning,

and unloaded faster than ever before.

og losses hurtigere end nogensinde.

Communication walls, I don't have to tell you -- the Internet --

Hindringer for kommunikation, som internettet

have come tumbling down.

er væltet omkuld.

And of course the iron curtains,

Og selvfølgelig Jerntæppet,

political walls have come tumbling down.

politiske mure er væltet.

Now all of this has been tremendous for the world.

Alt dette har været fantastisk for verden.

Trade has increased.

Handlen er øget.

Here is just a little bit of data.

Her er bare en smule data.

In 1990, exports from China to the United States:

I 1990 var eksporten fra Kina til USA

15 billion dollars.

15 milliarder dollar.

By 2007: over 300 billion dollars.

I 2007: mere end 300 milliarder dollar.

And perhaps most remarkably,

Og måske mest bemærkelsesværdigt,

at the beginning of the 21st century,

i starten af det 21. århundrede,

really for the first time in modern history,

for første gang i moderne tid,

growth extended to almost all parts of the world.

oplevede næsten hele kloden vækst.

So China, I've already mentioned,

Kina, som jeg allerede nævnte,

beginning around 1978, around the time of the death of Mao,

startende i 1978, i tiden hvor Mao døde,

growth -- ten percent a year.

vækst - 10 procent om året.

Year after year after year,

År efter år efter år.

absolutely incredible.

Helt fantastisk.

Never before in human history

Aldrig før i menneskets historie,

have so many people been raised out of

er så mange mennesker løftet ud af

such great poverty as happened in China.

så stor fattigdom som det er sket i Kina.

China is the world's greatest anti-poverty program

Kina er verdens største anti-fattigdomsprogram

over the last three decades.

i de sidste 30 år.

India, starting a little bit later,

Indien, begyndte en smule senere,

but in 1990, begetting tremendous growth.

men fik enorm vækst i 1990.

Incomes at that time

Indkomsten på det tidspunkt

less than $1,000 per year.

mindre end 1000$ om året.

And over the next 18 years

Og over de næste 18 år

have almost tripled.

er det tal næsten tredoblet.

Growth of six percent a year. Absolutely incredible.

En vækst på 6 procent om året. Absolut fantastisk.

Now Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa --

Nu har Afrika, Afrika syd for Sahara -

Sub-Saharan Africa

Afrika syd for Sahara

has been the area of the world

har været det område i verden

most resistant to growth.

med størst modstand overfor vækst.

And we can see the tragedy of Africa

Og vi kan se Afrikas tragedie

in the first few bars here.

i de første søjler her.

Growth was negative.

Væksten var negativ.

People were actually getting poorer than their parents,

Folk blev faktisk fattigere end deres forældre,

and sometimes even poorer than their grandparents had been.

og nogen gange endda fattigere end deres bedsteforældre havde været.

But at the end of the 20th century,

Men i slutningen af det 20. århundrede,

the beginning of the 21st century,

starten af det 21. århundrede,

we saw growth in Africa.

så vi en vækst i Afrika.

And I think, as you'll see, there's reasons for optimism,

Og jeg mener, som I kan se, at der er grund til optimisme,

because I believe that the best is yet to come.

fordi jeg mener at det bedste stadig venter.

Now why.

Men hvorfor.

On the cutting edge today

På forkanten i dag

it's new ideas which are driving growth.

er det nye ideer der driver væksten.

And by that I mean it's

Og med det mener jeg at det er

products for which the research and development costs

produkter med en høj pris for forskning og udvikling,

are really high, and the manufacturing costs are low.

og hvor prisen for produktion er lav.

More than ever before it is these types of ideas

Endnu mere nu end før er det denne type ideer

which are driving growth on the cutting edge.

der driver væksten på den forreste kant.

Now ideas have this amazing property.

Ideer har denne fantastiske evne.

Thomas Jefferson, I think, really expressed this quite well.

Thomas Jefferson, syntes jeg, sagde det rigtig godt.

He said, "He who receives an idea from me

Han sagde, "Ham der modtager en idé fra mig

receives instruction himself, without lessening mine.

modtager selv instruktion, uden at svække min.

As he who lights his candle at mine

Som ham der tænder sit lys ved mit

receives light without darkening me."

modtager lys uden at svække lyset fra mit."

Or to put it slightly differently:

Eller for at sige det på en anden måde:

one apple feeds one man,

Et æble kan bespise en mand,

but an idea can feed the world.

men en idé kan bespise verden.

Now this is not new. This is practically not new to TEDsters.

Det er ikke en nyhed. Det er især ikke en nyhed for TEDstere.

This is practically the model of TED.

Det er praktisk taget modellen for TED.

But what is new is that the greater function of ideas

Men hvad der er nyt er at den større funktion af ideer

is going to drive growth even more than ever before.

kommer til at drive væksten endnu mere end før.

This provides a reason why

Det giver en grund til at

trade and globalization

handel og globalisering

are even more important, more powerful than ever before,

er vigtigere, mere magtfulde, end nogensinde før,

and are going to increase growth more than ever before.

og kommer til at øge væksten mere end nogensinde før.

And to explain why this is so, I have a question.

Og for at forklare hvorfor det er sådan, har jeg et spørgsmål.

Suppose that there are two diseases:

Forestil jer at der er to sygdomme:

one of them is rare, the other one is common,

en af dem er sjælden, den anden almindelig,

but if they are not treated they are equally severe.

men hvis de ikke bliver behandlet er de lige alvorlige.

If you had to choose, which would you rather have:

Hvis du skulle vælge, hvilken ville du så helst have:

the common disease or the rare disease?

Den almindelige sygdom eller den sjældne?

Common, the common -- I think that's absolutely right,

Almindelig, den almindelige - Jeg tror det er helt rigtigt,

and why? Because there are more drugs to treat common diseases

og hvorfor? Fordi der er mere medicin mod almindelige sygdomme

than there are to treat rare diseases.

end der er mod sjældne sygdomme.

The reason for this is incentives.

Årsagen er at der er mere incitament.

It costs about the same to produce a new drug

Det koster cirka det samme at udvikle ny medicin

whether that drug treats 1,000 people,

uanset om medicinen behandler 1.000 mennesker,

100,000 people, or a million people.

100.000 mennesker, eller en million mennesker.

But the revenues are much greater if the drug treats a million people.

Men omsætningen er meget større hvis medicinen behandler en million mennesker.

So the incentives are much larger

Så incitamentet er meget større

to produce drugs which treat more people.

for at udvikle medicin der kan behandle flere mennesker.

To put this differently: larger markets save lives.

For at sige det på en anden måde: Større målgruppe redder liv.

In this case misery truly does love company.

Der er ikke noget der er så skidt at det ikke er godt for noget.

Now think about the following:

Tænk nu på følgende:

if China and India were as rich as the United States is today,

Hvis Kina og Indien var lige så rige som USA er i dag,

the market for cancer drugs would be eight times larger than it is now.

så ville markedet for kræftmedicin være otte gange større end det er nu.

Now we are not there yet, but it is happening.

Vi er der ikke endnu, men det kommer til at ske.

As other countries become richer

Som andre lande bliver rigere

the demand for these pharmaceuticals

kommer efterspørgslen efter disse medikamenter

is going to increase tremendously.

til at stige voldsomt.

And that means an increase incentive to do research and development,

Og det betyder et øget incitament for forskning og udvikling,

which benefits everyone in the world.

som kommer alle på jorden til gode.

Larger markets increase the incentive

Et større marked øger incitamentet

to produce all kinds of ideas,

for at producere alle typer af ideer,

whether it's software, whether it's a computer chip,

uanset om det er software, om det er en computer chip,

whether it's a new design.

om det er nyt design.

For the Hollywood people in the audience,

For dem blandt publikum der kommer fra Hollywood,

this even explains why action movies

det her forklarer endda hvorfor actionfilm

have larger budgets than comedies:

har et større budget end komedier:

it's because action movies translate easier

det er fordi actionfilm når bredere ud

into other languages and other cultures,

ud i andre sprog og andre kulturer,

so the market for those movies is larger.

så markedet for de film er større.

People are willing to invest more,

Folk er villige til at investere mere,

and the budgets are larger.

og budgettet er større.

Alright. Well if larger markets increase the incentive

Okay. Hvis et større marked øger incitamentet

to produce new ideas,

for at producere nye ideer,

how do we maximize that incentive?

hvordan kan vi så maksimere incitamentet?

It's by having one world market, by globalizing the world.

Det gør vi ved at have et verdens marked, ved at globalisere verden.

The way I like to put this is:

Jeg vil gerne sige det sådan:

one idea. Ideas are meant to be shared,

En ide. Det er meningen at ideer skal deles,

so one idea can serve one world, one market.

så en ide kan gavne en verden, et marked.

One idea, one world, one market.

En ide, En verden, Et marked.

Well how else can we create new ideas?

Hvordan kan vi ellers skabe nye ideer?

That's one reason.

Det er en grund.

Globalize trade.

Global handel.

How else can we create new ideas?

Hvordan kan vi ellers skabe nye ideer?

Well, more idea creators.

Flere ideskabere.

Now idea creators, they come from all walks of life.

Ideskabere, de kommer fra alle steder i livet.

Artists and innovators -- many of the people you've seen on this stage.

Kunstnere og nyskabere - mange af de mennesker I har set her på scenen.

I'm going to focus on scientists and engineers

Jeg vil fokusere på forskere og ingeniører

because I have some data on that, and I'm a data person.

fordi jeg har noget data på dem og jeg er en data person.

Now, today, less than one-tenth of one percent

Nu, i dag, er mindre end én tiendedel af én procent

of the world's population are scientists and engineers.

af verdens befolkning forskere og ingeniører.

(Laughter)

[Latter]

The United States has been an idea leader.

USA har været førende inden for ideer.

A large fraction of those people are in the United States.

En stor andel af disse mennesker er i USA.

But the U.S. is losing its idea leadership.

Men USA er ved at miste sin førerposition.

And for that I am very grateful.

Og det er jeg meget taknemmelig for.

That is a good thing.

Det er en god ting.

It is fortunate that we are becoming less of an idea leader

Det er heldigt at vi er ved at blive overhalet

because for too long the United States,

fordi i alt for langt tid har USA,

and a handful of other developed countries,

og en håndfuld andre industrialiserede lande,

have shouldered the entire burden

båret hele byrden

of research and development.

af forskning og udviklingen.

But consider the following:

Men tænk over det følgende:

if the world as a whole were as wealthy as the United States is now

hvis verden som et hele var lige så rig som USA er nu

there would be more than five times as many scientists and engineers

så ville der være fem gange så mange forskere og ingeniører

contributing to ideas which benefit everyone,

der bedrog med ideer til fordel for alle,

which are shared by everyone.

ideer der kunne deles af alle.

I think of the great Indian mathematician, Ramanujan.

Jeg tænker på den store Indiske matematiker, Ramanujan.

How many Ramanujans are there in India today

Hvor mange som Ramanujan er der i Indien i dag

toiling in the fields, barely able to feed themselves,

Slider i markerne, dårligt i stand til at brødføde sig selv,

when they could be feeding the world?

Når de kunne brødføde hele verden?

Now we're not there yet.

Vi er der ikke endnu.

But it is going to happen in this century.

Men det kommer til at ske i det her århundrede.

The real tragedy of the last century is this:

Den sande tragedie i sidste århundrede er dette:

if you think about the world's population

hvis du tænker på verdens befolkning

as a giant computer, a massively parallel processor,

som en kæmpe computer, en enorm parallel processor,

then the great tragedy has been

så har den stor tragedie været

that billions of our processors have been off line.

at milliarder af vores processorer har været off-line.

But in this century China is coming on line.

Men i det her århundrede kommer Kina on-line.

India is coming on line.

Indien kommer on-line.

Africa is coming on line.

Afrika kommer on-line.

We will see an Einstein in Africa in this century.

Vi vil se en Einstein i Afrika i det her århundrede.

Here is just some data. This is China.

Her er bare nogle tal. Det her er Kina.

1996: less than one million

1996: Mindre end en million

new university students in China per year;

nye studerende på universitetet i Kina om året;

2006: over five million.

2006 mere end 5 millioner.

Now think what this means.

Tænk nu på hvad det betyder.

This means we all benefit when another country gets rich.

Det betyder at vi alle får gavn af at et andet land bliver rigere.

We should not fear other countries becoming wealthy.

Vi bør ikke frygte at andre lande bliver rigere.

That is something that we should embrace --

Det er noget vi skal tage i mod med åbne arme

a wealthy China, a wealthy India, a wealthy Africa.

et rigt Kina, et rigt Indien, et rigt Afrika.

We need a greater demand for ideas --

Vi har brug for en større efterspørgsel på ideer

those larger markets I was talking about earlier --

de større markeder jeg talte om tidligere -

and a greater supply of ideas for the world.

og et større udbud af ideer til verden.

Now you can see some of the reasons why I'm optimistic.

Nu kan i se nogle af grundene til at jeg er optimistisk.

Globalization is increasing the demand

Globaliseringen øger efterspørgslen

for ideas, the incentive to create new ideas.

på ideer, incitamentet til at skabe nye ideer.

Investments in education are increasing the supply of new ideas.

Investering i uddannelse skaber et behov for nye ideer.

In fact if you look at world history

Faktum er at hvis i kigger på verdens historie

you can see some reasons for optimism.

kan i se nogle af grundene til optimisme.

From about the beginnings of humanity

Fra starten af menneskeheden

to 1500: zero economic growth, nothing.

til 1500: Ingen økonomisk vækst, ingenting.

1500 to 1800: maybe a little bit of economic growth,

1500 til 1800: Måske en lille økonomisk vækst,

but less in a century

men mindre på et århundrede

than you expect to see in a year today.

end man ville forvente på et år i dag.

1900s: maybe one percent.

1900'erne: Måske en procent.

Twentieth century: a little bit over two percent.

21. århundrede: lidt over to procent.

Twenty-first century could easily be 3.3, even higher percent.

21. århundrede kan let blive 3,3 procent måske endda mere.

Even at that rate,

Selv med den hastighed,

by 2100 average GDP per capita

inden 2100 vil den gennemsnitlige BNP pr. indbygger

in the world will be $200,000.

i verden være 200.000$.

That's not U.S. GDP per capita, which will be over a million,

Det er ikke USA's BNP pr indbygger, det vil være mere end 1 million,

but world GDP per capita -- $200,000.

men verdens BNP pr. indbygger - 200.000$.

That's not that far.

Der er ikke ret langt.

We won't make it.

Vi vil ikke klare det.

But some of our grandchildren probably will.

Men nogen af vores børnebørn vil sikkert.

And I should say,

Og jeg må sige,

I think this is a rather modest prediction.

jeg mener det er en ret beskeden forudsigelse.

In Kurzweilian terms this is gloomy.

Med Kurzweilian's ord så er det dystert.

In Kurzweilian terms I'm like the Eeyore of economic growth.

Med Kurzweilian's ord er jeg ligesom Æseldyret med økonomisk vækst.

(Laughter)

[latter]

Alright what about problems?

Okay, hvad med problemerne?

What about a great depression?

Hvad med en stor krise?

Well let's take a look. Let's take a look at the Great Depression.

Lad os se på det. Lad os se på 30'ernes store krise.

Here is GDP per capita

Her er BNP pr. indbygger

from 1900 to 1929.

fra 1900 til 1929.

Now let's imagine that you were an economist in 1929,

Lad os nu forestille os at du var økonom i 1929,

trying to forecast future growth for the United States,

der forsøger at forudse væksten i USA,

not knowing that the economy was about to go off a cliff,

du ved ikke at økonomien snart tager et stort dyk,

not knowing that we were about to enter

Du ved ikke at der venter

the greatest economic disaster certainly in the 20th century.

den største økonomiske katastrofe i det 20. århundrede.

What would you have predicted, not knowing this?

Hvad ville du have forudset, hvis du ikke vidste alt det?

If you had based your prediction, your forecast

Hvis du havde baseret din forudsigelse

on 1900 to 1929

på 1900 til 1929

you'd have predicted something like this.

du havde forudset noget lignende det her.

If you'd been a little more optimistic --

Hvis du havde været lidt mere optimistisk -

say, based upon the Roaring Twenties -- you'd have said this.

lad os sige, baseret på de svingende 20'ere - Så havde du sagt det her.

So what actually happened?

Så hvad var det der i virkeligheden skete?

We went off a cliff but we recovered.

Vi tog et gevaldigt styrtdyk men vi kom tilbage.

In fact in the second half of the 20th century

I virkeligheden var anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede

growth was even higher than anything you would have predicted

ramme for en større vækst end du ville have forudset

based upon the first half of the 20th century.

baseret på den første halvdel af det 20. århundrede.

So growth can wash away

Så væksten kan overstråle

even what appears to be a great depression.

selv hvad der virker som en stor krise.

Alright. What else?

Okay. Hvad ellers?

Oil. Oil. This was a big topic.

Olie. Olie. Det var det helt store emne.

When I was writing up my notes oil was $140 per barrel.

Da jeg skrev mine noter var prisen på olie 140$ pr. tønde.

So people were asking a question. They were saying,

Så folk stillede et spørgsmål. De sagde,

"Is China drinking our milkshake?"

"Drikker Kina vores milkshake?"

(Laughter)

[latter]

And there is some truth to this,

Og der er et gram af sandhed i det,

in the sense that we have something of a finite resource,

i den forstand at vi har en begrænset ressource,

and increased growth is going to push up demand for that.

og en øget vækst presser efterspørgslen op.

But I think I don't have to tell this audience

Men jeg tror ikke at jeg behøver fortælle det her publikum

that a higher price of oil is not necessarily a bad thing.

at en højere pris på olie ikke nødvendigvis er en dårlig ting.

Moreover, as everyone knows,

Ydermere, som vi alle ved,

look -- it's energy, not oil, which counts.

så er det energi, ikke olie, der tæller.

And higher oil prices mean

Og en højere olie pris betyder

a greater incentive to invest in energy R&D.

et højere incitament til at investere i udvikling af energi.

You can see this in the data.

I kan se det i tallene.

As oil prices go up, energy patents go up.

Som prisen på olie stiger, stiger antallet af energi patenter.

The world is much better equipped

Verden er meget bedre udrustet

to overcome an increase in the price of oil

til at overkomme en stigning i prisen på olie

today, than ever in the past,

i dag, end nogensinde før,

because of what I'm talking about.

på grund af det jeg taler om.

One idea, one world, one market.

En ide, En verden, Et marked.

So I'm optimistic

Så jeg er optimistisk

so long as we hew to these two ideas:

Så længe vi holder fast i disse to ideer:

to keep globalizing world markets,

at blive ved med at globalisere verdensmarkedet,

keep extending cooperation across national boundaries,

fortsat udvide samarbejdet på tværs af nationale grænser,

and keep investing in education.

og fortsat investere i uddannelse.

Now the United States has a particularly important role

USA har især en vigtig rolle

to play in this:

at spille i det her:

to keep our education system globalized,

at holde vores uddannelsessystem globaliseret,

to keep our education system open to students from all over the world,

at holde vores uddannelsessystem åbent for studenter fra hele verden.

because our education system

fordi vores uddannelsessystem

is the candle

er lyset

that other students come to light their own candles.

som andre studenter kommer for at tænde deres ved.

Now remember here what Jefferson said.

Husk nu hvad Jefferson sagde.

Jefferson said, "When they come

Jefferson sagde, "Når de kommer

and light their candles at ours,

og tænder deres lys ved vores,

they gain light, and we are not darkened."

opnår de lys, og vores formørkes ikke."

But Jefferson wasn't quite right, was he?

Men Jefferson havde ikke helt ret, havde han?

Because the truth is,

Fordi sandheden er,

when they light their candles at ours,

når de tænder deres lys ved vores,

there is twice as much light available for everyone.

er der dobbelt så meget lys tilgængeligt for alle.

So my view is: Be optimistic.

Så min holdning er: Vær optimistisk.

Spread the ideas. Spread the light.

Spred ideerne. Spred lyset.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

[Bifald]