[Gravityloss]

Everywhere I look, I see possibilities for massive efficiency improvements, but there just aren't enough resources to do anything but a half assed job.

Most of it is just design. A big portion is software.

Let's take an example.

Say, if the public transportation could be improved not with brute force, but with more elegance, comfort and intelligence, then massive savings could be realized.

My country doesn't manufacture appreciable amounts of automobiles. It also doesn't produce oil. Few developed countries produce oil.

So using cars for transportation leaks out large amounts of capital.

We have trams in my city, but the network of tracks is so old and unsophisticated that the trams must drive extremely slowly in many places, to avoid slamming intersections or curves. Some foreign tram models break constantly.

This doesn't only have the effect of making you sit in the tram longer from A to B, it also means that for a fixed amount of trams and drivers, they will pass the stops less frequently, meaning you have to wait longer before you can even get on board, and the throughput capacity of the lines is less too.

And the ride is quite noisy, bumpy and can feel stressful. But the views are beautiful, and it doesn't generate exhaust. It feels like a natural part of the city. If a tram rolls by, it doesn't make an aggressive sound like a thundering bus, it rolls with a gentle rumble, sometimes ringing bells.

So you could improve the functionality of the city by fixing a lot of these problems.

Some other parts of infrastructure have even regressed. Siemens was supposed to automate the subway system. They managed to just make the arrival time displays at the stations unreliable (that had been working just fine, probably since the metro started around 1982) and waste millions before the city board finally mustered enough courage to fire them.

So we have a huge amount of medium and even very low level technological advancement ahead of us, with large payoffs. Rankine documented spiral curves for tracks in 1862.

And don't get me started on healthcare IT.

[TheOtherHobbes]

That would mean moving from a Status Economy to a Productive Economy.

Without intelligent oversight, all economies - capitalist, communist, socialist, democratic, fascist, you name it - tend towards status production and social differentiation as a primary product.

Sometimes useful stuff falls out in the way of invention and innovation, but more often it doesn't. Even when it looks useful it's likely to be driven by fetishised status display as a primary goal, and not by high-velocity deep innovation.

Status economies are fundamentally wasteful and non-productive in any practical sense, because most resources are hoarded by a tiny minority of high-status individuals.

You only get real growth when resources - including innovation and intelligence - are dispersed and farmed strategically.

This has happened occasionally in the past, and I'd like to think it could happen again.

But it's not happening now, and any path from the current system to a productive one is going to be difficult and messy.

In a status economy, basic needs are rationed to maintain and expand status differentials. So public infrastructure takes a beating, because 'the public' - by definition - are not high status, and must always be denied easy access to quality resources.

[Gravityloss]

I think that's possible to a limited extent, but it's also kind of tangential to what I tried to say.

The parent's thesis was that technology gains in productivity are small.

I work in logistics and there adding some intelligence to a supply chain saves millions relatively quickly. It happens to be ecological as well, as spoilage is reduced.

So clearly there were a lot of gains to be had. In my opinion we operate on quite rudimentary levels in many areas of life and business. We're not limited by currently known physics. We're struck down by organizational inefficiencies and lack of brain resources.

At some point the inter-city council allowed getting into the busiest bus line not just from the front door but through any door. Great, we got a free speedup! It took years to drive that through the councils, maybe because it was a new idea (new idea here).

Now, the distribution of those savings made is another matter. And some changes are perhaps more politically charged than others, true.

[CyberDildonics]

Recent history has already proved you right in many of the things you are saying. If you look at investments into healthcare, education, and urbanization, they tend to have a large and easy to quantify payoff. You can see this in the 1900-1950s in the US and the same thing in many countries. Running clean water and sanitary plumbing, electricity, affordable cars, and telecommunications have made significant impacts on economies (and don't forget adding women to the workforce, which implies training/education).

[deathhand]

These sorts of inefficiencies can only be remedied by transparency about data. This is a direct threat to cronyism which is hard coded into governments across the world.