No, it encourages a very specific kind of risk assessment. One where those who are ahead are obsessively defensive, risk averse and obsessed with controlling and mitigating any possible risk because they understand that taking the smallest risk could result in an insurmountable setback. Meanwhile those behind aren’t taking reasonable or rational risks, they’re gambling out of desperation. It’s an ecosystem that stifles innovation without external influence.
catering to the desires of the population
Profit, by definition, is the differential between the product/service offered and the payment received. Not even in the most Any Rand reading of capitalism does the producer ‘cater’ to the consumer. The producer manipulates the consumer to their own benefit.
Most other systems do not naturally promote innovation.
Which systems and can you explain why not? Even I can admit capitalism does ‘promote innovation’ via desperate, near suicidal gambles that occasionally work out. That’s such an absurd statement! Even the most conservatist theocratic state naturally promotes innovation in many ways. It’s a matter of degrees, and capitalism is about as close to top of that list as the US is to any metric outside prisons and military.
I’ve seen innovators get some investment and build small businesses. They do this because they think they can create a new product that consumers will want. This is the catering to the public. It’s a risk as they put up their own money, time and effort. It’s not desperate, its a job, but they get to run it. If it works out, they end up with a stake in a worthwhile enterprise and they can get financial rewards. And society ends up with a new product or service. They needed capital investment to get things off the ground, and they had to convince someone with money to make that investment. The person fronting the startup costs gets some financial reward if it works out. So they are motivated to invest in development costs. If the company grows and grows and tries to overcharge, another startup should be able to get some of their business by being more efficient and not as greedy. It can work if the government can enforce rules against anti-competitive behaviors, and regulations about how to treat workers.
No, it encourages a very specific kind of risk assessment. One where those who are ahead are obsessively defensive, risk averse and obsessed with controlling and mitigating any possible risk because they understand that taking the smallest risk could result in an insurmountable setback. Meanwhile those behind aren’t taking reasonable or rational risks, they’re gambling out of desperation. It’s an ecosystem that stifles innovation without external influence.
Profit, by definition, is the differential between the product/service offered and the payment received. Not even in the most Any Rand reading of capitalism does the producer ‘cater’ to the consumer. The producer manipulates the consumer to their own benefit.
Which systems and can you explain why not? Even I can admit capitalism does ‘promote innovation’ via desperate, near suicidal gambles that occasionally work out. That’s such an absurd statement! Even the most conservatist theocratic state naturally promotes innovation in many ways. It’s a matter of degrees, and capitalism is about as close to top of that list as the US is to any metric outside prisons and military.
I’ve seen innovators get some investment and build small businesses. They do this because they think they can create a new product that consumers will want. This is the catering to the public. It’s a risk as they put up their own money, time and effort. It’s not desperate, its a job, but they get to run it. If it works out, they end up with a stake in a worthwhile enterprise and they can get financial rewards. And society ends up with a new product or service. They needed capital investment to get things off the ground, and they had to convince someone with money to make that investment. The person fronting the startup costs gets some financial reward if it works out. So they are motivated to invest in development costs. If the company grows and grows and tries to overcharge, another startup should be able to get some of their business by being more efficient and not as greedy. It can work if the government can enforce rules against anti-competitive behaviors, and regulations about how to treat workers.
It turns out reality is a bit different than the 5th grade textbook you keep regurgitating.
That is an incredibly naïve and reductionist perspective.