[mminer237]

The public will buy the cheapest, almost-as-good option 99% of the time. If morality were a strong deciding factor, we wouldn't have megacorporations like Nestlé and Unilever making everything, nor would all of our clothes be made by sweatshops.

I'm not going to spend billions of dollars on some new gadget when every other company will have the exact same thing for sale next month with razor-thin margins. There's no way to make a living innovating.

[Draiken]

It's almost like capitalism stifles innovation.

Paradoxically it's one of the most common arguments people use in favor of the system: it pushes innovation!

It actually pushes innovation towards profits, not pure innovation. When real innovation happens it's mostly by coincidence on the small intersection of the Venn diagram.

Edit: It's interesting that the patent system was created, in theory, to allow people to profit from innovation and actually promote it. Ironically it instead created a whole industry of extracting rent from broad useless patents that stifles innovation even further.

[throw10920]

> It's almost like capitalism stifles innovation.

It's not. It's nowhere close. "Capitalism" (which is a weasel word to begin with), has produced far more innovation than any other economic system.

Even aside from the overwhelming historical evidence soundly disproving your point, your argument is designed to deceive:

> It actually pushes innovation towards profits, not pure innovation.

Strawman argument - very few people believe or claim that "capitalism" directly incentivizes innovation - the "side effect" of innovation happening as a result of chasing profits is literally how "capitalism" is designed to work - and does so extremely effectively. Unless you've been living under a rock the past century, it's not hard to see the incredible technological advances that have happened purely as a result of "capitalism". The "small intersection of the Venn diagram", while small in relative terms (and there's nothing wrong with that), is a large absolute amount.

It's also the case that it's completely infeasible to directly incentivize innovation - the best that you can do is attach it to some other measurement - which is exactly what "capitalism" does.

> It's interesting that the patent system was created, in theory, to allow people to profit from innovation and actually promote it. Ironically it instead created a whole industry of extracting rent from broad useless patents that stifles innovation even further.

It's pretty obvious that a system created for a purpose can initially fulfill that purpose very well and then be corrupted by humans over time, with no implication of being initially unsuitable.

Patents have become rent-seeking because of corrupt regulators - corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life.

[Draiken]

I hesitate to reply to people that hide behind throwaway accounts, but sure, I'll bite.

>Even aside from the overwhelming historical evidence soundly disproving your point

That has basically nothing to compare against it. The very few attempts that we had in modern times were ultimately sabotaged by capitalism. Maybe those attempts would not succeed even without the sabotage but regardless, of course it's better than feudalism and its predecessors. The key question for me is: is that the best we can do?

Capitalism did sprout innovation, but that does not mean it's the best way to do so. Ignoring the inherent flaws around the profit motive doesn't help anyone.

>Strawman argument

I don't think so, honestly. The reality is that a lot of research is done with the question of "how can we make money solving this problem?", rather than "how can we solve this problem?". You can't deny that.

Maybe categorizing that as pure/non-pure innovation is not a good way to put it, but the incentives of research do change with profit seeking. It's undeniable.

>corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life.

Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital. It's a circular system.

Many do believe that democratically elect people should have more power than private institutions with zero transparency or checks. Not sure exactly how that "decreases the quality of human life". Where did that come from?

[svieira]

> Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital.

Isn't that the same thing that happened in every socialist attempt in the modern era? Isn't the cause the fact of original sin not the particular economic structures? To put it another way, how do you propose to solve the issue of "[sabotage] by capitalism" the line between good and evil that runs, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "right through every human heart"

https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/notable-quotations#:~:tex....

[Draiken]

You're right that corruption is not exclusive to capitalism. All systems will have that in one way or another. That was something the person I was replying to brought up. I don't think it matters for capitalism specifically. Any system worth considering should accept that corruption is unavoidable.

As for a solution... I don't know. I truly wish I had a ready answer to something as big as this, but I don't. The best I can come up with are multiple systems with checks, and we have some governments that attempt this, but inevitably someone ends up with unchecked power.

Today the power that goes unchecked is capital. It can corrupt other systems that don't account for it. Lobbying, donations, media time, etc. It's all affected by it, as systems like democracy were not designed to deal with external influence that is then used to consolidate itself.

That's why it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

[throw10920]

> You're right that corruption is not exclusive to capitalism. All systems will have that in one way or another.

Right, and if you'd done any research into alternative economic systems at all, you'd realize that free market systems are the only feasible economic system because it best addresses corruption. Socialism, communism, fascism, and other systems are more vulnerable to corruption than free market systems.

> I truly wish I had a ready answer to something as big as this, but I don't

If you don't, then don't suggest that people experiment with other economic systems when the cumulative toll of those experiment to date weighs in at over a hundred million lives.

> The best I can come up with are multiple systems with checks

That is what we have right now. In America, Canada, the EU, and many, many other "capitalist" systems. Why are you proposing it, when we have it right now?

> Today the power that goes unchecked is capital

This is objectively false. Laughably so. "Capital", whatever that means (as anti-capitalists regularly shift their use of it to avoid being caught in logical fallacies), is not an unchecked power in any of the top dozen current world powers - especially not the US, where there are literally dozens[1] of government agencies tasked with monitoring and controlling money and business in the country.

> Lobbying, donations, media time, etc. It's all affected by it

Everything is also affected by the pride of human beings - yet that has no bearing on the equivalent claim that "the power that goes unchecked is ego" - both that statement and yours are equally false.

> systems like democracy were not designed to deal with external influence that is then used to consolidate itself

"Democracy" is meaningless. You have to pick out a specific implementation of it - like the US, whose political system is designed to deal with external influences. The fact that it fails is because of corruption of individuals elected in office by the people - not because "democracy" somehow can't handle existing in a free-market system.

[1] The Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, various agencies in the Department of Agriculture, basically everything in the Department of Commerce, the Secret Service, large swaths of the Department of Justice (especially the antitrust division) and the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs in the Department of State, parts of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communication Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and many, many more. The claim that "the power that goes unchecked is capital" is objectively. Wrong.

[throw10920]

> I hesitate to reply to people that hide behind throwaway accounts

My account is three and a half years old, has more karma than your account, and has an equal amount of personal information (zero). Calling it a "throwaway" is inaccurate, saying that I'm "hiding" is manipulative, and your further statement

> but sure, I'll bite

...is further evidence of emotional manipulation instead of reason and intellect.

> The very few attempts that we had in modern times were ultimately sabotaged by capitalism

Given the many non-free-market states (almost all of which were communist, but the point generalizes), every single one of which has failed, the overwhelmingly most likely cause is simply that they don't work. Any claims otherwise require a massive amount of evidence.

> Capitalism did sprout innovation, but that does not mean it's the best way to do so. Ignoring the inherent flaws around the profit motive doesn't help anyone.

Nobody, including in this thread, is "ignoring" anything. Sane people look at the free market system, realize that it needs some amount of regulation to remain stable, and apply that. Insane people suggest that communism is a plausible alternative to free markets - and nobody has been able to come up with another system other than those two.

> I don't think so, honestly.

You're incorrect, then. The point that you made was "[Capitalism] actually pushes innovation towards profits, not pure innovation" - and nobody claimed that capitalism incentivizes "pure innovation", so that's the very definition of a strawman argument.

> The reality is that a lot of research is done with the question of "how can we make money solving this problem?", rather than "how can we solve this problem?"

Again, nobody claimed otherwise - if you had read the comment you're responding to, you would have also seen:

>> the "side effect" of innovation happening as a result of chasing profits is literally how "capitalism" is designed to work

> Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital. It's a circular system.

This is both incorrect and irrelevant. Incorrect, because regulators are corrupted in search of money and power, not because of capital. Irrelevant, because those factors are present in every other alternate system. Free market systems are not unique in this matter, and so this is an irrelevant point to bring up because no alternative system will change this.

> Many do believe that democratically elect people should have more power than private institutions with zero transparency or checks. Not sure exactly how that "decreases the quality of human life". Where did that come from?

Again - you should read comments before you respond to them:

>> corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life

Putting corrupt regulators into greater positions of power is what "decreases the quality of human life".

[ToucanLoucan]

> It's not. It's nowhere close. "Capitalism" (which is a weasel word to begin with), has produced far more innovation than any other economic system.

This is like saying Earth has produced far more life than any other planet: where's the competition? We don't have a non-capitalist control society to test against ever since Colonialism exported Capitalism to every corner of the globe.

> Strawman argument - very few people believe or claim that "capitalism" directly incentivizes innovation - the "side effect" of innovation happening as a result of chasing profits is literally how "capitalism" is designed to work - and does so extremely effectively. Unless you've been living under a rock the past century, it's not hard to see the incredible technological advances that have happened purely as a result of "capitalism". The "small intersection of the Venn diagram", while small in relative terms (and there's nothing wrong with that), is a large absolute amount.

This is a whole lot of words that says precious little. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find any technological advancements especially that don't have their roots in defense projects, grant money, other such institutions. Tons of the massive tech companies we have today that feel older than time itself were products of university and government grants, notable in that they didn't have to make money. Huge innovations like GPS that basically any product can use for damn near free started life as ways for the military to track deployed assets. Flat panel LCD screens, lithium batteries, like I said, it's hard to find a product so ubiquitous now on this level that ISN'T in some way funded by the Government.

The corporations role in turn is to take those expensive new technologies and make them cheap, and in THAT regard, they are very good at their jobs. But it doesn't translate well to every product.

> It's also the case that it's completely infeasible to directly incentivize innovation - the best that you can do is attach it to some other measurement - which is exactly what "capitalism" does.

Horseshit. The entire open source community disagrees with you. Massive volunteer organizations like the internet archive disagree with you. Food pantries disagree with you. Humans have worked for one another for things besides money since long before money existed, and that very much includes innovation. If innovation required financial benefit, we'd have never left our caves.

> Patents have become rent-seeking because of corrupt regulators - corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life.

Would love a citation on this.

[throw10920]

> This is like saying Earth has produced far more life than any other planet: where's the competition? We don't have a non-capitalist control society to test against ever since Colonialism exported Capitalism to every corner of the globe.

This is false - we've had many attempts at alternative systems to free markets - all of which have failed because they don't work.

Also, bringing "colonialism" into this shows that you're not interested in seeking out the truth - just pushing your own political agenda onto other people.

> This is a whole lot of words that says precious little.

Funny, I thought the same about most of your comment.

> you'd be hard pressed to find any technological advancements especially that don't have their roots in defense projects, grant money, other such institutions

Turns out that a decent number of technologies had their fundamental research funded by "defense projects, grant money, other such institutions" - which doesn't mean anything, because (1) many innovations are not funded in those ways (2) the vast majority of modern technology's commercialization was done exclusively by "capitalism" and (3) as we've seen with communist countries, the government can fund as much research as it wants, and it doesn't matter for any purpose except weapons development if the private sector doesn't go through the process of refining it and making it cheap enough that consumers can buy it.

> Horseshit.

That perfectly describes your next paragraph:

> The entire open source community disagrees with you

No, they don't. The open-source community does not encourage innovation in any way. It encourages free clones of successful products whose innovation was performed by another entity (literally a parasite on the economy) and ego projects. A large number of successful open source projects (e.g. Netscape/Firefox, OpenOffice, Llama, Inkscape, Blender, Eclipse) are reactionary projects that were started several years after a piece of proprietary software started to become popular, and often copy the UI, features, and workflow of those programs - the literal opposite of innovation.

> Massive volunteer organizations like the internet archive disagree with you

No, they don't. The internet archive does barely any innovation at all - in fact, they perform significantly more theft and copyright infringement than "innovation".

> Food pantries disagree with you

No, they don't. Food pantries are not models of innovation.

> Humans have worked for one another for things besides money since long before money existed, and that very much includes innovation

I never claimed otherwise - but only someone speaking from a position of extreme ignorance would claim that anything except money has been responsible for the vast majority of innovation across all of human history (and especially over the past several hundred years).

> If innovation required financial benefit, we'd have never left our caves.

Strawman argument - I never claimed this. Quite a silly strawman, too.

> Would love a citation on this

Software and genetics are patentable in the US, purely as a result of corrupt regulators - there you go.