What are the positive and negative qualities of a capitalistic model?

[Emily Lake]

Airplane

This was one idea that was totally taken over by the government and advanced.

So what? There are many items on the "government funded" list that were totally taken over by the private sector and advanced:
The internet
optical digital storage
flourescent lighting
communication satellites
digital communications
heart monitors
wifi
infant formula
microchip
50,000+ mile tires
touchscreens

What exactly is your point supposed to be?

 

[untermensche]

This was one idea that was totally taken over by the government and advanced.

So what? There are many items on the "government funded" list that were totally taken over by the private sector and advanced:
The internet
optical digital storage
flourescent lighting
communication satellites
digital communications
heart monitors
wifi
infant formula
microchip
50,000+ mile tires
touchscreens

What exactly is your point supposed to be?

Government spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, either through innovation or advancement of innovation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Government spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, either through innovation or advancement of innovation.

I think one could just as easily argue that private spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, by funding innovation and by advancing innovation for consumers.

 

[untermensche]

Government spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, either through innovation or advancement of innovation.

I think one could just as easily argue that private spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, by funding innovation and by advancing innovation for consumers.

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research?

Things like computers and cell phones.

And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world.

Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

 

[Jayjay]

I think one could just as easily argue that private spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, by funding innovation and by advancing innovation for consumers.

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research?

Things like computers and cell phones.

And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world.

Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

Advertising.

Then again that's one fo the most useless parts of the economy and is hardly productive. But the thing is that government touches everything: every scientific or technological discovery was probably at some point or for some part supported by government grants or research programs. The military has spent crazy amounts of money on all sorts of things, some of which turned out commercially viable and some of which were complete rubbish. It's very difficult to think of things that showed up completely independent of any government influence, just like it's hard to find things that have no input from private sector at all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research? Things like computers and cell phones. And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world. Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

Retail.

 

[untermensche]

Advertising.

Many aspects of modern advertising in the US began as propaganda to get Americans to support WWI.

This was a government supported enterprise.

A lot of research into changing and influencing people's perceptions and choices was done.

 

[untermensche]

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research? Things like computers and cell phones. And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world. Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

Retail.

That is not a technology.

It is a buying and selling strategy.

 

[Jayjay]

Advertising.

Many aspects of modern advertising in the US began as propaganda to get Americans to support WWI.

This was a government supported enterprise.

A lot of research into changing and influencing people's perceptions and choices was done.

I doubt that, but this is exactly what I meant: you can pretty much always find some government connection, simply because government does and funds a lot of things. If you dig deep enough you can probably always find some government-funded research or a project behind every invention. As a thought experiment, can you point out any part of economy that exists solely because of government and has no private sector involvement whatsoever?

 

[untermensche]

Many aspects of modern advertising in the US began as propaganda to get Americans to support WWI.

This was a government supported enterprise.

A lot of research into changing and influencing people's perceptions and choices was done.

I doubt that, but this is exactly what I meant: you can pretty much always find some government connection, simply because government does and funds a lot of things. If you dig deep enough you can probably always find some government-funded research or a project behind every invention. As a thought experiment, can you point out any part of economy that exists solely because of government and has no private sector involvement whatsoever?

Your doubts flow from your imagination and prejudices.

Government spending is an essential element of any successful modern economy.

Point to one successful modern economy that doesn't have a reliance on government spending.

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think one could just as easily argue that private spending is the essential engine that drives the economy, by funding innovation and by advancing innovation for consumers.

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research?

Things like computers and cell phones.

And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world.

Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

I provided you with an entire list of things that were invented and pioneered by private individuals, not by government investment.

The problem is that you're relegating all things to the government. If the government did initial work, but the private sector took it over and ran with it, then you allocate it to the government (the internet). If the private sector did the intial work, but the government touched subsequent work, and helped advance it further, then you allocate it to the government (airplanes). So by your logic, if the government touches it in any fashion at all, regardless of how large or small an influence they have, then it gets allocated to the government side.

But this is hardly fair. The question was around innovation. I proposed that capitalism was better at allowing for innovation for a larger variety of things. I specifically said that the government mostly invests in military applications, but that the private sector is more willing to invest in other fields for invention and innovation. The fact that the government might recognize a good thing after it's been developed is irrelevant to my point.

 

[untermensche]

When we can point to major technology that only exists because of government spending in basic research?

Things like computers and cell phones.

And all the weapons US manufacturers sell to the world.

Show me the major part of the economy that exists solely because of private spending?

I provided you with an entire list of things that were invented and pioneered by private individuals, not by government investment.

The problem is that you're relegating all things to the government. If the government did initial work, but the private sector took it over and ran with it, then you allocate it to the government (the internet). If the private sector did the intial work, but the government touched subsequent work, and helped advance it further, then you allocate it to the government (airplanes). So by your logic, if the government touches it in any fashion at all, regardless of how large or small an influence they have, then it gets allocated to the government side.

But this is hardly fair. The question was around innovation. I proposed that capitalism was better at allowing for innovation for a larger variety of things. I specifically said that the government mostly invests in military applications, but that the private sector is more willing to invest in other fields for invention and innovation. The fact that the government might recognize a good thing after it's been developed is irrelevant to my point.

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

I honestly don't know what you mean here. Capitalist economies aren't anarchistic structures, untermensche. They still have governments, so there will still be government spending. As far as requiring evidence that capitalism can work without massive government investment, you'll need a more specific question than that. Investment in what?

 

[Jayjay]

I doubt that, but this is exactly what I meant: you can pretty much always find some government connection, simply because government does and funds a lot of things. If you dig deep enough you can probably always find some government-funded research or a project behind every invention. As a thought experiment, can you point out any part of economy that exists solely because of government and has no private sector involvement whatsoever?

Your doubts flow from your imagination and prejudices.

No, my doubt stems from the fact that I don't believe that government was involved in any meaningful way in creating the one specific industry which I was talking about: Advertising.

Government spending is an essential element of any successful modern economy.

Point to one successful modern economy that doesn't have a reliance on government spending.

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

I'll say it again: Advertising. Just because government spends some money on advertising compaigns, doesn't mean that it supports the entire industry. The private money that is spent on advertising dwarfs what the government is spending.

 

[untermensche]

Your doubts flow from your imagination and prejudices.

No, my doubt stems from the fact that I don't believe that government was involved in any meaningful way in creating the one specific industry which I was talking about: Advertising.

Government spending is an essential element of any successful modern economy.

Point to one successful modern economy that doesn't have a reliance on government spending.

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

I'll say it again: Advertising. Just because government spends some money on advertising compaigns, doesn't mean that it supports the entire industry. The private money that is spent on advertising campaigns dwarfs what the government is spending.

First of all the Advertising industry is a plague we would be better without. It distorts markets and makes them less rational.

Committee on Public Information

Creel urged Wilson to create a government agency to coordinate "not propaganda as the Germans defined it, but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the 'propagation of faith.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information

 

[Emily Lake]

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

Television

 

[untermensche]

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

I honestly don't know what you mean here. Capitalist economies aren't anarchistic structures, untermensche. They still have governments, so there will still be government spending. As far as requiring evidence that capitalism can work without massive government investment, you'll need a more specific question than that. Investment in what?

Alright. I suppose it is unfair to ask about things that don't exist.

Like a successful capitalist economy that didn't have massive government investment in that economy.

In other words a successful capitalist economy that just relied upon capitalism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Like a successful capitalist economy that didn't have massive government investment in that economy.

What massive government investment in the economy do you think got the US off the ground?

 

[untermensche]

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

Television

It isn't an emerging technology.

But the government enables it by maintaining satellites.

 

[untermensche]

Like a successful capitalist economy that didn't have massive government investment in that economy.

What massive government investment in the economy do you think got the US off the ground?

What got the US started was slavery and other forms of servitude.

That is the crucial labor that enables the US to grow.