Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation

Page 3 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

23 May 2021, 12:23 pm

Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


I also don't see the point in having patents in a society that taxes the living daylights out of anyone who innovates enough to become wealthy.


Tax does not prevent you from a) becoming wealthy or b) staying wealthy. Which is why there are wealthy people in those socialist democracies. Tax does things like pay for public services that support patents, patent registration, and parent enforcement.

However, I don't believe the wealthy people should simply be free riders, where they simply can benefit from a society but not pay into it.


Heavy tax does stop a lot of people becoming wealthy though. Not everyone but if society becomes aware of a punishing tax bracket they'll enter after a certain income is reached they will actively try to avoid it and usually that means slacking off at work or holding back in some other way which benefits nobody.


And in social democracies, those tax rates don't exist, so it is rather an academic point. Interesting fact, in one of Americas most productive decades, the tax on the wealthy was up to 90%, so tax in and of itself does not hinder wealth.

As far as actively avoiding a tax bracket, there is no research that shows it. Neither does higher taxes influence migration of wealthy people. Another fun fact, there is more wealth in US states with higher taxes, mostly democratic states, than in states with lower rates.

Other fun fact, the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves has never been proven. Lower taxes simply lowers public revenues which has a greater negative impact on a society that then benefit from making wealthy people richer.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

23 May 2021, 9:10 pm

NoClearMind53 wrote:
Nades wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The *profit motive* sparks innovation.

Do you want to be RICH? More possessions? Bigger home? More vacations? Live the dream life?




Yeah, okay, that's just a misconception due to high correlation in the past. But correlation is not causation, the profi motive does not cause innovation. Innovation is by-product, but if it makes financial sense to stifle innovation, then the profit motive stifles innovation.

The problem is the low hanging fruit is mostly gone. Really revolutionary technological breakthroughs now require a lot of research funding. A single person can still invent clever gadgets, but major endeavors like renewable energy or space exploration require massive funding. That patents always go to the wealthy financiers, not the scientists and engineers themselves. Also, government funds quite a bit of basic research that capitalists get for free. Also, a lot of entrepreneurial inventions these days are just ways to exploit people more (i.e. gig companies). The benefit-to-cost ratio for society as a whole isn't so great always. Flexible work helps some people that don't absolutely depend on steady income because they have other sources, but at the same time it seems to replace more stable jobs.


Having so many innovations achieved to the point where regular folk can no longer innovate any further by themselves isn't really a bad thing. It just shows how advance a society is.

That's not the point. It's a bad thing because the patent system does not encourage innovation the way it would in simpler times. It gets abused by corporations and doesn't always reward innovation, but instead stifles competition and causes artificial scarcity. The people doing the innovation are usually employees, yet it's CEOs and shareholders exclusive who profit off patents. If you examine the real world with a critical mind you see that it doesn't always work in the way theories you are constantly fed say it should.


It's not even a problem if the revenue from the patents goes to CEOs and shareholders - that still means innovation is happening.
However, capitalism doesn't care about innovation.
If it makes sense to invent or buy the patents that could threaten your business, then you can do that and never allow anyone to build the thing that could threaten your business.
This way, you can suppress competition, and just stop innovation - and that way, extend the life-time of your own product, slowing the tendency of profit to fall, i.e. keep making profit from initial investment for longer, which is what capitalism is about.

Otherwise, it would be called innovationism ^-^


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,968
Location: Missouri

23 May 2021, 10:36 pm

Aspiegaming wrote:
Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation

To me, it is an interesting thing for someone whose forum identity is focused on gaming to say "Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation"

Were electronic games ever an innovation?
Did the successful and worldwide popular ones originate from socialist societies?

Hmm, interesting, https://www.molleindustria.org/blog/gam ... socialism/
Article begins with,
Quote:
In a recent episode of the politics/comedy podcast Chapo Trap House, a listener asked “What can socialism do for gamers’ rights?”. The question was obviously a joke, but the hosts produced a humorous and somewhat thoughtful answer.
Thankfully, there is no such a thing as “gamers’ rights” in the sense of something distinct from consumer rights. The joke was likely a reference to the sense of entitlement and tribal identification that fueled the gamergate campaign. But the question of what gaming would look like in a socialist world has haunted me for days. Not only because I’m a leftist and I care about games, but because of how it relates to many crucial issues of 21st century radicalism…


Article ends with,
Quote:
There are many ways to conceive socialism, communism and the all the possible stages between them (not to mention the century-long debates about how to enact such deep transformations).
Regardless, in a profoundly conservative climate, when it’s tempting to just play defense and settle for the lesser evil, it’s a good exercise to think about the kind of world we really want to see. Whether your utopia is a primitivist commune or a Scandinavian-style mixed economy, whether or not it’s achievable in your lifetime, it would at least provide a direction and parameters by which you can define your political goals.


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,133
Location: wales

24 May 2021, 1:34 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.


And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.


So after working 55 hour weeks and spending thousands out of my own savings on prototypes, I'm immoral for expecting payment on an invention?

The polio vaccine is different too. That's at the very extreme and of the scale and can no longer be patented anyway....along with vaccines made in similar ways.

Patent laws often prevent people from obtaining patents using such science.


No, you are not immoral. I think you should profit from your labor.

Currently, the COVID vaccines are patented and controlled by private sector companies. Governments have been mulling in breaking those patents to increase global production and distribution. But medicines, including vaccines, are some of the most patented inventions, even when the initial research was publicly funded.


By 55 hour weeks I mean not developing the device. I mean 5 hour weeks in work in general that I'm already paid for but without those long hours I would have never dwelled on the problem at hand enough to think of the device.

The issue with the vaccines is that they are generally unable to be patented as the science behind traditional vaccines is very old and have been open knowledge for some time. Chances are a traditional vaccine that requires a high school level of education to manufacture might have worked just as well but the method of production of a vaccine like that will be refused a patent......so hence the convoluted and overly complex vaccine we have for Covid now.

Patents are tricky. On one hand they provide an incentive for revealing ideas and long held secrets that an individual might have on the assurance nobody will steal them and take credit for them but on the other hand they're out of keeping with modern anti-capitalist stances. My opinion is that capitalism is still better than other forms of governance as it rewards those who innovate and not punish them.

One thing I know is for sure though. Taking the ideas of someone else and taking credit for them needs to be avoided at all cost. It's not even about the money.


I think patent law is very important, which is why they are so universal: socialist countries also have strong patent laws. Innovation is very strong in social democracies. But as noted in the video, capitalism is not the only or best way to innovate.

Please show the the COVID vaccine is "overly" complex.


I also don't see the point in having patents in a society that taxes the living daylights out of anyone who innovates enough to become wealthy.


Tax does not prevent you from a) becoming wealthy or b) staying wealthy. Which is why there are wealthy people in those socialist democracies. Tax does things like pay for public services that support patents, patent registration, and parent enforcement.

However, I don't believe the wealthy people should simply be free riders, where they simply can benefit from a society but not pay into it.


Heavy tax does stop a lot of people becoming wealthy though. Not everyone but if society becomes aware of a punishing tax bracket they'll enter after a certain income is reached they will actively try to avoid it and usually that means slacking off at work or holding back in some other way which benefits nobody.


And in social democracies, those tax rates don't exist, so it is rather an academic point. Interesting fact, in one of Americas most productive decades, the tax on the wealthy was up to 90%, so tax in and of itself does not hinder wealth.

As far as actively avoiding a tax bracket, there is no research that shows it. Neither does higher taxes influence migration of wealthy people. Another fun fact, there is more wealth in US states with higher taxes, mostly democratic states, than in states with lower rates.

Other fun fact, the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves has never been proven. Lower taxes simply lowers public revenues which has a greater negative impact on a society that then benefit from making wealthy people richer.


By social democracy do you mean socialist?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

24 May 2021, 8:27 am

Nades wrote:
By social democracy do you mean socialist?
Does it pass the "Duck Test"?

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

So...

If it acts like a Socialist, if it talks like a Socialist, and if it demands its "fair share" of your paycheck like a Socialist, then it probably is a Socialist.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

24 May 2021, 8:30 am

Social Democracy is not "socialism" in the sense that the USSR was "socialist." The backbone of a Social Democratic-type economy is not Marxist socialism.

There are "socialist" elements within a Social Democratic economic system whose backbone is the private market economy.

To call someone who believes in Social Democracy a "Socialist" is hyperbole.

Just like it's hyperbole to call someone who is mainstream Republican a "fascist."



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

24 May 2021, 9:51 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Social Democracy is not "socialism" in the sense that the USSR was "socialist." The backbone of a Social Democratic-type economy is not Marxist socialism.

There are "socialist" elements within a Social Democratic economic system whose backbone is the private market economy.

To call someone who believes in Social Democracy a "Socialist" is hyperbole.

Just like it's hyperbole to call someone who is mainstream Republican a "fascist."

So, the distinction is that Social Democratic economics is just a little evil (a few elements of USSR Socialism)?? :) :) :)

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

24 May 2021, 10:07 am

Where did you ever get the idea that I was equating Social Democracy with Socialism at all? Or that it is, somehow, "socialism lite"?

Social Democrats are NOT SOCIALISTS, period.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,133
Location: wales

24 May 2021, 11:21 am

Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
By social democracy do you mean socialist?
Does it pass the "Duck Test"?

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

So...


If it acts like a Socialist, if it talks like a Socialist, and if it demands its "fair share" of your paycheck like a Socialist, then it probably is a Socialist.


A high tax society with the intention of ballooning welfare and "redistribution" of that tax income does indeed seem to quack like a duck. Redistribution via any means sounds like the basic premise of socialism to me.

My understanding of classic socialism is that it's the workers "owning" the means of production and basically getting paid dividends from that company while contributing no capital to it? Social democracy seems like a homogenous high tax targeting anyone and everyone who might be unlucky to work a skilled full time job?



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

24 May 2021, 11:29 am

Nades wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
By social democracy do you mean socialist?
Does it pass the "Duck Test"?

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

So...


If it acts like a Socialist, if it talks like a Socialist, and if it demands its "fair share" of your paycheck like a Socialist, then it probably is a Socialist.


A high tax society with the intention of ballooning welfare and "redistribution" of that tax income does indeed seem to quack like a duck. Redistribution via any means sounds like the basic premise of socialism to me.

My understanding of classic socialism is that it's the workers "owning" the means of production and basically getting paid dividends from that company while contributing no capital to it? Social democracy seems like a homogenous high tax targeting anyone and everyone who might be unlucky to work a skilled full time job?


But the redistribution of wealth through capitalism is OK? Take a look at Chile for a really bad example of that.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

24 May 2021, 11:31 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Where did you ever get the idea that I was equating Social Democracy with Socialism at all? Or that it is, somehow, "socialism lite"?

Social Democrats are NOT SOCIALISTS, period.


Well, they are not Marxist, but how are they not socialist? I mean if you are going to stick to strict definitions, the US is not capitalist.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,133
Location: wales

24 May 2021, 11:39 am

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
By social democracy do you mean socialist?
Does it pass the "Duck Test"?

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

So...


If it acts like a Socialist, if it talks like a Socialist, and if it demands its "fair share" of your paycheck like a Socialist, then it probably is a Socialist.


A high tax society with the intention of ballooning welfare and "redistribution" of that tax income does indeed seem to quack like a duck. Redistribution via any means sounds like the basic premise of socialism to me.

My understanding of classic socialism is that it's the workers "owning" the means of production and basically getting paid dividends from that company while contributing no capital to it? Social democracy seems like a homogenous high tax targeting anyone and everyone who might be unlucky to work a skilled full time job?


But the redistribution of wealth through capitalism is OK? Take a look at Chile for a really bad example of that.


How is Chile comparable to most of the rest of the developed world?

These is plenty of inequality in capitalist societies but that largely exists for a reason. I've seen plenty of my friends complain about their financial inequality to lets call him Bob for example, but they refuse to accept that Bob has 10 houses because he spent a decade saving most of his income working 60 hour weeks in a more skilled and dangerous job than them compared to their 30 hour weeks and spending all their money on cars and holidays.

Over the years the "inequality" between those two types of people will get massive but nothing needs to be done about it. Bob should still keep all his money and shouldn't be pummelled with tax because Bob just worked harder and was sensible with how he spent money.

People wrongly assume a lot of inequality is because of immoral financial deeds but when you really look into why person A has 10 times as much money as person B there really anything immoral going on.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

24 May 2021, 12:01 pm

Nades wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Nades wrote:
By social democracy do you mean socialist?
Does it pass the "Duck Test"?  "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."  So... If it acts like a Socialist, if it talks like a Socialist, and if it demands its "fair share" of your paycheck like a Socialist, then it probably is a Socialist.
A high tax society with the intention of ballooning welfare and "redistribution" of that tax income does indeed seem to quack like a duck. Redistribution via any means sounds like the basic premise of socialism to me.  My understanding of classic socialism is that it's the workers "owning" the means of production and basically getting paid dividends from that company while contributing no capital to it? Social democracy seems like a homogenous high tax targeting anyone and everyone who might be unlucky to work a skilled full time job?
When a government "Of the People" assumes ownership of the means of production, it becomes a kind of Socialism more accurately called "Oligarchic Socialism", which allows for the current, ever-growing concentration of wealth and power in a few hands -- usually a charismatic dictator who proceeds to drive the economy into the ground.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

24 May 2021, 1:14 pm

As opposed to the current capitalist system that concentrates the majority of the wealth into the hands of a few rich a$$holes.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

24 May 2021, 1:20 pm

The primary economic system of the United States is capitalism/mercantilism.

We have regulation of this capitalistic system. And we have some programs which might be called "socialistic."

As compared with western and northern Europe, we are more capitalistic and less socialistic.

We don't dance totally to "market forces." But our primary impetus is the market. It's our framework.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:      

24 May 2021, 1:21 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
As opposed to the current capitalist system that concentrates the majority of the wealth into the hands of a few rich a$$holes.
Oligarchy is oligarchy, whether Capitalist, Communist, or Socialist -- All roads eventually lead to Oligarchy.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.