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

Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation

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

Previous topic | Next topic

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 May 2021, 1:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
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.


Yup. I'm pretty sure humanity is screwed no matter what ideology we embrace.


_________________
"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)


Tross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 867

24 May 2021, 1:46 pm

Eh...it does and it doesn't. Capitalism has driven significant innovation at a rate far exceeding that of technological advancement prior to its rise with the industrial revolution. But, industries have long since settled into a sort of homeostasis. There will be advancements, but they will be at a rate that's comfortable enough for those invested in them. The goal is to maximize profit, and move along at a rate that's acceptable to the market while minimizing cost. Those in the industry may possibly have some passion for their craft, but it's not passion for its own sake. It has to make money.

To further compound matters, there are industries such as the oil industry who would absolutely despise a transition to all electric vehicles, so much so that they've done everything in their power to make that transition as slow as possible, and make it as difficult as possible for electric vehicles to gain a foothold in the market. Heck, apparently coal is still a thing. I can't fathom why, other than the coal industry not wanting to admit it's old hat. Sure, people in these industries would lose a ton of money if the market were to move on quickly, so it makes sense that they would hate such progress. But, they're a big reason why things will never move ahead at more than a moderate pace.

So...capitalism is both a driver of innovation, and the thing presenting barriers to it. It's a paradox, but one we live with.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 May 2021, 2:12 pm

Capitalism certainly "drove innovation" up until about the 1970s or so.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 May 2021, 2:30 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Capitalism certainly "drove innovation" up until about the 1970s or so.


The difference in tech and innovation between the 70s and now is like a gaping chasm. I would hardly say innovation stopped after the 70s.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 May 2021, 2:38 pm

Tross wrote:
Eh...it does and it doesn't. Capitalism has driven significant innovation at a rate far exceeding that of technological advancement prior to its rise with the industrial revolution. But, industries have long since settled into a sort of homeostasis. There will be advancements, but they will be at a rate that's comfortable enough for those invested in them. The goal is to maximize profit, and move along at a rate that's acceptable to the market while minimizing cost. Those in the industry may possibly have some passion for their craft, but it's not passion for its own sake. It has to make money.

To further compound matters, there are industries such as the oil industry who would absolutely despise a transition to all electric vehicles, so much so that they've done everything in their power to make that transition as slow as possible, and make it as difficult as possible for electric vehicles to gain a foothold in the market. Heck, apparently coal is still a thing. I can't fathom why, other than the coal industry not wanting to admit it's old hat. Sure, people in these industries would lose a ton of money if the market were to move on quickly, so it makes sense that they would hate such progress. But, they're a big reason why things will never move ahead at more than a moderate pace.

So...capitalism is both a driver of innovation, and the thing presenting barriers to it. It's a paradox, but one we live with.


Capitalism has a lot of interesting contradictions (which IMHO is one of the reasons it's going to implode).

It's also interesting to note how many of the innovations credited to capitalism have been funded by public money.


_________________
"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)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 May 2021, 4:18 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
... It's also interesting to note how many of the innovations credited to capitalism have been funded by public money.
Certainly in the last few decades, it has.  Before then, just about anyone with a garage or basement workshop could invent or innovate something and start a billion-dollar technical empire -- Microsoft started this way, and so did Apple.

Sadly, all (or most?) of the low-hanging fruit seems to have been harvested.  Anyone wanting to invent something new, or radically innovate someone else's invention needs a research laboratory supported by (you guessed it) public funding.

Yes, this is a simplistic perspective; but think about this: What could realistically be the next step in technology?  No, I am not talking about warp drives, light-sabers, or transporters.  I am talking about the next incremental step up in current technology.


_________________
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.


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 May 2021, 5:19 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
... It's also interesting to note how many of the innovations credited to capitalism have been funded by public money.
Certainly in the last few decades, it has.  Before then, just about anyone with a garage or basement workshop could invent or innovate something and start a billion-dollar technical empire -- Microsoft started this way, and so did Apple.


You mean after all the public funding developed the computer. Nothing they did was actually revolutionary in term of technology, but rather they simply refined the technology and made it easier to use. It is simply faster, cheaper, more convenient.

Quote:
Sadly, all (or most?) of the low-hanging fruit seems to have been harvested.  Anyone wanting to invent something new, or radically innovate someone else's invention needs a research laboratory supported by (you guessed it) public funding.


That has been true for a very long time.

Quote:
Yes, this is a simplistic perspective; but think about this: What could realistically be the next step in technology?  No, I am not talking about warp drives, light-sabers, or transporters.  I am talking about the next incremental step up in current technology.
[/quote][/quote]

Well, quantum computing would be a huge thing.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 May 2021, 5:30 pm

I don't see an issue with the low hanging fruit being picked. If the tree is standing long enough then it's an inevitability irrespective of capitalism or not.

I would rather live under the tree with no low hanging fruit left than still have to invent the lightbulb.

Like I said before. It's a sign of an advance society.

There is still fruit out there that hangs low too. I'm after fruit that's been hanging so long for so long I need to dig for it but granted there is less to pick.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 May 2021, 6:45 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
... It's also interesting to note how many of the innovations credited to capitalism have been funded by public money.
Certainly in the last few decades, it has.  Before then, just about anyone with a garage or basement workshop could invent or innovate something and start a billion-dollar technical empire -- Microsoft started this way, and so did Apple.
You mean after all the public funding developed the computer. Nothing they did was actually revolutionary in term of technology, but rather they simply refined the technology and made it easier to use. It is simply faster, cheaper, more convenient. ...
I am sure we could quibble over the definitions of "Computer", "Innovation", and "Invention", but the point I was trying to make was that the easier-to-invent computers (i.e., abacus, slide-rule, et cetera) were invented without public funding, and that both the hardware and software innovations that brought about the explosive development of personal computing were literally developed in people's garages.

Other inventions were privately-funded: Marconi's radio, Edison's light bulb, Gatling's rapid-fire multi-barrel gun, Benz's automobile, and Bell Lab's transistor.  Later developments on these inventions were also "Low-hanging fruit" -- mere innovations (improvements) on the original designs.


_________________
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.


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 May 2021, 7:34 pm

Fnord wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
... It's also interesting to note how many of the innovations credited to capitalism have been funded by public money.
Certainly in the last few decades, it has.  Before then, just about anyone with a garage or basement workshop could invent or innovate something and start a billion-dollar technical empire -- Microsoft started this way, and so did Apple.
You mean after all the public funding developed the computer. Nothing they did was actually revolutionary in term of technology, but rather they simply refined the technology and made it easier to use. It is simply faster, cheaper, more convenient. ...
I am sure we could quibble over the definitions of "Computer", "Innovation", and "Invention", but the point I was trying to make was that the easier-to-invent computers (i.e., abacus, slide-rule, et cetera) were invented without public funding, and that both the hardware and software innovations that brought about the explosive development of personal computing were literally developed in people's garages.

Other inventions were privately-funded: Marconi's radio, Edison's light bulb, Gatling's rapid-fire multi-barrel gun, Benz's automobile, and Bell Lab's transistor.  Later developments on these inventions were also "Low-hanging fruit" -- mere innovations (improvements) on the original designs.


The integrated circuit was not invented in a garage. Personal computing was a great leap in computing by bring computers to the home. But the technology these folks used already existed. It was not a fundamental change technically, but in the application.

As far as things like the abacus. how do you know it was not developed by the public funds: i.e. a ruling government. There is no knowledge of how it got its beginning. It could very well have been a public, rather than a private, invention.

The point here is that capitalism and the private sector does not have a unique role in innovation. Public funds have been a huge driver in progress. It put men on the moon and drove technical development benefiting the private sector for decades. But it all came down to public financing. The bill of goods the neo-liberal economist have been selling us is only the private sector is the driver, which is demonstrably false.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 May 2021, 8:14 pm

This.

Also, Gates was a rich kid with parents who had connections in the software industry. He wasn't some average Joe that got to where he was through "hard work."


_________________
"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)


NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

24 May 2021, 10:17 pm

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.

Taxing the very wealthy is not socialism. FDR wasn't a socialist. You're helping the right when you call taxes socialism.



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

24 May 2021, 10:30 pm

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.

The majority of very wealthy people do not get wealthy by innovating. Most get most of their revenue by merely OWNING productive assets that other people manage/operate. If you own a massive amount of shares in profitable companies that pay dividends, then you can easily make money while doing NOTHING. You can inherit it all and pay other people to do EVERYTHING. You even pay people to manage your own money. To prevent oligarchy you need to at least have high inheritance taxes, so that only people who DO actually innovate remain wealthy for generations.



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

24 May 2021, 10:40 pm

Nades wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Capitalism certainly "drove innovation" up until about the 1970s or so.


The difference in tech and innovation between the 70s and now is like a gaping chasm. I would hardly say innovation stopped after the 70s.

That's not what he said. Also, technology is cumulative because knowledge itself is cumulative. Advanced innovation relies on a foundation of research that is often done by people who never become wealthy. Quite a bit of the money for that has come from tax payers too. Only the people who put the technology to market become extremely wealthy, the final step in a long process.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,097
Location: New York City (Queens)

24 May 2021, 10:50 pm

Nades wrote:
Someone can check if their product is patented first and then should they so choose pay for the patent. It's expensive but hardly only in the realms of the "rich".

In many cases, prohibitively expensive -- too expensive to make a profit.

In my opinion, patent law should have a "use it or lose it" clause, i.e. if the patent holder doesn't actually start selling the product within some small number of years (say, three), or doesn't at least start accepting royalties from someone else making the product, then the patent becomes public domain.

In my opinion, the sole purpose of patent law should be to protect innovative technology that is actually being sold. Patents should NOT be allowed to exist for the purpose of squelching potentially competing technology.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

24 May 2021, 11:02 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Capitalism has a lot of interesting contradictions (which IMHO is one of the reasons it's going to implode).

This is the most frustrating thing. People will debate until they're blue in the face over the morality/ethics of the system, and we get absolutely nowhere because it's subjective. People defend extreme concentration of wealth by claiming that SOME wealthy people got wealthy by inventing something useful. It doesn't address the fact that there are tons of other people who do not innovate, but are wealthy through other means (owning tons of land and/or rental properties, flipping real-estate and driving up housing costs, getting lucky on financial speculation, or just straight up inheriting a fortune). None of the people who are quick to attack illegal immigrants willing to work for less than minimum wage as a drain on society ever asks whether these people are also a problem. Never. It's not even a moral issue really, but a survival as a species issue. Owning 5 yachts and a giant mansion is clearly a drain on finite energy resources and contributes massively to climate change. We're running out of time faster that we can develop clean technology to mitigate it.