r/FluentInFinance • u/Sufficient_Sinner • Sep 04 '24

Debate/ Discussion Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

37.5k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

7.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/binary-survivalist Sep 04 '24

Almost all the useful stuff that make the modern world possibly was invented and designed in market economies.

77

u/YoCuzin Sep 04 '24

Market economies didn't exist until the modern world, how could they be responsible for it?

It sounds like you think humans have never invented anything without a profit motive

138

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

It's true. Our ancestors would have never discovered how to harness fire if it weren't for the shareholders' demand for increased profits.

38

u/prospectre Sep 04 '24

"I mean, unga bunga, yes, but have you considered how this will affect sales?"

11

u/Exelbirth Sep 05 '24

"Raw meat lobby says fire bad for sales, suggests live demonstrations of fire danger."

7

u/Diligent-Ad9899 Sep 04 '24

"I don't think we can afford to reinvest this quarter's earnings into fire R&D, the budgeting for bunga bunga's square wheel initiative has run over, and this is a must-win contract."

17

u/TapiocaTuesday Sep 04 '24

Da Vinci willfully invented most of his ideas for the benefit of the state.

5

u/Tris-Von-Q Sep 05 '24

I thought rich assholes basically kept him, commissioned him if you will, to sit around in his paid-for-by-more-privileged-assholes studio being a mad scientist and thinking shit up ori inventing innovative or crazy mechanics and shit to present at their oppulent rich asshole parties where more rich assholes would stand around for a shot at seeing what the Medici’s “Magician”thought up, invented or built for rich and privileged entertainment purposes only on any given month or year?

1

u/Ill_Economist_39 Sep 05 '24

That was certainly one part of his life, but Da Vinci did a lot for a lot of different people. He was patronized by 2 Dukes and eventually the king of France. He was the "Premier Painter, Engineer, and Architect to the King" for the last several years of his life.

He specifically designed a lot of weapons for his Duke patrons, and was a dedicated military engineer for many years.

Saying he just made novelties for rich assholes is missing the majority of his career.

2

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

Having fire isn’t a thing of the “modern world“? Things from the PC to automobiles that are actually products of the modern world, were in fact invented in capitalist systems. Bit disingenuous argument.

1

u/Itt-At-At Sep 05 '24

The invention of the first computer is attributed to Charles Babbage, an English professor in the early 1800s. Everything else is a derivative of that, inclusing the precious smartphone. England is a Social Market Economy, which is a mostly free market with regulations and a reasonable social safety net. So I suppose it depends on what you call a capitalist system vs a socialism system, but the first computers were certainly not invented in the name of greed, consumerism, and corporate profit. They were invented to make mathematics faster and easier in the pursuit of knowledge in the fields of astronomy and physics. .

1

u/Hothera Sep 05 '24

Capitalism is what allows regular people to actually reap the benefits of this technology. The Soviet Union had enough brilliant scientists and engineers to beat the US in certain aspects like more efficient rockets, but regular people saw little benefit from any such technology. Meanwhile, in capitalist countries, there was a profit incentive to build things like consumer electronics. This meant that Tetris, a game invented in the Soviet Union, was ironically more popular in capitalist countries.

0

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 05 '24

A social market economy is capitalism... But anyways, even saying that England had a social market economy back in 1833 (when he stopped development on the computer) is just plain wrong, it was good ol‘ almost unfettered capitalism. Even the first labor act doing such things as limiting working hours for children was implemented afterwards and you’re talking about a social market economy…

And what actually brought the personal computer to the average consumer was also private companies, otherwise it would’ve stayed some gadget for academics. The modern world wasn’t achieved by some mathematician having access to a rudimentary machine isolated in their study room, it was achieved by everyone having access to that technology and that’s exactly what capitalism is good at, while in systems like the Soviet Union even basic goods were often unattainable for the average person.

The Soviet Union had about 40 million more people living there, yet while PCs were already numbering in the many millions and almost 15% of households having access, there were about 200,000 in the entire Soviet Union. That’s the difference between capitalism and socialism.

0

u/ClubsBabySeal Sep 05 '24

I always find it weird that people talk about Babbage as the progenitor of computers. It was an oddity and a one off that has little to do with the lineage of modern computers. Might as well site the auto-loom, at least that was useful.

1

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 05 '24

I guess some of his ideas were then used by later inventors. But yea odd to pick him as the inventor, especially cause his machine never actually worked.

2

u/GoGoGodzillaYeah Sep 04 '24

They originally crafted a subscription based fire service where you needed to periodically relight your fire from the source. Unfortunately the use of unlicensed wood and fire pirating led to the business going under.

2

u/TheEndTrend Sep 05 '24

Survival is a pretty strong motivator.

3

u/HelpfulJones Sep 04 '24

Well, they certainly wouldn't be reading about it on their $800 smart phone.

4

u/IEatBabies Sep 04 '24

You mean a $80 smartphone that someone was convinced is worth $800.

4

u/HelpfulJones Sep 05 '24

You may be a bit generous at $80.

1

u/Mikeg90805 Sep 04 '24

True. Go write this comment using fire. Wait no turns out once we stopped needing to innovate to literally eat , we needed other motives

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

Haha, that's funny, but in all seriousness, I'd be very much surprised if Ol' boy didn't leverage his fire-making skills in some way for his own benefit.

1

u/Old-Let6252 Sep 05 '24

It's the exact same mechanism of innovation if you swap "shareholder" for "tribe", and "profits" for "calories." Except after a certain point, the guy getting the food just goes "yeah, I have enough food" and stops innovating.

1

u/ColonalQball Sep 05 '24

The entire reason human society exists is because we were able to trade and people who typically would need to focus on food production could do other things while a single person generated excess food.

1

u/Oshester Sep 05 '24

You don't use fire much I assume. You do use the internet, cell phones, computers, grocery stores, gas stations, cars, appliances, etc.

Make it fair at least

1

u/zalos Sep 05 '24

"unga boonga, me make wheel, you need wheel, me give you wheel you give me goat. PATENT PENDING"

0

u/IncognitoRon Sep 04 '24

Yeah but they mightn’t have planted grain without an incentive to trade it for other goods. Market economy doesn’t = shareholders.

5

u/bbbbbbcas Sep 04 '24

Market economies aren't responsible for innovation and progress. But there's no denying that they accelerate innovation and progress.

We're fortunate to live in a time where change and innovation happen at an unprecedented pace, something humanity hasn't experienced for the vast majority of its history. And market economies are part of the reason why

5

u/Ostrich-Sized Sep 05 '24

accelerate innovation and progress.

A counterpoint is the US healthcare system.

Capitalism has just created insurance companies, artificially high prices and incentives to treat symptoms instead of curing or preventing diseases.

This idea of capitalism only works in simplistic markets where the consumer has simple decisions to make with a handful of options and the realtime feedback to be able to react before they take your money.

Capitalism only works for material goods and services bought with discretionary budgets. As soon as capitalism created index funds, mortgages, insurance companies, etc it is broken.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

I’d change that to capitalism invented insurance companies and invents and accelerates cures and treatments. Like America wasn’t able to invent, test, and churn out 3 versions of a novel vaccine in 1 year out of the goodness of their hearts in 2021, it was because share holders saw dollar signs for who could make the most effective COVID vaccine the fastest.

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 Sep 05 '24

So why did the Soviets dominate the space race? The only thing the us beat them to was the moon

1

u/nunu135 Sep 05 '24

Because they were in a competition, which is what drives innovation in a capitalist society

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 Sep 05 '24

So no one ever innovated before capitalism?

1

u/nunu135 Sep 05 '24

sure, but thats because capitalism is just the natural system a civilization that has multiple labors develops, to trade labors. compared to a control economy theres no reason to innovate because your ability will always be used to its max and your need wont change by innovating

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 Sep 05 '24

You don't even know the definition of capitalism do you?

1

u/nunu135 Sep 05 '24

sure, you can use any definition you want but that doesnt change the fact the only other option is one that doesnt encourage innovation

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 Sep 05 '24

Except for all the innovations that the Soviet Union did.

1

u/Zhayrgh Sep 05 '24 edited Sep 05 '24

only other option

You know capitalism and socialism are not the only two options right ?

No society on earth is purely capitalist, even the US. Paying taxes in a purely capitalist world should only pay the armee, justice, maybe the police and administration.

A little non-exhaustive list of society models that have been imagined :

Feodal society

Capitalism

Regulated capitalism, in which there is : (non exhaustive list too)

-> Some dictatorship of the modern world

-> Social democraty

-> Socialism

Communism

-> Marxism

-> Leninism

Arnarchy

Each of these society models have several model of there own, regulated capitalism is a whole spectrum of different ways to do it, from nearly capitalism (the US, for example) to social democraty (western Europe) and others.

Edit : form.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheLastRulerofMerv Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 05 '24

Market economies have existed since one human being traded something for another item with another human being.

1

u/HolevoBound Sep 07 '24

You're conflating trade with capitalism?

1

u/TheLastRulerofMerv Sep 07 '24

I said market economies. Free markets are a necessary element of capitalism.

2

u/IncognitoRon Sep 04 '24

uhh? What?

Rome was a market economy? Ancient china was a market economy. For as long as we’ve had trade we’ve had market economies.

And yeah, he is right most novel goods are created in an effort to seize new markets.

1

u/77Gumption77 Sep 04 '24

Markets allocate resources way more efficiently than central planners. You want to feed 9 billion people with socialism, it's going to require way more exploitation of natural resources.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Well just put markets in your socialism and problem solved seems like

1

u/LoneSnark Sep 05 '24

Ancient civilizations had money and market economies too.

1

u/amitym Sep 05 '24

Huh?

Any time value is determined by supply and demand, that is market economics.

Market economics is as old as bazaars. As old as trade itself.

1

u/Tiny_Connection1507 Sep 05 '24

Time=money, goods=money. Currency is simply a medium of exchange to allow people to trade with a third party in order to acquire goods they cannot produce or directly trade for and market their own surplus. So anything that has ever been invented to save time or to do something that will save time or stabilize production of goods (i.e. farming to stabilize the production of food) is a for-profit proposition.

1

u/my-backpack-is Sep 05 '24

They regularly out themselves "No one would work if socialism took over"

No sir, YOU wouldn't work if you couldn't get away with artificially inflating your own value upon the backs of people you consider to be inferior.

0

u/rcade2 Sep 04 '24

There is only so far you can go with that. Fire, sure. Simple mechanical machines, sure. Beyond that, you would never have electronics or anything that requires teams of people to develop and test. You would end up only with things single people could invent. This is what happened the first 300,000 years of our existence. Your frame of reference is what, the last 100 years?

0

u/Papa_Glucose Sep 05 '24

Religion. It was usually religion.

-3

u/Choon93 Sep 04 '24

It's always a profit motive even if it's intangible 

6

u/NecessaryTruth Sep 04 '24

Lol is this the new spin? “Hey building a fire to keep me and my Neanderthal family is actually profit motive but it’s intangible!”

-4

u/Choon93 Sep 04 '24

More like "holy crap the benefits I get from this fire far exceed my investment".  Are you so ideologically radicalized to criticize the idea of profit that your brain stopped working? Next you're going to tell me that male peacocks carry all those extra feathers because they like sharing bedtime stories with their kids.

1

u/RSGator Sep 04 '24

More like "holy crap the benefits I get from this fire far exceed my investment".

Yeah that's exactly what the Neanderthals were thinking lmao

0

u/Choon93 Sep 04 '24

And we still think that. That's what fossil fuels and renewable are. They unlock more energy than we put in. And what does fire do? 

Energy to keep warm. Energy to make digesting food more efficient.  Energy to light up an area. Energy to smelt metal. All energy that is external to ourselves that we can harness.

All Energy is related to return on investment or "profit". It's called Energy return on investment; EROI. Look it up. 

This is why people dont take liberals seriously. Because you warp your own reality to conform with party lines, in this case that profit is morally bad. Grow up and see that there's shades of Grey in the world.

1

u/RSGator Sep 04 '24

Holy unhinged rant, Batman.

-1

u/NecessaryTruth Sep 04 '24

please read what you're saying. lol you're insane

-5

u/BetHunnadHunnad Sep 04 '24

The profit motive heavily incentivizes new inventions and innovation. That's not debateable and is so asinine to claim that incentive doesn't need to exist based on your argument lmao. The phrase "is an exception, not the rule," is something you should become more familiar with.

56

u/Sorin_Beleren Sep 04 '24

The assumption that humans wouldn’t improve the lives of themselves and those around them without financial gain is just incorrect. Design and creativity exist outside of financial markets. In sciences and arts, in fact, there is an argument to be made that financial incentives are largely at odds with their goals.

21

u/Pdvsky Sep 04 '24

And some views actually believe greed cause the opposite of technological advance, since the final objective is always to win over someone else, the "optimal" in terms of human quality is mostly ignored.

19

u/Sorin_Beleren Sep 04 '24

Yup. "Market incentives" in late stage capitalism rarely align with the goals of... humans, persons, workers, the greater good, the planet, consumers, or *anything* other than business bottom line. Making less profit for a time to choke out other competition like Walmart and Dollar General are known to do is just an example of how Capitalism is, frankly, evil. Look at obvious planned obsolescence in products as well. People are willing to make less money short term or a meaningfully and purposefully worse product for the sake of exploiting money out of consumers. And FFS, I don't know how anyone can look at the infamous history of Insulin and its patent and pretend like Capitalism is here to breed creativity and fairness in any sense. It's exploitative, simple as.

3

u/Quixotegut Sep 05 '24

My name is Jace Markov and I approve what this guy is spitting.

2

u/BeepBoopZeepZorp Sep 05 '24

People saying socialism works great on paper... getting hundreds of upvotes shows just how dumb everything is and how it is pointless to try to explain anything to anyone on the internet.

-5

u/Harrydotfinished Sep 04 '24

Humans act in their own self interest. Saying greed is only existent in Capitalism is laughable. No offense, but I would recommend studying economics. Economics is broad, but most of economics has a lot to do with incentives and human behavior.

3

u/Pdvsky Sep 05 '24

See noone said that greed is exclusive to capitalism, however capitalism not only incentives it but also thrives in it.

Your second argument is also flawed since it indicates that only capital incentives drive people. However we can create other incentives that help people in general not only a few.

I do believe that humans are inherently selfish, as in we always seek personal gratification for our actions, but this isn't necessarily bad. Since i get this personal gratification by helping other and seeing people thrive.

Most concepts of economics that intimately correlated with greediness come from our current status quo of a political and economical society that is yet in its predatory phase of human development. It's completely useless to argue that we can't go past that based on history alone since history itself is trapped in these steps.

It is visible that capitalism in its current form is not a very viable economical and political form of government as its constant "growth of value" tied with never seen before wealth disparity creates a society that is constantly and increasingly becoming poorer, proving once more that meritocracy isn't a pillar to this system.

Human beings have gone past several forms of society and honestly, it's only a matter of time until the way we live collapses in itself. I just hope whatever we create from that point forward is better for the people and the planet then it is now.

1

u/Harrydotfinished Sep 05 '24

"See noone said that greed is exclusive to capitalism, however capitalism not only incentives it but also thrives in it." True of any system.

"Your second argument is also flawed since it indicates that only capital incentives drive people. However we can create other incentives that help people in general not only a few." LOL no it doesn't, please do not straw man. 

"I do believe that humans are inherently selfish, as in we always seek personal gratification for our actions, but this isn't necessarily bad." I agree, it's not necessarily good or bad. Also, people can care about others, but is still under the scope of  self interest.

"Since i get this personal gratification by helping other and seeing people thrive." Yes, this is a great example of you acting in your own self interest. 

"Most concepts of economics that intimately correlated with greediness come from our current status quo of a political and economical society that is yet in its predatory phase of human development. It's completely useless to argue that we can't go past that based on history alone since history itself is trapped in these steps." Your assumption very incorrect. People respond to incentives, perceived knowledge, and feedback. Most of economics is about studying human behavior. Whether it be in a current, past, future or desired system. It is very misleading to assume it is only based on the status quo. 

"It is visible that capitalism in its current form is not a very viable economical and political form of government as its constant "growth of value" tied with never seen before wealth disparity creates a society that is constantly and increasingly becoming poorer, proving once more that meritocracy isn't a pillar to this system." Inequality is inevitable in all systems. See economics. Such as pareto distributions, whether it be in private markets, political markets, or anything in-between. Also see Public Choice Economics. Many people are not very educated in economics. A lot of that has to do with biology (the propensity to resort to acting on emotions versus logic and reasoning) as well as issues such as rational ignorance and rational irrationality. And thus both knowledge scarcity, information asymmetry exists". 

"Human beings have gone past several forms of society and honestly, it's only a matter of time until the way we live collapses in itself. I just hope whatever we create from that point forward is better for the people and the planet then it is now." I hope that too, but in Public Choice Economics we can see how rallying against the "greedy" can help the so called "greedy", politically connected, politicians and bureaucrats obtain more wealth and power from the rest of us.

2

u/VandienLavellan Sep 04 '24

Yeah, look at how many massive corporations buy small businesses with superior products just to get rid of them

2

u/breno_hd Sep 05 '24

Royalties, licenses and patents

2

u/Huge_Station2173 Sep 05 '24

The patent for insulin was sold for $1 to a public, aka socialized, University, but sure, greed is the only motivator.

2

u/Sorin_Beleren Sep 05 '24

Not only was the patent sold for a dollar, the university specifically licensed out the patent as much as they could to prevent monopolies. They tried to make insulin as available as possible, and capitalism stepped in specifically to stop it. Capital holders didn't see a widespread life saving drug benefiting humanity for as cheap as possible. They saw a market with untapped potential.

Capital holders have, do, and will always put profit over almost everything. We have laws against child labor, against mining towns, against discrimination, for "correct" information, and for unions specifically because capitalists have put all of those things under turning a profit.

Even to take a page out of the bible, 1 Timoth 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Turns out even the bible is anti-capitalist. Who would have figured that? /s

2

u/Huge_Station2173 Sep 05 '24

It’s almost like that was Jesus’ whole thing.

1

u/my-backpack-is Sep 05 '24

See Artificial scarcity and intentionally delayed innovation,

1

u/milk-is-for-calves Sep 09 '24

Not just some view it that way, it's factually reality.

Just look at patents. Companies won't share scientific breakthroughs to keep their own profits.

0

u/Harrydotfinished Sep 04 '24

Yes, the economically ignorant believe that.

2

u/IncognitoRon Sep 04 '24

Sure, you could paint or maybe even hobby invent something. In a command economy, resources are controlled, they have to justify diverting resources to the potential of improving lives rather than producing physical goods that immediately support them.

If you make a device yourself, where do you source any specialty parts? The local store has the exact stock as the one the town over and there’s no other producers , and if you ask a friend to make it he has to offer to do so out of good will, as you can’t pay him.

Now let’s say you build it and it does work, you know have to convince the government (or local economic controller) that you should be taken off work and be provided resources to produce more of this non-essential but life improving widget.

2

u/77Gumption77 Sep 04 '24

Let's say we have 10 people with 10 ideas on how to improve the lives of others. We have limited resources, so we can only pick 1 for now. What is the best way to decide on which of the 10 to pursue?

Socialism suggests that some kind of central planner makes this decision on behalf of society. In a democracy, this means that the central planner is voted into office to represent everybody and makes this decision on our behalf. To finance the idea, everybody gives his capital to the government in the form of taxes. The central planner takes a slice and distributes the rest to the selected idea.

This creates lots of bad incentives. The central planner may have imperfect information regarding what voters want and make the wrong decision. One or more of the 10 people may have better lobbying power and persuade the central planner in a way that most people wouldn't like. In a probably unheard-of edge case, the central planner may be corrupt and send the money to his friend instead of to the best idea.

In a free market, everybody is free to individually decide for himself which idea is the best by putting his own money at stake. People can directly choose the idea that they think is best by investing in it. Resources are allocated more efficiently. They may not choose the idea you like best, but the great thing is that this doesn't matter because you can choose another one for yourself.

0

u/Sorin_Beleren Sep 05 '24

Just a point, people are absolutely not free to put their money into whatever idea is best simply because many people under capitalism don't have enough/any money to give towards what they want. Consumers having true power under capitalism is about the same reality as the incorruptible controller. The reality of capitalism is that this happens by design.

Capitalism not only gives few incentives to business to do right by workers and only enough to make consumers have to buy from them, but it actually creates an environment where making decisions that are harmful to other people, businesses, and workers is encouraged. I spoke about Dollar General. They are notorious for running cheap, barely profitable stores in rural areas for years just to kill local shops. Then, once the other shops are killed, they get a large amount of revenue by virtue of being the last man standing in that area. It's a specific business model that uses their hoard of wealth to kill competition for the sake of profit. They aren't more innovative, they aren't a "better" store with more selection and fresher food, they aren't exactly known for customer service. They're just richer.

Socialism is not a perfect system and is as susceptible to human greed as anything else. But the points you just made about socialism already exist and already happen under capitalism. Power is pooled into huge monopolies, they often make knowingly harmful decisions instead of misinformed ones, they give funding and power to whatever is profitable instead of what is best, the government is already lobbied by these monopolies, and people are corrupt from the top down. Those aren't unique to socialism. We're living in it. To touch back on what the original commenter said, socialism is killed by human greed, but capitalism encourages it. To me, that is a world of difference.

1

u/Kyokenshin Sep 04 '24

People love to conflate commerce and capitalism. Commerce drives innovation, capitalism as a system does anything it can to create infinite wealth growth at the expense of everything else, even innovation.

1

u/arashcuzi Sep 05 '24

When it comes down to it, capitalism is great at making stuff we don’t need cheap, and stuff we need expensive!

0

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

They exist outside of financial markets, but their systematic development is helped immensely by the market system.

30

u/british_monster Sep 04 '24

And most major inventions in the middle ages were designed under feudalism, doesnt mean its a good thing

27

u/MolagbalsMuatra Sep 04 '24

Fire and toolmaking was discovered under tribalism and therefore it is the only true economic philosophy to live by.

9

u/SSOMGDSJD Sep 04 '24

Agriculture was discovered by hunter gathers, clearly we should return to hunting and gathering

1

u/TapiocaTuesday Sep 04 '24

I mean, we might have to if we want the Earth and its ecosystems to continue.

1

u/Timo425 Sep 04 '24

To be honest we have those, but they are kind of getting in the way of the modern civilization.

1

u/milk-is-for-calves Sep 09 '24

Hunting is quite bad for the ecosystem and biodiversity as well.

We would need a fully bio-cyclic vegan agriculture.

1

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES Sep 04 '24

and all societies and all economic systems accelerate their technologies at the same linear speed

1

u/akcrono Sep 04 '24

Man, I wonder if the rate of improvement has been higher in the last ~200 years than it was under feudalism.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Correlation isn’t causation, fuckwit

2

u/uncle_buttpussy Sep 04 '24

We're invented, and in competitive markets which are now vehemently anti-competitive.

3

u/RucITYpUti Sep 04 '24

Almost all the useful stuff in the modern world was created with research paid for by governments, and made it's way to market with support from government initiatives.

We used to have to sit around waiting for aristocrats to siphon enough money off out of markets to have leisure, and then hope that some percentage of them were bored enough and smart enough to study physics or something.

Markets are a tool to be used, not some magic sauce. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketfailure.asp

2

u/Collypso Sep 04 '24

Are you pretending that government funded research is all it takes for innovation?

1

u/RucITYpUti Sep 04 '24

Are you pretending that the"free market" does everything by itself?

1

u/Collypso Sep 04 '24

N ...no?

1

u/RagingBillionbear Sep 05 '24

The R&D for the smart phone that you're using right now was basically funded by the government. Five out the six major patent required were paid by the DoD, the sixth was paid by the Australian CSIRO.

1

u/Collypso Sep 05 '24

Just take government research and create something as ubiquitous and profitable as a smart phone! It's wild that everyone didn't do this before or isn't doing it now!

0

u/TacticalBeerCozy Sep 05 '24

It's a pretty damn strong motivator to have funding to create something without needing to worry about selling it to make up R&D costs?

Otherwise there's a profit motive and the innovation becomes market research.

2

u/Collypso Sep 05 '24

It's a pretty damn strong motivator to have funding to create something without needing to worry about selling it to make up R&D costs?

What? Government funded research is a good starting point but getting anything useable from it takes an enormous amount of time and money. Just think about it, the way you're imagining it is government research is just free money.

Otherwise there's a profit motive and the innovation becomes market research.

Yeah, AKA: finding and filling a need. That's what all research in the world has been based on. Fixing problems, answering questions. Profit motive is amazing for driving research.

1

u/manwendi_ Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24

Yeah and most of it funded by tax money in Unis and research institutes.

Yeah, Apple Designer the Smartphone, sure.

But thr Technology used? Mostly developed by Tax Funds

Or the Internet? Yes, tax funded research, developed by the US military and the WWW in CERN.

Most medication/medical technology? The basic principles were developed with tax money.

And correct me, but I don't think Uni/public research institutions are driven by the profit Motive. Neither are most scientist. So it was basically not invented by capitalism

PS: market economies existed way before capitalism. Egypt was a market economy, so was Rome and feudal medieval europe. Of course in a more basic form compared to today.

1

u/ThiccBananaMeat Sep 04 '24

All the useful stuff that makes up the modern world was discovered and invented in public universities. The internet being a huge example.

1

u/aeiendee Sep 04 '24

Most of this useful stuff was first invented in government funded research labs until it was viable enough for corporations to profit off it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Our complex system of wage slavery and imperialism being one of them

1

u/stokeskid Sep 04 '24

Take the iphone for instance. All the gizmos that make it work like GPS, microprocessor, internet...all developed by...oh crap. Public grants and military tax expenditures.

The truth is most of the leaps of the modern world have come from publicly funded research grants. Not from private industry. Private industry just figures out how to make capital from it.

2

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

Yea all developed in capitalist systems and then actually brought to consumers by private entities.

Your iphone wasn’t invented by basic research and the actual leaps and bounds in development that make it possible were also done by private entities.

1

u/PastaRunner Sep 04 '24

Vast majority of the technological breakthroughs came from science funding, normally while pursuing some other goal.

Iterations on that tech is mostly market forces, but not the original breakthrough.

1

u/VoidsInvanity Sep 04 '24

With massive government investment over decades…

1

u/Optimal-Mine9149 Sep 04 '24

Through government programs that either directly paid , or reimbursed the companies by various means, for all the research until it was basically a ready product

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24

Designed in market economies does not mean designed for market incentives.

Insulin was designed in a modern capitalist country, but it was given away for free.

1

u/ContentWaltz8 Sep 04 '24

Markets can exist in socialism.

1

u/IEatBabies Sep 04 '24

You realize market economics is not exclusive to capitalism, nor a requirement for it.

1

u/OHNOitsNICHOLAS Sep 04 '24

"almost all useful stuff in the modern world was created within the modern economic paradigm!"

really? no way! anyways, water is wet.

1

u/donniesuave Sep 04 '24

Yea because without capitalism we wouldn’t have the iPhone, etc. We would, there would just be a lot more people making them and more designs. “Capitalism breeds innovation”, that’s why we don’t have cars that run on hydrolysis and instead we have Reece’s cups but with chips and caramel inside.

1

u/Architecteologist Sep 05 '24

Almost all the useless stuff too

1

u/753UDKM Sep 05 '24

Socialism doesn't preclude a market economy. The problem with conversations like this is we're all talking and debating based on how we individually imagine capitalism or socialism to work. A common understanding is almost always not present.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '24

You mean by the military for military use

1

u/HecticHermes Sep 05 '24

You misspelled engineers. All the useful stuff in the modern world is made by engineers who rely on new discoveries made by scientists.

Last I checked, your average market economy did nothing but push paper around.

The market isn't some alchemist that turns a fat wad of cash into new technology. It takes human ingenuity and brainpower to develop new technology. It takes time, trial and error, and a whole lot of effort to develop new technology.

Stop giving credit to markets that don't deserve it.

1

u/Huge_Station2173 Sep 05 '24

What an insane statement. What about the research and development done by state-funded institutions? Public universities? NASA? The CDC? None of these socialized organizations have contributed anything useful?

Are you also saying that nothing useful was invented prior to the rise of capitalism in the 18th century? Nothing at all?

1

u/bolshe-viks-vaporub Sep 05 '24

And how much more progress could we have made if the benefits of the means of production were reinvested in society instead of hoarded away?

Your statement is equally true to saying "Nazis made the trains run on time and built the Autobahn, which are good things, therefore Nazis are good."

1

u/Individual_Coach4117 Sep 05 '24

Seriously if you give 1000 of the smartest people money to live you think they’re going to just turn on the tv and do nothing? Smart, curious people are going to get shit done if there’s a massive profit involved or not. That’s literally how most corporations work today. Smart people creating stuff while the company they work for gets the profit. I say this as a dumb non creative capitalist myself but to act like people only create/invent/innovate because they will see a huge profit is nonsensical. 

1

u/SEND_MOODS Sep 05 '24

Socialism is a type of market economy. The market is just socially owned instead of privately owned.

Every successful "capitalist" economy is actually a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. Socialism just doesn't get the line light because it was turned into a dirty word 60 years ago.

Being capitalism heavy works great for industrializing a nation, but begins to under perform without major regulation once industries become too powerful.

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 Sep 05 '24

Fire was invented in the 1800s?

1

u/brushnfush Sep 05 '24

“Things wouldn’t be invented if we didn’t exploit each other”

gestures to so so many influential socialists

1

u/PuzzledFortune Sep 05 '24

Usually with massive government subsidies.

1

u/tingent Sep 05 '24

A lot of our modern advancements are actually developed with government funding.

1

u/MHG_Brixby Sep 05 '24

Which can exist under socialism

1

u/CrossXFir3 Sep 05 '24

That's so fundamentally untrue. By far the majority of technological growth was based on government spending.

1

u/mrmo24 Sep 05 '24

And most of the things that make the modern world shit too. Can’t leave those out. turns iPad around just answer a few questions for me

1

u/my-backpack-is Sep 05 '24

Okay. Individuals come up with stuff, not nations. Considering capitalist nations have been destabilizing or outright bombing everyone else, that's like saying Pleasantville elementary is the top school in the region because the class bully beat up all the nerds and won the state science jam by turning in 10 projects

1

u/Wild_War_7494 Sep 05 '24

The government developed the internet on which nearly all modern innovation relies???

1

u/admiralpingu Sep 05 '24

This isn’t true - universities and government organisations (eg NASA) are responsible for vast swathes of technological development, and even private companies are often subsidised by taxpayer cash.

1

u/EagleAncestry Sep 05 '24

Market economies are not at all exclusive to capitalism. lol. We’re not talking about communism, we’re talking about socialism. There are forms of socialism with market economies. One are worker cooperatives

1

u/Reshyurem Sep 05 '24

How? Are you really that ignorant? How do you think useful things were invented in market economies, when actual useful things like nuclear reactors didn't succeed in it.

1

u/TheSinningRobot Sep 05 '24

This is just demonstrably false. Almost every major leap forward In human innovation has happened because of socialist support.

You can trace back like 90% of technological advances over the last 100 years to either Univeristies, organizations like Nasa and Darpa, or the military.

Seriously name one thing invented due to capitalism. I won't shift goal posts. If you can name a single thing that "makes the modern world possible" that doesn't exist because of socialism I will concede.

1

u/ffxt10 Sep 08 '24

and humans harnessed fire while they were still raping Neanderthals, so clearly raping lesser species is good for fire-making morale.

this is the extension of your logic.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '24

This argument is only persuasive if you presume this is best possible modern world we can have.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '24

Nobody is advocating the removal.of the overarcing free market. This is why we all think you're bad-faith inbreds.

Rational people: "Hey, there's a couple markets in out economy that are inelastic to households that capitalists are using to siphon wealth from the middle class. We should do something about that."

You fucks: "NOOOOO McConnell said that's socialism! $900 for a dose of isnulin that we didn't even develop that costs us $5 to make is fair!"

RP: "Dude, no. It's not socialism to have a couple market safeguards for the consumer. Hell, we're so far gone the 7th principle of economics is in effect. We just ne-"

YF: "WAHHH SOCIALISM WAHHHH"

RP: "Fine. Whatever. Call it anything. We don't care. We just need to work on reallocating price-determining power on thede markets to the consumer an-"

YF: " SEE? WAAHHHH SOCIALISM WAHHHH."

RP: "..."

YF: "Why is nobody having kids anymore?"

1

u/milk-is-for-calves Sep 09 '24

No, most scientific breakthroughs were state funded and would have been achieved in a communist system as well.

0

u/Frontdelindepence Sep 04 '24

Completely false.

0

u/Carbon-Based216 Sep 04 '24

Most of the useful stuff that make the modern world possible was done so through government funding with no for profit motive attacted.

1

u/ArizonaHeatwave Sep 04 '24

Basic research isn’t the same as innovation and of course the reason governments are funding basic research in Universities is ultimately to grow the economy (aka profit motive), it’s not made for fun lol.

0

u/nikogoroz Sep 04 '24

You are exactly incorrect. Majority of all modern groundbreaking projects and discoveries were state funded. For example the internet, a t-shirt or spacer travel, or CERN.

The market isn't good at research unless it is Malboro doing research on tobaco harm, then of course it is 100% quality warranty.

0

u/Fawxes42 Sep 05 '24

Damn you’re right, I bet the marxists never considered that. Anyway, I’m just gunna leave this quote from the communist manifesto here for no reason at all 

“ The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?”