A socialist foundation where every member of society has guaranteed means of survival, maybe even thriving so we uplift ourselves as a society…combined with capitalisms incentive for innovation and ambition.
Imagine what people could do if they were not exhausted by surviving, three jobs, etc. Yes there would be leeches, but that is a minority and a worthwhile sacrifice.
Capitalist innovation is usually changing an existing product just enough to keep a patent or actually making something new but only if the government funds them so much they have zero risk. Most innovation comes from the public sector.
I believe you are mistaking research for innovation.
I don’t fault you for that as they’re often talked about in the same breath in the media.
What it should be framed around is Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). And innovation can happen at any level and usually rapidly advances the technology up several levels.
So most public sector research and innovation happens around TRL 1, 2, 3, and 4. Large privately owned labs operate around TRL 5 and 6. R&D departments in private companies work in TRL 7, 8, and 9.
So what I read from there is the public sector creates the new tech and private ones turn it into a product to sell. That’s also pretty much what I said. Yea, I’m good with that part being handled by literally anyone other than the already rich.
Like my preference would be that any large company is collectively owned by everyone who works there. That would let the people who do the actual work to also keep the profits from said work. That would also not change anything about innovation, great or small.
Socialism provides more innovation than capitalism. We would have the cure for cancer right now if profit incentive was not the drive of the economy, but to improve people’s lives.
Yes we forgot how much tech has come from communist states. china totally invents it’s own stuff and doesn’t steal IP at all…and russia is the bastion of the science world…
China used to be behind technologically but in recent years that hasn’t really been the case. They now publish more high impact research papers than the US. Their green energy sector is also way ahead of anyone else. If the trend continues you’ll probably see US companies trying to steal Chinese IP at some point.
China is playing catch up. Once they steal enough IP to catch up, do you think they’re going to stop and wait for more to steal? Or do you think they’ll keep going and surpass the west? If they catch up I’m pretty sure they’ll keep going. Will they catch up? Only time will tell.
Quite the hot take. Make a claim, cherry pick one thing, and post a random YouTube video to back it.
Most of our tech comes from the military inventions of decades prior. Most of that from the US military and government. So if you think socialism would have brought GPS, cell phones, home computers, rocket technology, satellites, and more to the commercial market sooner… lol.
The entire factory industry, worldwide, uses the assembly line model invented by Ford, an American company. This system also brought prices down on cars, making them a staple of life rather than a luxury.
I won’t disagree with the fact big pharma could do more, but not with the idea it would have more incentive under a socialist system.
Correct, the Soviets launched the first basic satellite. They haven’t accomplished much since the 70s though and none of it translated to the commercial market. I won’t knock them for having a solid system that could fill the gap post-shuttles. Their adversion to solid fuel rockets also has merit.
The commercial market is the public market. Not sure why I’d have to explain that level of importance.
The entire factory industry, worldwide, uses the assembly line model invented by Ford, an American company. This system also brought prices down on cars, making them a staple of life rather than a luxury.
Right, but if you have the motivation to make things affordable for people, you can and will get to the same place. The profit motivation and the centralization of wealth are not the key motivators here.
They’re just the ones that made Ford rich and famous enough to aggressively publicize himself.
The motivation was to make a profit by making them affordable. Efficiency was the key Ford recognized as his means to success. If there is no profitability, he would never have bothered in bucking the current system.
I would genuinely suggest examining with yourself why you feel the need to cling on to a system designed to require and encourage greed and exploitation to exist.
A socialist foundation where every member of society has guaranteed means of survival, maybe even thriving so we uplift ourselves as a society…combined with capitalisms incentive for innovation and ambition.
Imagine what people could do if they were not exhausted by surviving, three jobs, etc. Yes there would be leeches, but that is a minority and a worthwhile sacrifice.
Capitalist innovation is usually changing an existing product just enough to keep a patent or actually making something new but only if the government funds them so much they have zero risk. Most innovation comes from the public sector.
I believe you are mistaking research for innovation. I don’t fault you for that as they’re often talked about in the same breath in the media.
What it should be framed around is Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). And innovation can happen at any level and usually rapidly advances the technology up several levels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
So most public sector research and innovation happens around TRL 1, 2, 3, and 4. Large privately owned labs operate around TRL 5 and 6. R&D departments in private companies work in TRL 7, 8, and 9.
So what I read from there is the public sector creates the new tech and private ones turn it into a product to sell. That’s also pretty much what I said. Yea, I’m good with that part being handled by literally anyone other than the already rich.
Like my preference would be that any large company is collectively owned by everyone who works there. That would let the people who do the actual work to also keep the profits from said work. That would also not change anything about innovation, great or small.
Socialism provides more innovation than capitalism. We would have the cure for cancer right now if profit incentive was not the drive of the economy, but to improve people’s lives.
Edit:
I suggest you to watch this video for about why combing both doesn’t work
and
this one
Yes we forgot how much tech has come from communist states. china totally invents it’s own stuff and doesn’t steal IP at all…and russia is the bastion of the science world…
Removed by mod
China used to be behind technologically but in recent years that hasn’t really been the case. They now publish more high impact research papers than the US. Their green energy sector is also way ahead of anyone else. If the trend continues you’ll probably see US companies trying to steal Chinese IP at some point.
China is playing catch up. Once they steal enough IP to catch up, do you think they’re going to stop and wait for more to steal? Or do you think they’ll keep going and surpass the west? If they catch up I’m pretty sure they’ll keep going. Will they catch up? Only time will tell.
Quite the hot take. Make a claim, cherry pick one thing, and post a random YouTube video to back it.
Most of our tech comes from the military inventions of decades prior. Most of that from the US military and government. So if you think socialism would have brought GPS, cell phones, home computers, rocket technology, satellites, and more to the commercial market sooner… lol.
The entire factory industry, worldwide, uses the assembly line model invented by Ford, an American company. This system also brought prices down on cars, making them a staple of life rather than a luxury.
I won’t disagree with the fact big pharma could do more, but not with the idea it would have more incentive under a socialist system.
Uh… Sputnik?
Why is the commercial market important?
Correct, the Soviets launched the first basic satellite. They haven’t accomplished much since the 70s though and none of it translated to the commercial market. I won’t knock them for having a solid system that could fill the gap post-shuttles. Their adversion to solid fuel rockets also has merit.
The commercial market is the public market. Not sure why I’d have to explain that level of importance.
You don’t have to, I’ve simply asked you to.
What level of importance? You haven’t explained any level of importance.
Right, but if you have the motivation to make things affordable for people, you can and will get to the same place. The profit motivation and the centralization of wealth are not the key motivators here.
They’re just the ones that made Ford rich and famous enough to aggressively publicize himself.
The motivation was to make a profit by making them affordable. Efficiency was the key Ford recognized as his means to success. If there is no profitability, he would never have bothered in bucking the current system.
You’re putting the cart before the horse.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/08/how-capitalism-stifles-innovation
I would genuinely suggest examining with yourself why you feel the need to cling on to a system designed to require and encourage greed and exploitation to exist.
deleted by creator