Can we stop min /max for profit and start min/max for kindness
“breeds” should be read as “fucks” and then it makes sense
Leeches off of
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).
At one point, when I was a baby still in my mother’s womb, I had cells in between my fingers. Had I been born like that, I would have had webbed fingers. I sometimes feel sorry for those cells: they were instructed to undergo controlled cell death so that I could have fingers. I’m glad that cells can’t think l, but even still, I wish that I could explain, to these cells that I never knew as my own, that their sacrifice was worthwhile, because they died in service to me, an organism far more complex than any cell or tissue could be alone.
I’m glad that these cells can’t feel (at least in a way that I can understand), because I know that my explanation would not be enough for them: I know this because for most of my life, I have understood that people like us are acceptable sacrifices on the altar on the free market., and that feels terrible. I rage at being told that my suffering is worth it, for the Greater Good, because that posits that our lives aren’t considered to be Good enough to be worth acknowledging beyond our instrumental value.
When I think about the cells that used to exist between my fingers, there’s a silly part of me that even feels guilty that they couldn’t consent to the whole ordeal, but I suppose my compassion for them is part of that “greater good” they died for. I know that the free market feels no such guilt at throwing humans into the meat grinder, because it is closer to being a clump of mindless, cancerous cells than it is to a person. And yet, as you say, we’re supposed to celebrate “innovations” — to celebrate ever more rapid “growth” that comes at the expense of people’s lives? It’s disgusting.
A different way to think of this is that capitalism is simply society optimizing for the wrong value.
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.
the latest innovations are always in money making
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.
The way I see it, innovation is a product like anything else in the context of capitalism.
Sam Altman wanted openAI to be non profit in its innovation but this was incompatible with capitalism that identifies it as a product with value.
So basically capitalism tries to find monetary value in anything so it can be sold because the ultimate goal is money.
Innovation is a byproduct of capitalism searching for new things to sell.
(Disclaimer : I understand Sam Altman probably never genuinely wanted to innovate for free, this is just a posture)
Innovation is a byproduct of capitalism searching for new things to sell.
That’s the BEST case scenario. Much more often, the “innovation” consists of taking something that already exists and making it worse by all other metrics in order to make it more profitable.
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.
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.
dotworld moment
how could you say that when capitalism literally fucked innovation into existence?
And now American private equities are buying all the hospital chains in India… Now they’re exporting innovation abroad too
It’s not so much capitalism that breeds innovation, but competition. If there’s no competition, where’s the incentive for companies to innovate or improve in any way?
Take the private water companies in the UK as an example. You can’t choose a different provider, and the service they provide has been getting steadily worse over the years, to the point where they don’t improve infrastructure and we end up with Victorian pipelines pumping sewage into our rivers and seas. But nobody can change provider unless you move to a different part of the country, so there’s no incentive for the companies to improve anything.
If there’s no competition, where’s the incentive for companies to innovate or improve in any way?
What if instead of competing we were cooperating towards a shared goal?
If we were to cooperate then everyone should co-own it. Which means it should be a public utility owned by us ie the government.
The one problem with that is a thing called human nature.
Humans famously incapable of working in large numbers towards a common goal.
So the amount of competition is the exact same as when it was run by the government like crucial infrastructure is supposed to, but the quality is the same or worse?
Sounds about capitalistic…
It’s almost like basic utilities should be provided by government to all citizens.
“Innovation” is just the buzzword for the practice of figuring out how to extract more money from the paupers while delivering less. They have to invent new ways of scamming you, so the profit goes up.
New government regulation causes companies to adapt or die, so I guess the post is right, competition against the government breeds innovation.
New government regulation causes companies to adapt or die
I curse the day some scumbag ruined everything by adding the third option “regulatory capture” 🤬😮💨
Yep they adapted alright
That is how capitalism breeds innovation.
Thank you for transcribing the image