Background Pony #1802
Deletion reason: Rule #0
Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)
NitroFury 
Nitro Cat Bad!
@CaptainXtra
You know, I bet the Capitalist Defenders are proud of themselves that this shit about to happen.
You know, I bet the Capitalist Defenders are proud of themselves that this shit about to happen.
Dustcan 
Dogs
About to? I’ve seen a middle schooler working the local McDonalds. Apparently he already quit once but came back.
“Capitalism breeds innovation”, innovation like bringing back child labor so you don’t have to pay adults a livable wage.
Background Pony #A191
@Dustcan
One thing that’s for sure is that shit like this would’ve never happened under Keynesian Capitalism.
One thing that’s for sure is that shit like this would’ve never happened under Keynesian Capitalism.
Vivace
“ShimSham my GlimGlams”
There is a non-governmental organization made in the 20th century that imposes limits on how long incandescent lightbulbs its constituent companies make can last by restricting use of particular bulb filaments. Longer lasting bulbs means an upper limit of need and demand for replacements, less means to profit. But sure, capitalism breeds innovation.
Background Pony #A191
@Vivace
It doesn’t always breed innovation, that is true, yet there are plenty of instances over the entirety of its many forms of existence (good and bad) that it has.
It doesn’t always breed innovation, that is true, yet there are plenty of instances over the entirety of its many forms of existence (good and bad) that it has.
Point being, just because capitalism in its many forms doesn’t always breed innovation, that doesn’t automatically mean that it never breeds, will breed, or has bred innovation, either.
Background Pony #A191
@Dustcan
I’m not entirely sure how it addresses or refutes the notion that capitalism neither absolutely always nor absolutely never drives innovation.
I’m not entirely sure how it addresses or refutes the notion that capitalism neither absolutely always nor absolutely never drives innovation.
Because if neither one of those scenarios are true, then it is disingenuous to act like or believe that capitalism has never driven innovation (or, likewise, that it always has).
Wiimeiser 
(Foil Hat)
The more I hear about capitalism these days, the more I’m willing to make my original IP so anti-capitalism that it gets banned in the US.
But does capitalism drive innovation? Yeah, for lootboxes and the like…
Background Pony #2B4C
@igotnopicks
Well, believe it or not, Texas has actually always been one of the few states that people predicted will secede if it wanted to. Though I will imagine that if that actually happened, that would be more shocking. And it would probably give California more reasons to secede.
Well, believe it or not, Texas has actually always been one of the few states that people predicted will secede if it wanted to. Though I will imagine that if that actually happened, that would be more shocking. And it would probably give California more reasons to secede.
Background Pony #A191
@Wiimeiser
Why do you have such a vendetta against it? You do realize that better forms of capitalism like Keynesian economics exist and that the only form of capitalism isn’t neoliberalism, right?
Why do you have such a vendetta against it? You do realize that better forms of capitalism like Keynesian economics exist and that the only form of capitalism isn’t neoliberalism, right?
Ebalosus 
Build commie blocks!
Necessity breeds innovation, not an economic paradigm. The latter can harness and be built around the former to be sure (like capitalism), but the former isn’t dependent on the latter.
It’s why 3D-printed gun designers outside America are a lot more innovative than those within America. The former can’t just go to whatever website and order a parts kit to be shipped directly to their doors, no questions asked, or order ammunition without any scrutiny; they have to come up with solutions to that shit either on their own, or within open-source communities where they work together on resolving those issues, for example.
Background Pony #A191
@Ebalosus
This is actually the best and most eloquent elaboration of this topic that I have seen, so far.
This is actually the best and most eloquent elaboration of this topic that I have seen, so far.
Wiimeiser
(Foil Hat)
@Background Pony #2B4C
I think if the US was to fall, it would split into 13 countries on the mainland, including Texas, California and Cascadia. Alaska would split into Seward and Kodiak (capitals Nome and Kodiak, border runs along the Yukon River) and hand its panhandle over to Cascadia. Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam would secede separately and Northern Mariana Islands would join the latter. American Samoa would join Samoa Samoa. The rest I dunno.
I think if the US was to fall, it would split into 13 countries on the mainland, including Texas, California and Cascadia. Alaska would split into Seward and Kodiak (capitals Nome and Kodiak, border runs along the Yukon River) and hand its panhandle over to Cascadia. Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam would secede separately and Northern Mariana Islands would join the latter. American Samoa would join Samoa Samoa. The rest I dunno.
MethidMan 
@CaptainXtra
::Me explaining to someone the current state of the world being the main reason why I don’t want to procreate::
::Me explaining to someone the current state of the world being the main reason why I don’t want to procreate::
Other guy: “The world’s always been like that”
Background Pony #A191
@MethidMan
In certain ways and in certain places, it has been like that before, at some point in time.
In certain ways and in certain places, it has been like that before, at some point in time.
That being said, it is true that it really doesn’t have to be like that, and that efforts should be made by the people who have the morally and ethically responsible power and means to make such changes of which that situations like that will never be a such a reoccurring phenomenon, again.
igotnopicks
Monado User
@Background Pony #2B4C
California is a bit iffy at best, One it’s the richest state in the union. Two it mainly wants relies on so much tax. And Texas’s own thing is “DO THING BY OURSELF, until Texas is in danger then it’s like “Oh No Please help us.” It would also limit Texas’ doing it’s own thing and it would be the overall cost in Texas would go up and most of the Californians living there would leave to most eastern states like Florida.
California is a bit iffy at best, One it’s the richest state in the union. Two it mainly wants relies on so much tax. And Texas’s own thing is “DO THING BY OURSELF, until Texas is in danger then it’s like “Oh No Please help us.” It would also limit Texas’ doing it’s own thing and it would be the overall cost in Texas would go up and most of the Californians living there would leave to most eastern states like Florida.
Let’s face it California has a way out of it too. But California’s own fault is doing something that would cost it. But it’s the richest state for tax reasons. So if California would leave the union California atleast has it’s own feet. The major problem with California is businesses leaving the state. So it would rely on tax money and power grid being part of the US.
Violet Rose in The Rain
@Vivace
It doesn’t always breed innovation, that is true, yet there are plenty of instances over the entirety of its many forms of existence (good and bad) that it has.Point being, just because capitalism in its many forms doesn’t always breed innovation, that doesn’t automatically mean that it never breeds, will breed, or has bred innovation, either.
You know, I often wonder how humanity discovered fire with no financial incentive for it.
What innovation did Capitalism achieve? True, it has achieved marvelous technological feats, but whether those are in the interest of humanity is another question.
Take the modern smartphone as an example. It’s true that it is a great technological feat. But the way smartphones act is as a listening device that they can use to spy on us and is being constantly optimised to get us hooked on it. Also they are designed to be fragile so that it’s lifetime is limited to average 2 years. Can we call that innovation?
Seriously though, it’s a terrible argument. Capital is not a good motivator for innovation in the long run, and in many cases, capitalism stifles innovation (see patent law). Think of all the innovation we would see if so much of the world wasn’t distracted by living in poverty.
It’s a terrible argument. To begin with, capitalism stifles innovation. Look at the mainstream film industry, churning out the same old format for decades. Disney using the same format over and over again, and now even simply re-releasing old movies.
Similarly, the videogame industry is a joke in innovation. You get the same videogames every year, with the same cover for every game like the FIFA series. A innovative videogame is rare.
Capitalism doesn’t drive innovation, it kills it. Creative people tend to be indie developers with no money, relying on crowd funding, and usually drowned out from the mainstream.
Violet Rose in The Rain
Far as I care, the idea that money is an incentive only works if you have money to begin with. Innovation comes from a desire to create something or solve a problem. Under Capitalism, you don’t really get to create much of anything if you don’t have money. Here’s why:
-
You need money to live, so either you’re born rich or you probably have a job you need to attend, not because you’re good at it, you’re contributing anything to society or necessarily enjoying it, but because you need money to live which cuts into time that could be spent working an developing your project.
-
You likely need upfront investment for material costs. That means selling off a piece of your ownership of the project to investors who aren’t necessarily going to contribute in any way besides financially but still get a cut of your returns or taking out a loan or becoming employed by someone else who will take responsibility for your innovations.
-
If you don’t get return on your invested time and money, you risk poverty.
What all this is to say, is that creating a thing is one objective, money is a separate objective. Under capitalism, you’re incentivised to make money, not innovate; and the financial hurdles to overcome in order to innovate often make innovation often more trouble than it’s worth. This is also why the biggest innovators in Capitalism are super rich: for the most part, they were already rich which granted them the freedom to innovate, not the other way around.
Violet Rose in The Rain
Put it this way - how many people out there have brilliant creative, technical or scientific minds but are held back from achieving this through poverty, or having to hold down a sludge office job?
If I didn’t have to worry about food, money and keeping a roof over my head, I’d have finished my books and gotten into drawing like I’ve always wanted to.
Ebalosus
Build commie blocks!
Yeah I wish IP landlordism (alongside the usual landlordism) would go the fuck away too. You’re totally right about how such things end up stifling innovation rather than encouraging it.
Zincy
In Vino Veritas
This is an angle I always like to push.
Imagin how much could get done culturally and scientifically if our basic needs were met without question.
Violet Rose in The Rain
Capitalism breeds profitable, low risk innovation, not necessarily useful innovation.
Generally high risk innovation (with a low chance of success) or innovation that isn’t profitable (like innovation that benefits the global poor) are only done with public sector funds in one form or another. Think subsidies, tax cuts for R&D, grants, etc.
Basic science, innovation with a high risk/high reward profile, innovation that helps poor people etc usually require the public sector and charity to fund them.
Here’s an example: 88% of funding for an HIV vaccine is done by the public sector (2% by charity, 10% by the private sector).
In 2004, the public, philanthropic, and commercial sectors invested approximately US$ 682 million in preventive HIV vaccine R&D (see Figure 1). The public sector dominated funding for HIV vaccine R&D and accounted for 88% of total investment in 2004. The commercial sector accounted for 10% and the philanthropic sector for 2%.
There’s no private sector incentive to fund basic research for a vaccine for a disease that disproportionately affects poor people.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!