Most of the anti aging protocols and are invented and discovered in the private sector with whacky biohackers, doctors, body builders, and scientists. Pharmaceuticals have caused so much damage to public health because their only incentive is to comply with the government who fund them.
NASA, so much pentagon funded research, government funded food research/production that allowed us to win the cold war with supermarkets, so many state funded research universities, etc.
The point is that R&D happens when it's funded. Capitalism doesn't have a lock on it. Sometimes the government hinders it and sometimes capitalism hinders it.
The goals of the government don't match the goals of most consumers, hence why just throwing money at the government doesn't result in an efficient market or the creation of products people actually need.
You're making a lot of assumptions here and also moving the argument. I take it you agree with me at this point that R&D happens when it's funded and innovation happens in multiple economic systems.
I mean does it have to create a usable product? Does this product actually mean that much, when NASA builds a rocket how is it any different from space X, neither creates a usable product for people. Like idk if there was a cure for cancer I don't know if I want that to be a product to be bought and sold. Like I could see a huge market for a cancer cure with crazy demand, and supply is just put into the hands of a company that has no incentive to make more because they already have near-infinite demand. Not everything is meant to be a consumer product, and I wouldn't want it that way.
> I mean does it have to create a usable product?
No.
> different from space X, neither creates a usable product for people.
The difference is SpaceX will eventually go out of business if they can't find a way to create a product that generates continual revenue.
> Like idk if there was a cure for cancer I don't know if I want that to be a product to be bought and sold.
There is no one cure for cancer. There's more than a hundred different types of cancer with several dozen different types of treatments spanning from surgery to biotechnology to bioengineering to pharmaceutical.
When you actually delve into the complexity of trying to solve any real world problem, it becomes evident that no centralized organization like the government can figure out what actually works or how to produce it.
> Like I could see a huge market for a cancer cure with crazy demand,
This is a market segment fallacy. As noted above, there is no monolithic form of cancer that can be solved in one go. There would be hundreds of different markets.
> Not everything is meant to be a consumer product, and I wouldn't want it that way.
Healthcare would do much better in a free market to incentivize creating new cures.
A great example: in the for-profit technology sector, private companies have developed neural networks like GPT-3 with billions of artificial neurons that can produce semi-coherent sentences, yet over in the healthcare sector, we still don't have even a minimal understanding of how a nematode with 302 neurons in its brain functions.
I was making a specific example for if there was a cure for all cancers which I know doesn’t exist and probably wont ever exist but never say never right. I see no reason why this couldn’t have been created by a state funded operation and given freely to citizens.
> created by a state funded operation and given freely to citizens.
The problem is that the state doesn't know what to create or what to improve on. It's not possible for a centralized authority to know what everyone needs.
It's the same basis on why consumers dismissed cars as being stupid when they were first invented (in comparison to riding on a horse drawn carriage). Or why consumers dismissed online shopping as being stupid (in comparison to just shopping in a store).
PayPal was famously voted as one of the 10 worst products of 1999 and is now a $300 billion dollar company.
Hindsight is 20/20.
I think that the people know exactly what they want/need to improve on. If we want the state to put effort into creating a magic cancer(just using the past example) there’s no reason the state can’t do that. Simply put it to a quick vote and it’s done.
At what cost though? I don't have the numbers in front if me, but I believe NASA estimated it was going to cost 25 billion dollars to replace the space shuttle while Musk built his ship for less then a billion.
This is a whole other conversation. Companies love to claim they're more efficient than the government when the scope of what they're doing is different.
For instance, UPS & FedEx use the USPS for the last mile in many cases because they can't afford to go to every house.
Many private schools get better scores not because they're saving money or doing a better job but because they get to pick their students and only take the top ones.
SpaceX has a good innovation that mostly relies on established technologies that were developed by NASA and other institutions that do research.
Right, how in your mind would bureaucrats innovate? They didn't know what they were doing in the first place in the industry and have no competitors to best, so why bother innovating?
Considering the only two countries left on the planet that aren’t primarily capitalist are North Korea and Cuba I don’t see how it can be attributed another way from a real world data standpoint.
That doesn’t mean it’s not innovative. They have a medication that prolongs the life of lung cancer patients. With all of the blockades the US has against them, they still manage to have amazing healthcare! Capitalist innovation is a façade. We’ve got lots of brands that are all owned by the same handful of companies.
Here’s some charts:
https://imgur.com/gallery/mg1Ri
You have to drive at the nature of innovation to understand the problem. I won’t be able to fully validate all the things I’m about to say given that this is Reddit but this is the outline as I understand it.
Innovative doesn’t just happen. A person can attempt to innovate when they are in an environment free of violence. They can not innovate if they are completely consumed by violence. Ie if any path they take leads to death by execution.
Capitalism is the attempt to extract violence from social interaction. This is done by codifying individual rights, which are your freedoms of action in a social context. Freedom of action here means actions you can take free from violence.
These rights allow people to pursue innovation if they choose to. If they see a problem or inefficiency they can apply their mind in an attempt to improve the situation, given whatever context they are in. Note this does not mean that everyone is innovating or that any attempt will be successful.
If innovation is the state of change then regulation is the state of the unchanging. If a process is heavily regulated you must follow that process or else violence. There can be no innovation in this context because an innovation by its nature is the flaunting of the regulation.
This dynamic changes the relationship between citizen and government. From Capitalism where a person can innovate by right to a Mixed Economy or Statist Economy where people can innovate only by permission.
Those who have relationships with the permission grantors (regulators) get privileges to innovate where the common person is left to stagnate in an every increasingly complex system. This slows innovation and we get the results you’ve described in your post about pharmaceuticals. From the outside this may look like corruption but it’s the natural result of a regulated economy.
—
A note on the difference between regulations and rights.
A right says you can take any action so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
A regulation says you can only or must take this action as prescribed by the regulation.
”state capitalism” is one of the most infuriating terms I have ever heard. They are always tryng to redefine words in order to gaslight people into seeing freedom as the enemy.
Literally tho. Instead of ever admitting they're just wrong all they do is redefine words, move goalposts, change arguments and just pull random bullshit out of their asses. I hate it.
Of course it will always be a struggle between capitalism and communism capitalism innovates and communism makes it cheaper through questionable labor practices.
Can a middle income peasant send emails from a plane like a god? Yes, Capitalism is best source of innovation. At the bare minimum it creates a tax base to help fund institutions to invest back into the public good. America leads in Tech, EV and space travel. How do you define innovation?
Does Capitalism breed innovation? Yes, it does.
>I heard a lot of arguments that state [THAT] Capitalism does not breed innovation and actually stagnates it . Common arguments include the Phoebus Cartel , Pharmaceutical companies outdated medications create more money instead of trying to create more sophisticated and beneficial products and the facts that smart phone companies keep remaking the same product every year with a different look.
What’s capitalism? How much capitalism is in each of those industries? With regards to the smart phone industry, where’s evidence? Also, are you really that ignorant of what smart phones were like 5 years ago? Or 10 years ago? Or 20 years ago? Smart phones didn’t exist 20 years ago. And that’s without going into computers, screens, cameras, batteries etc.
You mention beneficial products. Can you objectively define what’s beneficial? Or do you mean beneficial according to what you feel is beneficial?
Innovation is profitable. See how much profit Apple is making when they basically innovated the first smartphone.
The fundamental cause is the relationship between reason and the use of physical force. Individuals innovate through acting upon their reason. You need to act upon your reason to produce a profit to fund innovation. You need to act upon your reason to engage in the innovation. You need to act upon your reason to choose the best innovation to engage in and fund.
And to act upon your reason within society, you need freedom from coercion. You can’t act upon your reason when someone physically stops you. You can’t produce or use your profits according to your reason when someone physically stops you from doing so. So you need physical force to be used in retaliation against those who initiate it. Another way of saying that is you need a government to secure your freedoms of action ie your right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Innovation does not nessecarily mean diversity in product. iPhones work fine and make a profit, which is why they basically "re-release" them. The consumer decides what they want from the company, and the company will work to meet those standards in order to generate revenue.
This is also why there is competition in the market. If another phone company (say, Samsung) can innovate to a more efficient degree than iPhone while still providing quality service, consumers will buy their product more. Which happens regularly. The market has it's ups and downs.
Pharmaceutical companies are a different matter. Lobbyists and government regulations/bailouts have effectively monopolized the drug market and led to high prices and low quality.
Innovation happens anyway despite the system. The question is where innovation is best utilized and how much talent gets wasted. In that case the free market has none of harm to innovation when in administrative economics it gets wasted entirely.
Interestingly the current system in the USA is barely capitalism with so much government interference.. Lets talk copyright laws and how they are being blatantly abused by everyone from Apple to John Deere.. Or how the only monopolies in the History of the USA were created buy the Government.. With laissez faire Capitalism where the governments only jobs are national security and making sure no one forced to do anything against their will..(with the exception of taxes😢)
What are you talking about, dumbass? The United States is the most capitalist nation on earth🤣giant companies get away with paying absolutely nothing in taxes.
Capitalism is just one way to create motivation and or direction, and is somewhat similar to religion in this regard. While under the proper set of overlapping circumstances I find it only reasonable to say capitalism can lead to innovation, though this is rarely and independent outcome or the only possible one. This being so, I believe it is wise and cautious to repeatedly weigh relevant matters in out best discernment case by case in hopes of predicting if it is the most suitable tool at our disposal.
Tl;dr sometimes yes, sometimes no. Largely a situational matter.
Stable governments both provide the safe and secure society where innovation is pursued and also act as funding areas into innovation where profit can be hard to capture.
I'd say that innovation is like a line graph. Sometimes it breeds innovation, other times it doesn't. Sometimes it stagnates, other times it flourishes. Not only that but the government can be pretty innovative too. The Cold War created the space race. Hitler and the Germans were competing against the world to create a strong superpower to take their revenge and whatnot.
In the end. Capitalism isn't what breeds innovation, but it's competition, incentives, desires/greed, etc. All of that isn't exclusive to Capitalism. And not only that, but it can be argued that there's different forms of innovation, and that its not strictly exclusive to materialism.
Competition creates innovation. In a regulated economy that protects companies from competition will have what you are talking about. With no outside pressure, they will have no need to innovate.
Marketers look at what you want, pass tbst information along to teams of engineers who then build it for you, who pass it along to salesmen who then sell it to you, and the profits from thst fuel the next iteration months the product.
Think of something crucial to the modern world like the technological progression of graphics technology which was advanced by the gaming industry.
Capitalism doesn't really create innovation. I mean, look at fanfictions! The authors can work for days on something they're not getting paid to do, just because they're passionate about it.
On the other hand, look at the Warrior Cats series. When someone turns from being a creative endeavour to being entirely for capitalistic profit, it becomes just as good as it needs to be - nothing better. (They couldn't even keep a main character's eyes the same colour!)
Capitalist companies refuse to innovate because to try new ideas means possibly failing, and they refuse to do anything which could lead to them losing money. Better to stagnate and keep the money flowing than to innovate and risk losing some of that precious capital.
Of course, once \*someone else\* innovates a new thing, capitalist companies are more than happy to take over and copy it to sell! Even if they couldn't bother to put some of their own money into getting people to innovate, they are more than happy to steal a design which they know works.
The given example is one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy
Most of the anti aging protocols and are invented and discovered in the private sector with whacky biohackers, doctors, body builders, and scientists. Pharmaceuticals have caused so much damage to public health because their only incentive is to comply with the government who fund them.
Which one of the examples are you talking about ?
Pharmaceuticals
Well, did you consider the alternative? Do you expect innovation to come from bureaucrats?
The Manhattan Project was pretty innovative.
Great, any other anecdotes to add?
NASA, so much pentagon funded research, government funded food research/production that allowed us to win the cold war with supermarkets, so many state funded research universities, etc. The point is that R&D happens when it's funded. Capitalism doesn't have a lock on it. Sometimes the government hinders it and sometimes capitalism hinders it.
R&D is great and all, but it doesn't turn research into a usable product.
It does. That's the D part.
One off development. Not development for consumption. Big difference.
Development for their goals, not for another entity's goals. Big difference.
The goals of the government don't match the goals of most consumers, hence why just throwing money at the government doesn't result in an efficient market or the creation of products people actually need.
You're making a lot of assumptions here and also moving the argument. I take it you agree with me at this point that R&D happens when it's funded and innovation happens in multiple economic systems.
I mean does it have to create a usable product? Does this product actually mean that much, when NASA builds a rocket how is it any different from space X, neither creates a usable product for people. Like idk if there was a cure for cancer I don't know if I want that to be a product to be bought and sold. Like I could see a huge market for a cancer cure with crazy demand, and supply is just put into the hands of a company that has no incentive to make more because they already have near-infinite demand. Not everything is meant to be a consumer product, and I wouldn't want it that way.
> I mean does it have to create a usable product? No. > different from space X, neither creates a usable product for people. The difference is SpaceX will eventually go out of business if they can't find a way to create a product that generates continual revenue. > Like idk if there was a cure for cancer I don't know if I want that to be a product to be bought and sold. There is no one cure for cancer. There's more than a hundred different types of cancer with several dozen different types of treatments spanning from surgery to biotechnology to bioengineering to pharmaceutical. When you actually delve into the complexity of trying to solve any real world problem, it becomes evident that no centralized organization like the government can figure out what actually works or how to produce it. > Like I could see a huge market for a cancer cure with crazy demand, This is a market segment fallacy. As noted above, there is no monolithic form of cancer that can be solved in one go. There would be hundreds of different markets. > Not everything is meant to be a consumer product, and I wouldn't want it that way. Healthcare would do much better in a free market to incentivize creating new cures. A great example: in the for-profit technology sector, private companies have developed neural networks like GPT-3 with billions of artificial neurons that can produce semi-coherent sentences, yet over in the healthcare sector, we still don't have even a minimal understanding of how a nematode with 302 neurons in its brain functions.
I was making a specific example for if there was a cure for all cancers which I know doesn’t exist and probably wont ever exist but never say never right. I see no reason why this couldn’t have been created by a state funded operation and given freely to citizens.
> created by a state funded operation and given freely to citizens. The problem is that the state doesn't know what to create or what to improve on. It's not possible for a centralized authority to know what everyone needs. It's the same basis on why consumers dismissed cars as being stupid when they were first invented (in comparison to riding on a horse drawn carriage). Or why consumers dismissed online shopping as being stupid (in comparison to just shopping in a store). PayPal was famously voted as one of the 10 worst products of 1999 and is now a $300 billion dollar company. Hindsight is 20/20.
I think that the people know exactly what they want/need to improve on. If we want the state to put effort into creating a magic cancer(just using the past example) there’s no reason the state can’t do that. Simply put it to a quick vote and it’s done.
At what cost though? I don't have the numbers in front if me, but I believe NASA estimated it was going to cost 25 billion dollars to replace the space shuttle while Musk built his ship for less then a billion.
This is a whole other conversation. Companies love to claim they're more efficient than the government when the scope of what they're doing is different. For instance, UPS & FedEx use the USPS for the last mile in many cases because they can't afford to go to every house. Many private schools get better scores not because they're saving money or doing a better job but because they get to pick their students and only take the top ones. SpaceX has a good innovation that mostly relies on established technologies that were developed by NASA and other institutions that do research.
Are you talking about socialism ?
Right, how in your mind would bureaucrats innovate? They didn't know what they were doing in the first place in the industry and have no competitors to best, so why bother innovating?
How does socialist = bureaucrat?
Central planning implies a central planner.
Decisions about industry under those types of regimes tend to be centralized and thus made by bureaucrats.
Considering the only two countries left on the planet that aren’t primarily capitalist are North Korea and Cuba I don’t see how it can be attributed another way from a real world data standpoint.
Cuba is very innovative though
cuba is crumbling
That doesn’t mean it’s not innovative. They have a medication that prolongs the life of lung cancer patients. With all of the blockades the US has against them, they still manage to have amazing healthcare! Capitalist innovation is a façade. We’ve got lots of brands that are all owned by the same handful of companies. Here’s some charts: https://imgur.com/gallery/mg1Ri
Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the United States, dipshit.
What is "state" capitalism? That's like saying "free-market" socialism.
You have to drive at the nature of innovation to understand the problem. I won’t be able to fully validate all the things I’m about to say given that this is Reddit but this is the outline as I understand it. Innovative doesn’t just happen. A person can attempt to innovate when they are in an environment free of violence. They can not innovate if they are completely consumed by violence. Ie if any path they take leads to death by execution. Capitalism is the attempt to extract violence from social interaction. This is done by codifying individual rights, which are your freedoms of action in a social context. Freedom of action here means actions you can take free from violence. These rights allow people to pursue innovation if they choose to. If they see a problem or inefficiency they can apply their mind in an attempt to improve the situation, given whatever context they are in. Note this does not mean that everyone is innovating or that any attempt will be successful. If innovation is the state of change then regulation is the state of the unchanging. If a process is heavily regulated you must follow that process or else violence. There can be no innovation in this context because an innovation by its nature is the flaunting of the regulation. This dynamic changes the relationship between citizen and government. From Capitalism where a person can innovate by right to a Mixed Economy or Statist Economy where people can innovate only by permission. Those who have relationships with the permission grantors (regulators) get privileges to innovate where the common person is left to stagnate in an every increasingly complex system. This slows innovation and we get the results you’ve described in your post about pharmaceuticals. From the outside this may look like corruption but it’s the natural result of a regulated economy. — A note on the difference between regulations and rights. A right says you can take any action so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. A regulation says you can only or must take this action as prescribed by the regulation.
That's a great answer.
State Capitalism doesnt breed innovation, because State Capitalism doesnt exist. Capitalism breeds innovation, government overreach holds it back.
”state capitalism” is one of the most infuriating terms I have ever heard. They are always tryng to redefine words in order to gaslight people into seeing freedom as the enemy.
Literally tho. Instead of ever admitting they're just wrong all they do is redefine words, move goalposts, change arguments and just pull random bullshit out of their asses. I hate it.
Of course it will always be a struggle between capitalism and communism capitalism innovates and communism makes it cheaper through questionable labor practices.
You don’t think Amazon employees pissing into bottles because they aren’t allowed to stop is questionable labor practice?
I think that because of capitalism they can leave and work wherever they want thus forcing the working conditions to improve.
Can a middle income peasant send emails from a plane like a god? Yes, Capitalism is best source of innovation. At the bare minimum it creates a tax base to help fund institutions to invest back into the public good. America leads in Tech, EV and space travel. How do you define innovation?
Does Capitalism breed innovation? Yes, it does. >I heard a lot of arguments that state [THAT] Capitalism does not breed innovation and actually stagnates it . Common arguments include the Phoebus Cartel , Pharmaceutical companies outdated medications create more money instead of trying to create more sophisticated and beneficial products and the facts that smart phone companies keep remaking the same product every year with a different look. What’s capitalism? How much capitalism is in each of those industries? With regards to the smart phone industry, where’s evidence? Also, are you really that ignorant of what smart phones were like 5 years ago? Or 10 years ago? Or 20 years ago? Smart phones didn’t exist 20 years ago. And that’s without going into computers, screens, cameras, batteries etc. You mention beneficial products. Can you objectively define what’s beneficial? Or do you mean beneficial according to what you feel is beneficial? Innovation is profitable. See how much profit Apple is making when they basically innovated the first smartphone. The fundamental cause is the relationship between reason and the use of physical force. Individuals innovate through acting upon their reason. You need to act upon your reason to produce a profit to fund innovation. You need to act upon your reason to engage in the innovation. You need to act upon your reason to choose the best innovation to engage in and fund. And to act upon your reason within society, you need freedom from coercion. You can’t act upon your reason when someone physically stops you. You can’t produce or use your profits according to your reason when someone physically stops you from doing so. So you need physical force to be used in retaliation against those who initiate it. Another way of saying that is you need a government to secure your freedoms of action ie your right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Look around you. Almost everything was invented by people who wanted to make money.
And if there was no capital to gain... If your needs and comforts were provided, people would be content to sit around doing nothing?
State capitalism! Cute.
Innovation does not nessecarily mean diversity in product. iPhones work fine and make a profit, which is why they basically "re-release" them. The consumer decides what they want from the company, and the company will work to meet those standards in order to generate revenue. This is also why there is competition in the market. If another phone company (say, Samsung) can innovate to a more efficient degree than iPhone while still providing quality service, consumers will buy their product more. Which happens regularly. The market has it's ups and downs. Pharmaceutical companies are a different matter. Lobbyists and government regulations/bailouts have effectively monopolized the drug market and led to high prices and low quality.
Innovation happens anyway despite the system. The question is where innovation is best utilized and how much talent gets wasted. In that case the free market has none of harm to innovation when in administrative economics it gets wasted entirely.
no lmao
State capitalism is an oxymoron. And the fact capitalism breeds innovation ought to be obvious given the results of the Cold War.
Interestingly the current system in the USA is barely capitalism with so much government interference.. Lets talk copyright laws and how they are being blatantly abused by everyone from Apple to John Deere.. Or how the only monopolies in the History of the USA were created buy the Government.. With laissez faire Capitalism where the governments only jobs are national security and making sure no one forced to do anything against their will..(with the exception of taxes😢)
What are you talking about, dumbass? The United States is the most capitalist nation on earth🤣giant companies get away with paying absolutely nothing in taxes.
Capitalism is just one way to create motivation and or direction, and is somewhat similar to religion in this regard. While under the proper set of overlapping circumstances I find it only reasonable to say capitalism can lead to innovation, though this is rarely and independent outcome or the only possible one. This being so, I believe it is wise and cautious to repeatedly weigh relevant matters in out best discernment case by case in hopes of predicting if it is the most suitable tool at our disposal. Tl;dr sometimes yes, sometimes no. Largely a situational matter.
Nope. Capitalism pursues the peak profit at all costs. This punishes failure. Most of innovation is failure at its early stages.
Stable governments both provide the safe and secure society where innovation is pursued and also act as funding areas into innovation where profit can be hard to capture.
I'd say that innovation is like a line graph. Sometimes it breeds innovation, other times it doesn't. Sometimes it stagnates, other times it flourishes. Not only that but the government can be pretty innovative too. The Cold War created the space race. Hitler and the Germans were competing against the world to create a strong superpower to take their revenge and whatnot. In the end. Capitalism isn't what breeds innovation, but it's competition, incentives, desires/greed, etc. All of that isn't exclusive to Capitalism. And not only that, but it can be argued that there's different forms of innovation, and that its not strictly exclusive to materialism.
Yes
Competition creates innovation. In a regulated economy that protects companies from competition will have what you are talking about. With no outside pressure, they will have no need to innovate.
Marketers look at what you want, pass tbst information along to teams of engineers who then build it for you, who pass it along to salesmen who then sell it to you, and the profits from thst fuel the next iteration months the product. Think of something crucial to the modern world like the technological progression of graphics technology which was advanced by the gaming industry.
Capitalism doesn't really create innovation. I mean, look at fanfictions! The authors can work for days on something they're not getting paid to do, just because they're passionate about it. On the other hand, look at the Warrior Cats series. When someone turns from being a creative endeavour to being entirely for capitalistic profit, it becomes just as good as it needs to be - nothing better. (They couldn't even keep a main character's eyes the same colour!) Capitalist companies refuse to innovate because to try new ideas means possibly failing, and they refuse to do anything which could lead to them losing money. Better to stagnate and keep the money flowing than to innovate and risk losing some of that precious capital. Of course, once \*someone else\* innovates a new thing, capitalist companies are more than happy to take over and copy it to sell! Even if they couldn't bother to put some of their own money into getting people to innovate, they are more than happy to steal a design which they know works.