Mariana Mazzucato: Government -- investor, risk-taker, innovator

Prevodilac: Vladimir Djuric Lektor: Mile Živković

Have you ever asked yourselves why it is that

Jeste li se ikada zapitali kako to da

companies, the really cool companies,

kompanije, zaista kul kompanije,

the innovative ones, the creative,

one inovativne, kreativne,

new economy-type companies --

kompanije za nove ekonomije -

Apple, Google, Facebook --

Epl, Gugl, Fejsbuk -

are coming out of one particular country,

dolaze iz jedne određene države,

the United States of America?

Sjedinjenih Američkih Država?

Usually when I say this, someone says, "Spotify!

Obično kada to kažem, neko kaže: "Spotifaj!

That's Europe." But, yeah.

To je Evropa." Ali, da.

It has not had the impact that these other companies have had.

Nije imala takav uticaj kao ove navedene kompanije.

Now what I do is I'm an economist,

Ja sam ekonomista

and I actually study the relationship

i zapravo proučavam odnos

between innovation and economic growth

između inovacije i ekonomskog rasta

at the level of the company, the industry and the nation,

i veličine kompanije, industrije i nacije,

and I work with policymakers worldwide,

i radim sa kreatorima politika globalno,

especially in the European Commission,

pogotovo u Evropskoj komisiji,

but recently also in interesting places like China,

ali odnedavno i u interesantnim mestima poput Kine,

and I can tell you that that question

i mogu vam reći da im je to pitanje

is on the tip of all of their tongues:

svima na vrh jezika:

Where are the European Googles?

Gde su evropski Guglovi?

What is the secret behind the Silicon Valley growth model,

Gde je tajna iza modela rasta Silicijumske doline,

which they understand is different

za koji oni razumeju da je drugačiji

from this old economy growth model?

od modela rasta stare ekonomije?

And what is interesting is that often,

I interesantno je da često,

even if we're in the 21st century,

čak iako smo u 21. veku,

we kind of come down in the end to these ideas

na kraju nekako dođemo do tih ideja

of market versus state.

o tržištu nasuprot države.

It's talked about in these modern ways,

O tome se govori na moderan način,

but the idea is that somehow, behind places like Silicon Valley,

ali ideja je da nekako, iza tih mesta kao što je Silikonska dolina

the secret have been different types of market-making mechanisms,

tajna je u različitim tipovima mehanizama pravljenja tržišta,

the private initiative, whether this be about

privatnoj inicijativi, bilo da je to

a dynamic venture capital sector

sektor dinamičnog investicionog kapitala

that's actually able to provide that high-risk finance

koji je zapravo u stanju da obezbedi finansiranje visoko rizičnih poduhvata

to these innovative companies,

ovim inovativnim kompanijama,

the gazelles as we often call them,

gazelama, kako ih često zovemo,

which traditional banks are scared of,

kojih se tradicionalne banke plaše,

or different types of really successful

ili se radi o drugim tipovima zaista uspešne

commercialization policies which actually allow these companies

politike komercijalizacije koja zapravo dopušta tim kompanijama

to bring these great inventions, their products,

da iznesu te velike inovacije, svoje proizvode,

to the market and actually get over this

na tržište i zaista prevaziđu taj

really scary Death Valley period

stvarno strašni period "Doline smrti"

in which many companies instead fail.

tokom kojeg mnoge kompanije zapravo propadnu.

But what really interests me, especially nowadays

Ali ono što me stvarno zanima, naročito ovih dana

and because of what's happening politically around the world,

i zbog onoga što se događa u politici širom sveta,

is the language that's used, the narrative,

je jezik koji se koristi, narativ,

the discourse, the images, the actual words.

diskurs, slike, stvarne reči.

So we often are presented

Obično nam predstavljaju

with the kind of words like that the private sector

reči poput onih da je privatni sektor

is also much more innovative because it's able to

takođe mnogo inovativniji jer je u stanju

think out of the box.

da razmišlja otvoreno.

They are more dynamic.

Oni su dinamičniji.

Think of Steve Jobs' really inspirational speech

Pomislite na zaista inspirativan govor Stiva Džobsa

to the 2005 graduating class at Stanford,

klasi diplomaca 2005. na Stenfordu,

where he said to be innovative,

gde je rekao da biti inovitivan,

you've got to stay hungry, stay foolish.

znači ostati gladan, ostati luckast.

Right? So these guys are kind of the hungry

Tako je? Dakle, ti momci su nekako gladni

and foolish and colorful guys, right?

i luckasti i šareni momci, je li?

And in places like Europe,

A u mestima poput Evrope,

it might be more equitable,

možda je pravednije,

we might even be a bit better dressed

možda se tamo bolje oblači

and eat better than the U.S.,

i bolje jede nego u SAD,

but the problem is this damn public sector.

ali problem je taj prokleti javni sektor.

It's a bit too big, and it hasn't actually allowed

Malo je prevelik, i zapravo nije dozvolio

these things like dynamic venture capital

stvarima kao što su dinamični preduzetnički kapital

and commercialization to actually be able to really

i komercijalizacija da istinski budu u stanju da stvarno

be as fruitful as it could.

budu plodni koliko bi mogli.

And even really respectable newspapers,

I čak i veoma ugledne novine,

some that I'm actually subscribed to,

neke na koje sam čak i pretplaćena,

the words they use are, you know,

koriste reči kao što su, znate ono

the state as this Leviathan. Right?

"država kao ovaj Levijatan". Zar ne?

This monster with big tentacles.

Ovi monstrumi sa velikim pipcima,

They're very explicit in these editorials.

oni su veoma eksplicitni u ovim uredničkim komentarima.

They say, "You know, the state, it's necessary

Kažu: "Znate, država je neophodna

to fix these little market failures

radi popravljanja malih kvarova tržišta

when you have public goods

kada imate javna dobra,

or different types of negative externalities like pollution,

ili druge tipove negativnih spoljnih uticaja kao što je zagađenje.

but you know what, what is the next big revolution

Ali, znate šta? Šta će činiti sledeću veliku revoluciju

going to be after the Internet?

nakon Interneta?

We all hope it might be something green,

Svi se nadamo nečemu "zelenom",

or all of this nanotech stuff, and in order for that stuff to happen," they say --

ili onim nanotehnološkim stvarima, i da bi se te stvari dogodile, kažu,

this was a special issue on the next industrial revolution --

a to je bila posebna priča kod sledeće industrijske revolucije,

they say, "the state, just stick to the basics, right?

kažu: "Državo, drži se osnovnih stvari." Zar ne?

Fund the infrastructure. Fund the schools.

"Finansiraj infrastrukturu. Finansiraj škole."

Even fund the basic research, because this is

Čak: "Finansiraj i bazična istraživanja, jer to je

popularly recognized, in fact, as a big public good

u narodu prepoznato, zapravo, kao veliko javno dobro

which private companies don't want to invest in,

u koje privatne kompanije ne žele da investiraju.

do that, but you know what?

Radi tako, ali znaš šta?

Leave the rest to the revolutionaries."

Ostalo prepusti revolucionarima."

Those colorful, out-of-the-box kind of thinkers.

Onim raznobojnim, otvorenim misliocima,

They're often called garage tinkerers,

oni se često nazivaju majstorima iz garaža,

because some of them actually did some things in garages,

jer neki od njih su zaista iz garaža napravili neke stvari,

even though that's partly a myth.

iako je to delom i mit.

And so what I want to do with you in, oh God,

Ono što ja želim da uradim sa vama u, o bože,

only 10 minutes,

samo 10 minuta,

is to really think again this juxtaposition,

je da stvarno razmislimo o tim predrasudama,

because it actually has massive, massive implications

jer to zaista ima ogromne, ogromne implikacije

beyond innovation policy,

van politike inovativnosti,

which just happens to be the area

koja je igrom slučaja oblast

that I often talk with with policymakers.

o kojoj ja često pričam sa kreatorima politika.

It has huge implications, even with this whole notion

To ima ogromne implikacije, čak i uz tu veliku konstataciju

that we have on where, when and why

koju imamo o tome gde, kada i zašto

we should actually be cutting back on public spending

treba zapravo da krešemo javnu potrošnju

and different types of public services which,

i različite vrste javnih usluga koje,

of course, as we know, are increasingly being

naravno, kao što znamo, su povećano

outsourced because of this juxtaposition.

ustupljene drugima zbog tih pretpostavki.

Right? I mean, the reason that we need to maybe have free schools or charter schools

Zar ne? Mislim, razlog zašto treba da imamo slobodne škole ili iznajmljene škole

is in order to make them more innovative without being emburdened

jeste da bismo ih učinili inovativnijim bez da ih učinimo opterećujućim

by this heavy hand of the state curriculum, or something.

tom teškom rukom državnog nastavnog plana ili čime već.

So these kind of words are constantly,

Tako da su te reči konstantno,

these juxtapositions come up everywhere,

te predrasude su prisutne svuda,

not just with innovation policy.

ne samo kod politika inovativnosti.

And so to think again,

I kada ponovo razmislimo,

there's no reason that you should believe me,

nema razloga da mi verujete,

so just think of some of the smartest

pa pomislite na neke od najpametnijih

revolutionary things that you have in your pockets

revolucionarnih stvari koje imate u svojim džepovima

and do not turn it on, but you might want to take it out, your iPhone.

i nemojte ih uključivati, već ih možda samo izvadite, vaš Ajfon.

Ask who actually funded the really cool,

Zapitajte ko je zapravo finansirao stvarno kul,

revolutionary thinking-out-of-the-box

revolucionarne, otvoreno smišljene

things in the iPhone.

stvari u Ajfonu.

What actually makes your phone

Šta vaš telefon zapravo čini

a smartphone, basically, instead of a stupid phone?

pametnim, u suštini, a ne glupim telefonom?

So the Internet, which you can surf the web

Dakle, internet, kojim surfujete po internetu

anywhere you are in the world;

bilo gde da ste na svetu,

GPS, where you can actually know where you are

GPS, kojim zapravo saznajete gde ste

anywhere in the world;

bilo gde u svetu,

the touchscreen display, which makes it also

ekran na dodir, koji telefon čini

a really easy-to-use phone for anybody.

lako upotrebljivim za svakoga.

These are the very smart, revolutionary bits about the iPhone,

To su istinski pametne, revolucionarne sitnice kod Ajfona

and they're all government-funded.

i njih je sve vlada finansirala.

And the point is that the Internet

I suština je u tome da je i internet finansirala

was funded by DARPA, U.S. Department of Defense.

DARPA, Ministarstva odbrane SAD.

GPS was funded by the military's Navstar program.

GPS je finansirao vojni Navstar program.

Even Siri was actually funded by DARPA.

Čak i Siri je zapravo finansirala DARPA.

The touchscreen display was funded

Ekran na dodir su finansirala

by two public grants by the CIA and the NSF

dva javna giganta, CIA i NSF (Nacionalna fondacija za nauku)

to two public university researchers at the University of Delaware.

za dva istraživača sa nacionalnog Univerziteta u Delaveru.

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, she's just said

Možete pomisliti: "Ma, ona je samo izgovorila

the word 'defense' and 'military' an awful lot,"

reči "odbrana" i "vojska" i još štošta",

but what's really interesting is that this is actually true

ali ono što je stvarno zanimljivo je da je to istina

in sector after sector and department after department.

od sektora do sektora i odeljenja do odeljenja.

So the pharmaceutical industry, which I am personally

Tako da farmaceutska industrija, koja mene lično

very interested in because I've actually had the fortune

veoma zanima, jer sam zapravo imala sreću

to study it in quite some depth,

da je detaljno izučavam,

is wonderful to be asking this question

je divna za postavljanje ovih pitanja

about the revolutionary versus non-revolutionary bits,

o revolucionarnosti nasuprot nerevolucionarnog

because each and every medicine can actually be

jer svaki lek se zapravo može

divided up on whether it really is revolutionary or incremental.

podeliti po tome da li je zapravo revolucionaran ili postepen.

So the new molecular entities with priority rating

Tako da dva nova molekularna entiteta sa prioritetnim rangiranjem

are the revolutionary new drugs,

su revolucionarni novi lekovi,

whereas the slight variations of existing drugs --

dok su male varijacije postojećih lekova -

Viagra, different color, different dosage --

Vijagra, drugačije boje, drugačije doze -

are the less revolutionary ones.

manje revolucionarne.

And it turns out that a full 75 percent

I ispada da celih 75%

of the new molecular entities with priority rating

novih molekularnih entiteta sa prioritetnim rangiranjem

are actually funded in boring, Kafka-ian public sector labs.

je finansirano u dosadnim, kafkijanskim laboratorijama javnog sektora.

This doesn't mean that Big Pharma is not spending on innovation.

To ne znači da veliki farmaceuti ne troše na inovacije.

They do. They spend on the marketing part.

Troše. Troše na marketinški deo.

They spend on the D part of R&D.

Oni troše na razvojni deo istraživanja i razvoja.

They spend an awful lot on buying back their stock,

Oni troše strašno mnogo na otkup sopstvenih akcija

which is quite problematic.

što je prilično problematično.

In fact, companies like Pfizer and Amgen recently

Zapravo, kompanije kao Fajzer i Amdžen nedavno su

have spent more money in buying back their shares

potrošile više novca na otkup sopstvenih akcija

to boost their stock price than on R&D,

kako bi podigli cenu svojih akcija nego na razvoj i istraživanje,

but that's a whole different TED Talk which one day

ali to je tema za sasvim drugu TED priču za koju

I'd be fascinated to tell you about.

bih bila oduševljena da vam je jednog dana ispričam.

Now, what's interesting in all of this

Ono što je u svemu ovome interesantno

is the state, in all these examples,

jeste da je država, u svim tim primerima,

was doing so much more than just fixing market failures.

činila toliko više od prostog popravljanja tržišnih grešaka.

It was actually shaping and creating markets.

Ona je zapravo oblikovala i stvarala tržišta.

It was funding not only the basic research,

Ona nije finansirala samo bazična istraživanja,

which again is a typical public good,

što je opet tipično javno dobro,

but even the applied research.

već i primenjena istraživanja.

It was even, God forbid, being a venture capitalist.

Čak je, ne dao bog, bila i investitor.

So these SBIR and SDTR programs,

Tako da ti SBIR i SDTR programi,

which give small companies early-stage finance

koji malim kompanijama daju početna finansiranja u ranoj fazi razvoja,

have not only been extremely important

ne samo da su bili ekstremno važni

compared to private venture capital,

u poređenju sa investicionim kapitalom iz privatnog sektora,

but also have become increasingly important.

već su takođe postali još važniji.

Why? Because, as many of us know,

Zašto? Zato što, kao što mnogi od nas znaju

V.C. is actually quite short-term.

investicioni kapital je prilično kratkoročan.

They want their returns in three to five years.

Oni svoj povrat žele u periodu od tri do pet godina.

Innovation takes a much longer time than that,

Inovacija zahteva mnogo više vremena od toga,

15 to 20 years.

15 do 20 godina.

And so this whole notion -- I mean, this is the point, right?

I tako cela ta konstatacija, mislim u tome je suština, zar ne?

Who's actually funding the hard stuff?

Ko zapravo finansira teške stvari?

Of course, it's not just the state.

Naravno, nije to samo država.

The private sector does a lot.

Privatni sektor to takođe puno radi.

But the narrative that we've always been told

Ali priča koja nam je stalno govorena

is the state is important for the basics,

kaže da je država važna za osnove,

but not really providing that sort of high-risk,

ali da zapravo ne obezbeđuje visoko rizično

revolutionary thinking out of the box.

revolucionarno razmišljanje izvan okvira.

In all these sectors, from funding the Internet

U svim tim sektorima, od finansiranja interneta

to doing the spending, but also the envisioning,

do trošenja, ali i do predviđanja,

the strategic vision, for these investments,

strateških vizija, za te investicije,

it was actually coming within the state.

to je zapravo dolazilo od države.

The nanotechnology sector is actually fascinating

Sektor nanotehnologija je zapravo fascinantan

to study this, because the word itself, nanotechnology,

za izučavanje, jer sama reč, nanotehnologija,

came from within government.

je potekla iz vlade.

And so there's huge implications of this.

I otuda velike implikacije.

First of all, of course I'm not someone,

Pre svega, naravno ja nisam neko,

this old-fashioned person, market versus state.

neka staromodna osoba, tržište nasuprot države.

What we all know in dynamic capitalism

Ono što svi znamo u dinamičnom kapitalizmu

is that what we actually need are public-private partnerships.

jeste da su nam zapravo potrebna javno-privatna partnerstva.

But the point is, by constantly depicting

Ali suština je u tome da stalnim ukazivanjem

the state part as necessary

da je država neophodna,

but actually -- pffff -- a bit boring

ali zapravo - pffff - malo dosadna,

and often a bit dangerous kind of Leviathan,

i često pomalo opasna vrsta Levijatana,

I think we've actually really stunted the possibility

mislim da smo zaista zapravo zaustavili mogućnost

to build these public-private partnerships

da napravimo ta javno-privatna partnerstva

in a really dynamic way.

na istinski dinamičan način.

Even the words that we often use to justify the "P" part,

Čak i reči koje često koristimo da opravdamo "J" deo,

the public part -- well, they're both P's --

javni deo - zapravo oba su na isto slovo

with public-private partnerships

u javno-privatnim partnerstvima

is in terms of de-risking.

su u smislu smanjenja rizika.

What the public sector did in all these examples

Ono što je javni sektor uradio u svim ovim primerima

I just gave you, and there's many more,

koje sam vam upravo dala, i toga ima mnogo više,

which myself and other colleagues have been looking at,

što smo ja i ostale kolege posmatrali,

is doing much more than de-risking.

je mnogo više od smanjivanja rizika.

It's kind of been taking on that risk. Bring it on.

To je i nekakvo preuzimanje rizika. Samo navalite.

It's actually been the one thinking out of the box.

To je zapravo jedno razmišljanje izvan okvira.

But also, I'm sure you all have had experience

Ali istovremeno, sigurna sam da ste svi imali iskustvo

with local, regional, national governments,

sa lokalnim, regionalnim, nacionalnim vladama,

and you're kind of like, "You know what, that Kafka-ian bureaucrat, I've met him."

i mislite: "Znate šta, kafkijanski birokrata, upoznala sam ga."

That whole juxtaposition thing, it's kind of there.

Cela ta pozicija nekako je prisutna.

Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Pa, to je proročanstvo koje se samo ispunjava.

By talking about the state as kind of irrelevant,

Pričajući o državi kao o nekako nevažnoj,

boring, it's sometimes

dosadnoj, tako ponekad

that we actually create those organizations in that way.

zapravo kreiramo te organizacije kao takve.

So what we have to actually do is build

Tako da ono što zapravo treba da uradimo jeste da izgradimo

these entrepreneurial state organizations.

preduzetničke državne organizacije.

DARPA, that funded the Internet and Siri,

DARPA, koja je finansirala internet i Siri,

actually thought really hard about this,

zapravo je zaista dosta razmišljala o tome

how to welcome failure, because you will fail.

kako da prihvati neuspeh, jer imaćete ga.

You will fail when you innovative.

Imaćete neuspeh kada inovirate.

One out of 10 experiments has any success.

Jedan od 10 eksperimenata ima nekakav uspeh.

And the V.C. guys know this,

I momci iz investicionog kapitala to znaju,

and they're able to actually fund the other losses

i oni su zapravo u stanju da finansiraju ostale gubitke

from that one success.

iz tog jednog uspeha.

And this brings me, actually, probably,

I to me zapravo dovodi verovatno

to the biggest implication,

do najveće implikacije

and this has huge implications beyond innovation.

i to ima velike implikacije iznad inovativnosti.

If the state is more than just a market fixer,

Ako je država više od popravljača tržišta,

if it actually is a market shaper,

ako ona zapravo oblikuje tržište,

and in doing that has had to take on this massive risk,

i ako je radeći to morala da preuzme masivne rizike,

what happened to the reward?

šta je sa nagradom?

We all know, if you've ever taken a finance course,

Svi znamo, ako ste ikada išli na kurs iz finansija,

the first thing you're taught is sort of the risk-reward relationship,

najpre vas nauče o vrsti veze između rizika i nagrade,

and so some people are foolish enough

i tako neki ljudi su dovoljno ludi

or probably smart enough if they have time to wait,

ili verovatno dovoljno pametni ako imaju vremena da čekaju

to actually invest in stocks, because they're higher risk

da zapravo investiraju u akcije, jer one nose veći rizik

which over time will make a greater reward than bonds,

koji će im vremenom doneti i veću dobit nego obveznice,

that whole risk-reward thing.

u celoj toj stvari u vezi sa rizikom i nagradom.

Well, where's the reward for the state

Pa, gde je nagrada za državu

of having taken on these massive risks

za preuzimanje tih masivnih rizika

and actually been foolish enough to have done the Internet?

i što je zapravo bila dovoljno luda da napravi internet?

The Internet was crazy.

Internet je bio ludnica.

It really was. I mean, the probability of failure was massive.

Zaista. Mislim, verovatnoća neuspeha je bila ogromna.

You had to be completely nuts to do it,

Morali ste biti potpuno ludi da to radite

and luckily, they were.

i na sreću, bili su.

Now, we don't even get to this question about rewards

Ne dolazimo čak ni do tog pitanja kao što je nagrada

unless you actually depict the state as this risk-taker.

ukoliko zaista ne uočite državu kao nosioca rizika.

And the problem is that economists often think,

I problem je što ekonomisti često misle:

well, there is a reward back to the state. It's tax.

"Pa tu je nagrada za državu. To je porez."

You know, the companies will pay tax,

Znate, kompanije će platiti porez,

the jobs they create will create growth

radna mesta koja oni stvariju će stvoriti rast,

so people who get those jobs and their incomes rise

pa ljudi koji će dobiti te poslove i kojima će prihodi rasti

will come back to the state through the tax mechanism.

će državi vratiti kroz poreski sistem.

Well, unfortunately, that's not true.

Na žalost, to nije istinito,

Okay, it's not true because many of the jobs that are created go abroad.

U redu, nije istinito jer mnoga od tih kreiranih radnih mesta odu u inostranstvo.

Globalization, and that's fine. We shouldn't be nationalistic.

Globalizacija, i to je uredu. Ne treba da budemo nacionalisti.

Let the jobs go where they have to go, perhaps.

Neka radna mesta idu gde moraju, recimo.

I mean, one can take a position on that.

Mislim, možete zauzeti stav o tome.

But also these companies

Ali istovremeno te kompanije

that have actually had this massive benefit from the state --

koje su imale tu veliku korist od države -

Apple's a great example.

Epl je sjajan primer,

They even got the first -- well, not the first,

oni su čak dobili prvih - zapravo, ne prvih,

but 500,000 dollars actually went to Apple, the company,

ali 500.000 dolara je zapravo otišlo kompaniji Epl

through this SBIC program,

kroz SBIC program,

which predated the SBIR program,

koji je prethodio SBIR programu,

as well as, as I said before, all the technologies behind the iPhone.

kao i sve ostale tehnologije iza Ajfona, kako sam rekla.

And yet we know they legally,

A ipak znamo da one zakonito,

as many other companies, pay very little tax back.

kao i mnoge druge kompanije, plaćaju veoma malo poreza.

So what we really need to actually rethink

Tako da ono o čemu stvarno treba ponovo da razmislimo

is should there perhaps be a return-generating mechanism

je trebaju li postojati povratni mehanizmi

that's much more direct than tax. Why not?

koji su mnogo direktniji od poreza. Zašto da ne?

It could happen perhaps through equity.

To bi se moglo napraviti možda kroz kapital.

This, by the way, in the countries

Uzgred, u zemljama

that are actually thinking about this strategically,

koje istinski o tome razmišljaju strateški,

countries like Finland in Scandinavia,

zemljama kao Finska u Skandinaviji,

but also in China and Brazil,

ali takođe i u Kini i Brazilu,

they're retaining equity in these investments.

oni zadržavaju vlasnički udeo u tim investicijama,

Sitra funded Nokia, kept equity, made a lot of money,

Sitra je finansirala Nokiju, zadržala vlasnički udeo, zaradila mnogo novca,

it's a public funding agency in Finland,

a to je javna agencija za finansiranje u Finskoj,

which then funded the next round of Nokias.

koja je onda finansirala i sledeću rundu Nokija.

The Brazilian Development Bank,

Brazilska razvojna banka,

which is providing huge amounts of funds today

koja obezbeđuje velike količine sredstava danas

to clean technology, they just announced

za čiste tehnologije, koja je upravo objavila

a $56 billion program for the future on this,

program vredan 56 milijardi dolara za budućnost ovoga,

is retaining equity in these investments.

zadržava vlasnički udeo u tim investicijama.

So to put it provocatively,

Pa da kažem to provokativno,

had the U.S. government thought about this,

da je vlada SAD-a mislila o tome

and maybe just brought back

i možda samo povratila

just something called an innovation fund,

samo nešto zvano inovacioni fond,

you can bet that, you know, if even just .05 percent

mogli biste se kladiti da je samo 0,5%

of the profits from what the Internet produced

tog profita od onoga što je internet napravio

had come back to that innovation fund,

došlo nazad u inovacioni fond,

there would be so much more money

bilo bi toliko dodatnog novca

to spend today on green technology.

da se utroši danas na zelene tehnologije.

Instead, many of the state budgets

Umesto toga, mnogi državni budžeti

which in theory are trying to do that

koji u teoriji pokušavaju to da urade

are being constrained.

bivaju ograničeni.

But perhaps even more important,

Ali, možda još važnije,

we heard before about the one percent,

čuli smo ranije za jedan procenat,

the 99 percent.

99%.

If the state is thought about in this more strategic way,

Da se o državi mislilo na više strateški način,

as one of the lead players in the value creation mechanism,

kao o jednom od vodećih igrača u mehanizmu stvaranja vrednosti,

because that's what we're talking about, right?

jer to je ono o čemu govorimo, zar ne?

Who are the different players in creating value

Ko su različiti igrači u stvaranju vrednosti

in the economy, and is the state's role,

u ekonomiji, i da li je država

has it been sort of dismissed as being a backseat player?

nekako oslobođena uloge i sedi na klupi za rezerve?

If we can actually have a broader theory

Ako bismo zapravo mogli imati širu teoriju

of value creation and allow us to actually admit

o kreiranju vrednosti i ako bismo dozvolili sebi da priznamo

what the state has been doing and reap something back,

šta je država radila i ubrala nazad,

it might just be that in the next round,

moglo bi se desiti da sledeći put,

and I hope that we all hope that the next big revolution

i nadam se da se svi nadamo da će sledeća velika revolucija

will in fact be green,

zapravo biti zelena,

that that period of growth

da taj period rasta

will not only be smart, innovation-led,

neće biti samo pametan, vođen inovacijom,

not only green, but also more inclusive,

ne samo zelen, već i inkluzivan,

so that the public schools in places like Silicon Valley

tako da će državne škole u mestima kao što je Silicijumska dolina

can actually also benefit from that growth,

zapravo moći takođe da imaju korist od tog rasta,

because they have not.

jer do sada nisu.

Thank you.

Hvala Vam.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)