Technical innovation is only driven by the profit motive. This is why capitalism is the only viable social system.
Technical innovation is only driven by the profit motive. This is why capitalism is the only viable social system.
Technical innovation is only driven by the profit motive. This is why capitalism is the only viable social system.
Innovation can also be driven by threat of violence but most people prefer positive reinforcement like monetary rewards
It's driven by lots of things. Profit is an important one. A system of profits and loss is required to give honest market signals and rationally allocate scarce resources.
What about all of the discoveries made through military spending
increased military spending is to stimulate demand thus more profitable market.
>public spending is what makes capitalism work
Jesus Christ dude.
Yeah, I'm afraid your photo of keynes doesn't support your theory about capitalism promoting innovation.
Technical innovation is actually too expensive, its too risky of an investment. That's why almost all technical advancements come out of universities or government/military agencies. The public pays the cost of innovation and the private interests collect the profits. The internet and computers are a classic example but there are thousands more.
>internet and computers
Government programs only created the most basic, rudimentary forms of these technologies though. Sure the Census Bureau created UNIVAC, but Bell Labs invented the transistor and IBM standardized the PC, and those are what really created the computer as we know it today. Same for the internet - ARPAnet was the precursor but it had nearly no impact on society and culture until private web hosting services and browsers became commonplace
Dude, that's exactly what I said, the public pays for the discovery, and then the private industry collects. You can go even further with some of these, plenty of websites developed by students/staff at universities.
Inventing the transistor had nothing to do with public funding, and it's up there with the steam engine one of the most important innovations of the past millennium.
You say "industry collects" as if there's no common good benefits. Capital *profits* (after significant R&D investments of their own) but the public reaps the benefits of access to computers, which the Census Bureau wouldn't be providing to the populace
No I said "private industry collects" meaning individuals. This is supposed to be the rules of capitalism anyway, the investor expects a return on their investment but for some reason we deny that when the public is the investor. And I guess we are gonna have to just disagree that inventing computers is more significant of a R&D development than improving them. Also many of these improvements aren't done privately either, Wozniak is building his board at Berkley for example. And if you really want to get technical the Bell company was founded by a public grant from the French government, and the steam pump was invented for the military.
Your post is utterly moronic for several reasons
>the investor expects a return on their investment but for some reason we deny that when the public is the investor
There IS return on investment for the public. Both in relation to the government (who gets a fancy new defense technology) and the populace (who gets consumer versions a few years down the line.
>we are gonna have to just disagree that inventing computers is more significant of a R&D development than improving them
For one, no government invented computers. Mechanical computers existed long before EINAC, the first electronic computer, which was just an iteration on the concept.
And the leap from EINAC to modern transistorized computers is far, far more significant than that between electromechanical relay computers and a rudimentary vacuum tube computer.
> Bell company was founded by a public grant from the French government, and the steam pump was invented for the military
The grant was given AFTER Bell had invented the telephone, he was already an established inventor by this point. And Savery was a military engineer but the steam pump was invented independently to draw water from mines.
I guess this way of thinking really comes from years of propaganda, imagine you give someone money, that someone uses your money do develop a new product, and then you give him more money to buy that product from him.
This is a system that makes sense to you? Because this is the system you are claiming is beneficial to the public.
Yeah and why not go further back with computers, the guy trying to develop the analytical engine was being paid for by the British government, literally all the examples here have public money involved in every stage of their development. For the sake of giving you a chance to actually try to salvage your point, what inventions on par with the steam engine and computers are fully funded by private wealth?
>what inventions on par with the steam engine and computers are fully funded by private wealth?
the steam engine
We went over that already, the military paid for this man's engineering skills and funded his research, that's public money.
>Savery was a military engineer but the steam pump was invented independently to draw water from mines
you may want to actually read posts before responding to them
The steam pump you are talking about was a hybrid design from Savery (military) and Denis Papin (university). There is public investment all over this invention, your claim that mining companies invented the steam engine all by themselves is deranged.
You have had to go back centuries, and the dynamic I described was playing out even then, and you have failed to deliver a single example in response. I gave you a chance to try and salvage your argument, but this is just dismal.
alright, you've made it clear you genuinely cannot read. so I'll make this very simple for you
THOMAS SAVERY was EMPLOYED as a MILITARY ENGINEER
ADDITIONALLY, he was an INVENTOR
when NOT WORKING, he would invent things
these things were NOT invented or created by the military, anymore than McDonalds would be the creator of a novel you wrote while flipping burgers there
THOMAS SAVERY, a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, invented the steam engine for HIS OWN PROFIT, with no involvement from any government body
>THOMAS SAVERY was EMPLOYED as a MILITARY ENGINEER
>ADDITIONALLY, he was an INVENTOR
So, incredibly, you accuse me of not being able to read, but your claim is that this guy is an engineer who just happens to be working for the public, rather than an inventor employed as an engineer? Like all these materials and experiments are funded by the military. Even if his inventions are solely the product of his free time, which is a dubious claim, his free time is funded by the public and so was his military education.
Kind of a moot point anyway since you are trying to claim this is an invention by mining companies.
And also you are describing the dynamic, the public is paying for the development of the invention, and the private industry collects, which has been the point this whole time.
so you genuinely are so moronic as to think having a job means your employer is responsible for everything you accomplish when you're off the clock? lmao, frick off
Yeah I figured you might say this, lets imagine Savery isn't a military engineer but rather an uneducated employee of a 17th century mining company, do you honestly believe that he still invents the engine in these circumstances? That's what I am trying to explain to you, this invention is the product of his education, employment, and resources. All of which are coming from public money. If this guy was educated by a company and worked for a company, you would be correct that this invention was the product of a purely private individual or purely profit motivated etc. but that is simply not the case.
Also this argument you have made ignores the fact that this guy was likely working on his inventions during his employment by the public, and it ignores the other early steam innovators working at universities.
>people have less free time when they're poor
woah what a shocking revelation
This goes way back to my first post, which is private industries don't invest in innovation when they can have the public pay for that investment, why train an engineer when the military will do it? And like I said even 400 years ago you can see this happening.
I just want to check one more time, do you really believe that the inventor of the steam engines profession was just a coincidence? And that it has nothing to do with how and why he invented this machine and that this provides an unassailable example of why innovation is produced more by private individuals?
Boeing is going to shit because of capital driven morons, that case in particular me me lose all my faith in capital driven tech development.
if a door falling off an airplane with zero deaths makes you change your entire worldview you're just a moron easily swayed by media frenzy
This isn't only about the door, go research the corporate merge, Boeing could still be a cool nerd tech oriented paradise if it wasn't because of the finance brainrotted morons that got control of the company.
that same desire for profit also leads to protection-, monopoly-, and rent-seeking, innovation only happens if all other avenues for profit are exhausted. of course, someone like Schumpeter would argue that competition is inimical to innovation, so that's a good thing.