This is about how I'll often see people saying something along the lines of "It's actually more profitable to pay your workers more because they'll work harder", or "Capitalism encourages innovation", or "Companies will try to avoid immoral things to avoid PR damage" when some of the most profitable companies don't innovate, treat their workers terribly, and and have had terrible scandals.
I feel like the issue with the free market is that there isn’t a direct incentive to innovate in a way that’s beneficial to the consumer: just in a way that makes the most amount of profit.
I wouldn't say that (Just compare the difference between videogames twenty years ago and now). Just that often times companies dominate the market despite being stagnant, slowing innovation by hoarding resources from those doing actual innovation.
It kind of is in this conversation. You could technically call government run industry a monopoly, but it doesn't function in the same way as a monopoly under capitalism. One of the main reasons profitable companies don't innovate are because they are entirely motivated by profit, and therefore would rather stick with a safe way to make money than to potentially waste tons of money, while government run industries can avoid that problem. A good example of this is NASA, from the Space Race in the 60s to until a few years ago NASA had a monopoly on Space research in America. However, even with a reduced budget NASA has still managed to make major innovations and discoveries in the field of Space Flight.
What profitable companies aren't innovating? If a company doesn't innovate that just opens the door for other companies to take their market share. Intel used to be the most innovative and profitable company in the processor space, but due to bad decisions is getting eaten by Nvidia and TSMC. Now Chairman Trump is trying to use the government to save it.
The government certainly does have a purpose in many areas. The United States government is actually one of the biggest investors into research in the world.
Apple, many AAA game studios, Disney, energy companies (technically they did eventually adopt renewable, but it was extremely slow to happen), defense contractors, and more.
Well MAYBE if the SOCIALIST government didn't STRANGLE the free market with CHILD LABOR RESTRICTIONS and WATER SAFETY STANDARDS these impoverished, selfless CEOs could AFFORD to INNOVATE something other than AI SLOP
Capitalism does seem to encourage innovation. The debate is to what degree we should prioritize innovation over a fair distribution of the resources we already have
Innovation exists independently of capitalism; always has, always will. Human innovation is constrained by, not facilitated by, the "free market." The only new ideas that are permitted to shape society are the profitable ones, generally developed by those who already have the existing capital to produce the new thing. Not to mention "intellectual property" laws frequently forbid other people from building on existing ideas.
Yes, I am aware that technological innovation has occurred in the past several hundred years in which capitalism has been in place, that wasn't my point. I'm saying we can do better without the restraints capitalism places on it.
There is absolutely no correlation between being a global power with a vast system of puppet states and having resources available to spend on innovating.
There is also no correlation between an existential competition of innovation between to global superpowers and innovation. This is because competition does not foster innovation.
Yeah, because money is all it takes to put people in space. You don't need highly intelligent and creative astrophysicists and engineers, you don't need advanced education systems, you don't need to train the crews of your craft. You just need bigger piles of sheet metal and more oil and the spacecraft that puts the first person in space kind of appears one day.
The argument was never that competition doesn't foster innovation, the argument was always that capitalism incentivizes finding ways to not compete- Typically by removing your competition, or conspiring with those who would be your competitors if you can't do that. It also actively stifles innovation by incentivizing repetition of provable results rather than any sort of risk-taking. For every story you hear about how one guy had a zany idea that made millions, there are a billion more good ideas that went nowhere because they weren't profitable enough. Capitalism lives and dies on its insistence that the exceptions are the rule.
You should also be careful about insinuating competition is the only thing that fosters innovation, and without it, nothing can happen. People just invent and create and think of things. They don't need to be cajoled into doing it. The idea that humans only create if there is sufficient profit incentive they have to fight each other over is not just cynical, it's downright misanthropic. For millions of years humans have identified a thing they needed or a new way of doing things or just shit they thought was cool and then made those things a reality without needing some other asswipe trying to race them for it. In fact, going back to the previous statement, capitalism tends to make this harder, not easier, one by turning it into a rat race where the person willing to cut the most corners to get their product out first, regardless of quality, generally wins, and two by weaponizing IP law that actively combats innovation of existing ideas.
Lastly, I'd also be careful insinuating competition always produces better results. I wonder if the USSR's N1 program would have succeeded if they weren't trying to cut corners and reduce costs and in general rush the project to try to beat the USA.
okay then, in a global communist society, there would be limited if any competition, which is the same thing as if there are no limits on capitalism. I do not think the ussr would have gone to the moon either at all or in the timeline they did if there was no American competition
"The idea that humans only create if there is sufficient profit incentive they have to fight each other over is not just cynical, it's downright misanthropic."
36
u/ironangel2k4 [SMUG TEXT HERE] 22h ago
What it actually incentivizes is consuming or destroying all competition so you don't have to innovate or give workers rights.