Do businesses actually innovate new technologies?

[ksen]

You talk about the industrial revolution and ust say it happened. It happened because of the formation of corporations. They grew hand in hand and the government grew off the backs of industry and corporations.

Corporations have been around since the time of Justinian. Why didn't the industrial revolution happen back then?

Unter hasn't said the IR just happened. He has explicitly said it happened on the foundation of earlier advances during feudalism and the slave era.

You are placing too much importance on what you think government is innovating. It's not innovating much, it provides some funding for health care and it spends a lot of money to get some innovation from the military stuff, but it's more of a drain than a help. We could spend 90% less on military and we would be fine.

It's not innovating much? You can't be serious.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And at that same time government is very dependent on having the corporations established to get the money to do other things. Government has been around since the beginning of time and throughout most of history they weren't very innovative. It wasn't until corporations came into being and capitalism became the dominant economic system that governments did what you say they are doing and spending on welfare.

There was a great deal of innovation under feudalism and slavery.

And that innovation eventually led to the industrial revolution.

And because of the industrial revolution, not capitalism, which is simply a system of legally exploiting and profiting off the labor of others, without caring about the basic needs of those you exploit, further innovation was made possible.

And since the industrial revolution economies have mainly relied on government directed funding, not the private sector, for innovation.

If we were to eliminate government funded innovation the US economy would stagnate, despite the wealth in private hands. The driving force of the US economy is government involvement. Only fools would talk of lessening it.

You talk about the industrial revolution and ust say it happened. It happened because of the formation of corporations. They grew hand in hand and the government grew off the backs of industry and corporations.

You are placing too much importance on what you think government is innovating. It's not innovating much, it provides some funding for health care and it spends a lot of money to get some innovation from the military stuff, but it's more of a drain than a help. We could spend 90% less on military and we would be fine.

The industrial revolution was the result of the accumulation of knowledge that occurred under feudalism and slavery.

It had very little to do with capitalism, or these legal entities called corporations.

Although corporations did exploit this knowledge, just as they exploit everything.

But all you have to do is show me the vibrant modern economy that exists without massive government directed innovation to prove me wrong.

And you are trying to dismiss too quickly the role of the corporations in the rise and cause of the industrial revolution because it doesn't fit your view that corporations could be the driver in the innovation and progress of our economy.

The government getting involved in the welfare system resulted after the rise of corporations. Government got to a point where they could worry about welfare.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Corporations have been around since the time of Justinian. Why didn't the industrial revolution happen back then?

Unter hasn't said the IR just happened. He has explicitly said it happened on the foundation of earlier advances during feudalism and the slave era.

You are placing too much importance on what you think government is innovating. It's not innovating much, it provides some funding for health care and it spends a lot of money to get some innovation from the military stuff, but it's more of a drain than a help. We could spend 90% less on military and we would be fine.

It's not innovating much? You can't be serious.

There was beginning of corporations under Roman time but they didn't go as far as they could have. Then the church took over the running the economy for the next period of time and they were the ones who tried to eliminate some of the issues we bitch about today, such as greed. Corporations then gained traction at the end of the middle ages and grew from there.

in terms of innovation of the government, the answer is yes, they innovate very little and usually when they have come up with something they haven't done anything with it for broader use.

 

[ksen]

Amazing.

 

[untermensche]

And you are trying to dismiss too quickly the role of the corporations in the rise and cause of the industrial revolution because it doesn't fit your view that corporations could be the driver in the innovation and progress of our economy.

The government getting involved in the welfare system resulted after the rise of corporations. Government got to a point where they could worry about welfare.

You confuse correlation with causation. The modern corporation arose after the industrial revolution. It in no way caused it.

The corporation is simply a better and cheaper way to exploit human capital than slavery. Under a corporate system you don't have to feed the slaves, I mean workers, you don't have to clothe them or give them a place to live.

You simply use them up, discard them and replace them.

We see what the corporation gave workers. The sweat shop. A life of daily misery for most, so a few could live in luxury.

It took the government to free workers somewhat from the ravages of private power.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And you are trying to dismiss too quickly the role of the corporations in the rise and cause of the industrial revolution because it doesn't fit your view that corporations could be the driver in the innovation and progress of our economy.

The government getting involved in the welfare system resulted after the rise of corporations. Government got to a point where they could worry about welfare.

You confuse correlation with causation. The modern corporation arose after the industrial revolution. It in no way caused it.

The corporation is simply a better and cheaper way to exploit human capital than slavery. Under a corporate system you don't have to feed the slaves, I mean workers, you don't have to clothe them or give them a place to live.

You simply use them up, discard them and replace them.

We see what the corporation gave workers. The sweat shop. A life of daily misery for most, so a few could live in luxury.

It took the government to free workers somewhat from the ravages of private power.

and before that people weren't spending all the days sipping Mai Tais, living in big mansions, and traveling the world. The sweatshops were a transitory step from the brutish agricultural life to where we are today.

And you are right about correlation does not equal causation, except when it is the cause.

 

[untermensche]

and before that people weren't spending all the days sipping Mai Tais, living in big mansions, and traveling the world. The sweatshops were a transitory step from the brutish agricultural life to where we are today.

And you are right about correlation does not equal causation, except when it is the cause.

Corporations attacked and killed many workers who tried to improve working conditions.

That is private power.

Thankfully we have the government to restrain it.

And only the insane would want to unleash it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

and before that people weren't spending all the days sipping Mai Tais, living in big mansions, and traveling the world. The sweatshops were a transitory step from the brutish agricultural life to where we are today.

And you are right about correlation does not equal causation, except when it is the cause.

Corporations attacked and killed many workers who tried to improve working conditions.

That is private power.

Thankfully we have the government to restrain it.

And only the insane would want to unleash it.

And yes, that was wrong and the government should prosecute the murders. However the complain is over a few people killed by corporations a 100 years ago? Should we compare it to the number of people that have been killed by government sending people to wars or the governments that tried to implement the "worker" friendly economic systems?

 

[ksen]

and before that people weren't spending all the days sipping Mai Tais, living in big mansions, and traveling the world. The sweatshops were a transitory step from the brutish agricultural life to where we are today.

And you are right about correlation does not equal causation, except when it is the cause.

Corporations attacked and killed many workers who tried to improve working conditions.

That is private power.

Thankfully we have the government to restrain it.

And only the insane would want to unleash it.

And yes, that was wrong and the government should prosecute the murders. However the complain is over a few people killed by corporations a 100 years ago?

Corporations are still mistreating and killing workers today. It isn't just a problem of 100 years ago.

Should we compare it to the number of people that have been killed by government sending people to wars

Because wars aren't waged with business interests in mind.

or the governments that tried to implement the "worker" friendly economic systems?

 

[untermensche]

And yes, that was wrong and the government should prosecute the murders. However the complain is over a few people killed by corporations a 100 years ago? Should we compare it to the number of people that have been killed by government sending people to wars or the governments that tried to implement the "worker" friendly economic systems?

The government goes to war mainly at the behest of the military industrial complex (corporations).

What we need to do is reduce the power the MIC has on government. We need to reduce the power corporations have on government.

Not reduce the power of government.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually it can be said that the Industrial Revolution was brought on through military expenditures. England had higher wages, better working conditions and more mobility during the late 1700s due to the build up of the Royal Navy. This build up drove a large portions of skilled workers into industries that supported the Navy which in turn protected international trade and allowed a merchant class to expand, hence expanding the demand for goods as war ravaged on the continent. (Especially during the French Revolution-Napoleonic Era.)

ETA: untermensche beat me to it!

 

[coloradoatheist]

And yes, that was wrong and the government should prosecute the murders. However the complain is over a few people killed by corporations a 100 years ago? Should we compare it to the number of people that have been killed by government sending people to wars or the governments that tried to implement the "worker" friendly economic systems?

The government goes to war mainly at the behest of the military industrial complex (corporations).

What we need to do is reduce the power the MIC has on government. We need to reduce the power corporations have on government.

Not reduce the power of government.

So since the military part of government is just a puppet for corporations and most of the innovations from the government come from the military does that again point corporations as the driver for innovation? And corporations only run the military part but the great benevolent rest of the government isn't?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, at least half the money SpaceX has used has come from government sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding

As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, ...).[26] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.

They took government money for services provided.

NASA laid the groundwork, he's going farther. (Think of the Grasshopper--I don't think anyone's built a rocket of that size that lands that way. That's planned to be extended to the Falcon's first stage to recover the whole booster. Think of how much cheaper it would be not to throw away your rocket.)

You mean like the shuttle program?

The boosters end up in the ocean. The tank burns. The only thing that comes home is the engines and it took major refurbishment between flights.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ignore all the historical inaccuracies.

 

[untermensche]

And yes, that was wrong and the government should prosecute the murders. However the complain is over a few people killed by corporations a 100 years ago? Should we compare it to the number of people that have been killed by government sending people to wars or the governments that tried to implement the "worker" friendly economic systems?

The government goes to war mainly at the behest of the military industrial complex (corporations).

What we need to do is reduce the power the MIC has on government. We need to reduce the power corporations have on government.

Not reduce the power of government.

So since the military part of government is just a puppet for corporations and most of the innovations from the government come from the military does that again point corporations as the driver for innovation? And corporations only run the military part but the great benevolent rest of the government isn't?

When I say government funded innovation it is corporations doing the innovating.

But they are doing it with money given to them by the government, not with money they have earned.

If you remove all the government funding, the innovation also goes away.

- - - Updated - - -

They took government money for services provided.

No. They took money for future services promised.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So since the military part of government is just a puppet for corporations and most of the innovations from the government come from the military does that again point corporations as the driver for innovation? And corporations only run the military part but the great benevolent rest of the government isn't?
When I say government funded innovation it is corporations doing the innovating.

But they are doing it with money given to them by the government, not with money they have earned.

If you remove all the government funding, the innovation also goes away.

Nope, innovation wouldn't go away, it would just change to different things. Might be a lot better than the innovation that goes into coming up with new ways to kill people.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Nope, innovation wouldn't go away, it would just change to different things. Might be a lot better than the innovation that goes into coming up with new ways to kill people.

Not just killing people, but saving lives and all the strategic needs of an effective military.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Nope, innovation wouldn't go away, it would just change to different things. Might be a lot better than the innovation that goes into coming up with new ways to kill people.

Not just killing people, but saving lives and all the strategic needs of an effective military.

I am not the one praising the innovation of government. So is the money we spent on military worth the innovation that we've gotten from it?

 

[ksen]

Nope, innovation wouldn't go away, it would just change to different things.

Probably. We could always use another chia pet or pet rock innovation.

Might be a lot better than the innovation that goes into coming up with new ways to kill people.

Evidence to date suggests private innovation would not be better. (see chia pet and pet rock above)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Probably. We could always use another chia pet or pet rock innovation.

Might be a lot better than the innovation that goes into coming up with new ways to kill people.

Evidence to date suggests private innovation would not be better. (see chia pet and pet rock above)

From the one paper that tried to create a model for competition and innovation? And you couldn't find a tie that even the Chia Pet was some how related to some government innovation?