Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Private capital invests in what it thinks is profitable.  Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.  

Just an example - there's a Lyme disease vaccine out there for humans.  But it's not profitable so it's not being manufactured anymore.  In the mean time, instead of preventing the disease in the first place, it's being treated with antibiotics after the fact.  And we all know what's happening with antibiotics and superbugs.  

Just one example of private property preventing, and actively harming, public health.  

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

Edited by Scott de Montevideo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Private capital invests in what it thinks is profitable.  Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.  

Just an example - there's a Lyme disease vaccine out there for humans.  But it's not profitable so it's not being manufactured anymore.  In the mean time, instead of preventing the disease in the first place, it's being treated with antibiotics after the fact.  And we all know what's happening with antibiotics and superbugs.  

Just one example of private property preventing, and actively harming, public health.  

And think about the possibilities if carbon capture was profitable... Billions may not have to suffer from climate change.

But, hey, that would be "socialist" or something, and thus evil.

2 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you create only on source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

Fair enough. Might as well take the best of both worlds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Imagine the innovation that could occur if an idea was pursued on quality alone.

And you really think that Bureaucrat John Doe of the Central Agency for Idea Evaluation can and will objectively determine the quality of an idea? Oh dear, let's hope he follows the standard protocol for assessing out-of-the-box thinking. Otherwise Mr. Edison will never get get his idea government approved.

Edited by Alarich II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

My point is simply that innovation and capitalism don't go hand in hand, and that people aren't motivated soley by the dollar, and a system where profit is the metric of 'good' is necessarily limiting.  

A lot of corporate innovation happens on the government's dime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The State can do that without having to restrict private individuals and groups doing the same thing.  If you allow only one source for capital the bottleneck itself will be a huge problem and that alone will stifle innovation.

Using the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital sounds great.  Making it the only source, is nuts.

In many cases, it may be possible to say that some products are objectively useful or more useful than others.

In other cases, not so much. People often want what they want. Are Vanilla Ice Albums more useful than Justin Bieber Records? I have no idea, though some might have strong opinions about this matter. But if people buy more Justin Bieber Records, then seemingly they find them more useful. We just don’t know until people buy them.

Perhaps, the easiest way, to resolve this matter is just have companies fork over a certain amount of their common stock to the government. This would partially bring about the socialization of capital (at least partially), while leaving market systems in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

And you really think that Bureaucrat John Doe of the Central Agency for Idea Evaluation can and will objectively determine the quality of an idea? Oh dear, let's hope he follows the standard protocol for assessing out-of-the-box thinking. Otherwise Mr. Edison will never get get his idea government approved.

Lol way to completely miss the point.  Private capital isn't some magic wand that brings all good ideas to fruition.  I gave an example that demonstrates this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

My point is simply that innovation and capitalism don't go hand in hand, and that people aren't motivated soley by the dollar, and a system where profit is the metric of 'good' is necessarily limiting.  

A lot of corporate innovation happens on the government's dime.  

I understand your point.  My point is that making the State the only source for capital is hugely problematic.  Not that using the State as a non-profit driven source for capital isn’t a good idea.  Command economies with the State in sole control of capital have been demonstrated to be lumbering dinosaurs.

Hence my objection to Felice’s desire to make the State the only source for Venture capital.

 

Edited by Scott de Montevideo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In many cases, it may be possible to say that some products are objectively useful or more useful than others.

In other cases, not so much. People often want what they want. Are Vanilla Ice Albums more useful than Justin Bieber Records? I have no idea, though some might have strong opinions about this matter. But if people buy more Justin Bieber Records, then seemingly they find them more useful. We just don’t know until people buy them.

Perhaps, the easiest way, to resolve this matter is just have companies fork over a certain amount of their common stock to the government. This would partially bring about the socialization of capital (at least partially), while leaving market systems in place.

I think having the State as a non-profit driven alternative to private venture capital makes a great deal of sense.  However you and I both know that if it is the exclusive source of capital that will go very poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Lol way to completely miss the point.  Private capital isn't some magic wand that brings all good ideas to fruition.  I gave an example that demonstrates this

Lol way to completely miss the point.  State capital isn't some magic wand that brings all good ideas to fruition.  I gave an example that demonstrates this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Lol way to completely miss the point.  State capital isn't some magic wand that brings all good ideas to fruition.  I gave an example that demonstrates this

Actually you gave a hypothetical caricature of how you imagine state controlled capital used for innovation would work.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Actually you gave a hypothetical caricature of how you imagine state controlled capital used for innovation would work.  

 

What bureaucracy is noted for its fostering of creativity?  It is not that it’s impossible just unusual.  Hence, my objection to making government the only source for venture capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Actually you gave a hypothetical caricature of how you imagine state controlled capital used for innovation would work.

Actually it doesn't take much imagination to see that creating a bottleneck, where a central administration becomes the only gatekeeper for innovation, will keep out many good ideas. Because bureaucrats have to evaluate (potentially revolutionary) ideas or inventions and allocate appropriate funds follwing standardized administrative procedures (remember: you are not allowed to have or spend private capital on your idea). 

You think, I made a caricature of that process? I didn't, this is pretty much precisely the process how it will happen. Fill out an application, fill out the right boxes, meet the criteria, hope there's money left in the big pot. Wait for the administrative decision. Maybe challenge it in court. Administrations have to follow standardized procedures whose outcome can be challenged in court, especially if at the end of the administrative procedure stands a decision on wether individual A will get money or not. Maybe it's different in the US and you have a super creative and flexible administration that just hands out the money to creative entrepreneur personalities to see what happens. Not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

What bureaucracy is noted for its fostering of creativity?  It is not that it’s impossible just unusual.  Hence, my objection to making government the only source for venture capital.

NASA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

What bureaucracy is noted for its fostering of creativity?  It is not that it’s impossible just unusual.  Hence, my objection to making government the only source for venture capital.

Also, the military.  Granted, it's all for a single purpose, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any place on the planet looking for more innovative ways to kill people.

Edited by aceluby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

See my response in the economics thread.

The government helped create how we’re all chatting with one another right now.  

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

What bureaucracy is noted for its fostering of creativity?  It is not that it’s impossible just unusual.  Hence, my objection to making government the only source for venture capital.

Look back to European film in the 50s 60s 70s most of it was state supported and this government fostering resulted in a flourishing of creativity and innovation that changed the entire sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×