I’ve been thinking of the “capitalism breeds innovation” thing a lot lately.
It may still be true, but the latest innovations are always in money making. There is no incentive to innovate in a way that serves a common good, but there is massive incentive to “innovate” in a way that drives profits up.
Subscriptions to everything and the erosion of ownership? Innovative.
Insurance companies taking your money and then denying your claims? Innovative.
Uncapped campaign finance and buying politicians? Innovative (well, it’s been done before, but not to this scale in a very long time).
Look at the history of leaded paint and gasoline in America, and you’ll discover its far from the latest.
There is no incentive to innovate in a way that serves a common good, but there is massive incentive to “innovate” in a way that drives profits up.
The incentives tend to be towards ballooning consumption/spending/debt, which is rarely good for any given individual who isn’t on the receiving end of revenue.
A lot of critiques of capitalism (not to discount them entirely) ignore factors like consumer and inter-agency choice. And ironically, "free market"eers ignore the importance/power of unions as a market mechanism. We collectively have the ability to stop using companies that abuse consumers, the environment, etc., but largely fail to use it and have developed a culture of ridicule against people who do. Unions are a critical factor in suppressing corporate abuse of workers and consumers.
Oh don’t forget that many innovations don’t come to the surface until companies have gotten their money out of the old ones. We miss out on a lot of technology for years because of that. And then there’s tooling changes leading to companies saying “what the fuck are you gunna do about it?” as they all keep making the same old crap. Sony had to invent the litium-ion battery for their cameras because all the battery companies were fine with making the old lead-acid stuff.
Capitalism doesn’t drive innovation, it gives into it when it absolutely has to but would prefer to not have to do anything new. New is expensive, and so the very idea of innovation is counter to capitalism’s goals.
I know the definitions of both. Your statement was in conflict with those definitions, which is why I asked you to define them, to determine why you would make the statement you did.
I’ve been thinking of the “capitalism breeds innovation” thing a lot lately.
It may still be true, but the latest innovations are always in money making. There is no incentive to innovate in a way that serves a common good, but there is massive incentive to “innovate” in a way that drives profits up.
Subscriptions to everything and the erosion of ownership? Innovative.
Insurance companies taking your money and then denying your claims? Innovative.
Uncapped campaign finance and buying politicians? Innovative (well, it’s been done before, but not to this scale in a very long time).
A different way to think of this is that capitalism is simply society optimizing for the wrong value.
Look at the history of leaded paint and gasoline in America, and you’ll discover its far from the latest.
The incentives tend to be towards ballooning consumption/spending/debt, which is rarely good for any given individual who isn’t on the receiving end of revenue.
A lot of critiques of capitalism (not to discount them entirely) ignore factors like consumer and inter-agency choice. And ironically, "free market"eers ignore the importance/power of unions as a market mechanism. We collectively have the ability to stop using companies that abuse consumers, the environment, etc., but largely fail to use it and have developed a culture of ridicule against people who do. Unions are a critical factor in suppressing corporate abuse of workers and consumers.
Oh don’t forget that many innovations don’t come to the surface until companies have gotten their money out of the old ones. We miss out on a lot of technology for years because of that. And then there’s tooling changes leading to companies saying “what the fuck are you gunna do about it?” as they all keep making the same old crap. Sony had to invent the litium-ion battery for their cameras because all the battery companies were fine with making the old lead-acid stuff.
Capitalism doesn’t drive innovation, it gives into it when it absolutely has to but would prefer to not have to do anything new. New is expensive, and so the very idea of innovation is counter to capitalism’s goals.
how could you say that when capitalism literally fucked innovation into existence?
Pure Capitalism = bad
Pure Socialism = bad
Healthy mix of capitalism and socialism = groovy
Could you define Capitalism and Socialism for the class?
Sure. I did hours of research and found these incredible pages that answer your question for you. I linked them below to save you so much time.
Capitalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Socialism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I know the definitions of both. Your statement was in conflict with those definitions, which is why I asked you to define them, to determine why you would make the statement you did.