Capitalism Hinders Innovation

[Dans La Lune]

The incentive structure of capitalism requires that all innovation be profit-driven, rather than aimed producing the most effective, most efficient, or best product. In healthcare, it means focusing on medicine that can generate the most profit, often (always?) at the expense and detriment of the patient. Ailments that do not generate a profit are either overlooked, or for the people that suffer for them, the medicine is jacked up to astronomical proportions to cover the more limited market. Meanwhile the vast majority of medical innovation and research is publicly funded -- which makes the ethics and morality of for-profit medicine highly suspect. Just look at some of the stories surrounding Joe Manchin's family.

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

If profit is the motivation behind innovation in a capitalist economy, what incentive is there to actually create better products / medicine / energy extraction technology -- especially if innovation changes the profit structure?

 

[Helix]

The profit motive can inhibit antibiotic discovery. We'd be better off developing and manufacturing them publicly while there's still time, IMO.

Why big pharma has abandoned antibiotics

A lack of financial incentive has meant large pharmaceutical companies have left the market

www.nature.com

A buck doesn't matter if you're too preventably dead to spend it.

 

[dmpi]

The "most effective, most efficient, or best product" is highly subjective and it's value can only be defined by what others are willing to pay for it. Yes, today's modern appliances have shorter lifespan than what was available thirty years ago. But adjusted for inflation they're actually cheaper now. And new appliances incorporate new goverment mandated safety, environmental, and eficiency requirements. Also new appliances generally run without maintenance while older ones expected the user to service them periodically.

 

[gdgyva]

The incentive structure of capitalism requires that all innovation be profit-driven, rather than aimed producing the most effective, most efficient, or best product. In healthcare, it means focusing on medicine that can generate the most profit, often (always?) at the expense and detriment of the patient. Ailments that do not generate a profit are either overlooked, or for the people that suffer for them, the medicine is jacked up to astronomical proportions to cover the more limited market. Meanwhile the vast majority of medical innovation and research is publicly funded -- which makes the ethics and morality of for-profit medicine highly suspect. Just look at some of the stories surrounding Joe Manchin's family.

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

If profit is the motivation behind innovation in a capitalist economy, what incentive is there to actually create better products / medicine / energy extraction technology -- especially if innovation changes the profit structure?

Dunno

Maybe you should ask the people in these companies

https://www.fastcompany.com/90731853/the-most-innovative-products-of-2022

Building the proverbial better mousetrap has always been the way to a consumers heart, and to wealth

But if you want even more proof that your whole OP is wrong

Take a look at the number of patents generated by the USA versus the rest if the world in say medical technology over the last 40 years
In robotics, lasers, and so many others

It isnt even close in the numbers

 

[Fishking]

The incentive structure of capitalism requires that all innovation be profit-driven, rather than aimed producing the most effective, most efficient, or best product. In healthcare, it means focusing on medicine that can generate the most profit, often (always?) at the expense and detriment of the patient. Ailments that do not generate a profit are either overlooked, or for the people that suffer for them, the medicine is jacked up to astronomical proportions to cover the more limited market. Meanwhile the vast majority of medical innovation and research is publicly funded -- which makes the ethics and morality of for-profit medicine highly suspect. Just look at some of the stories surrounding Joe Manchin's family.

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

If profit is the motivation behind innovation in a capitalist economy, what incentive is there to actually create better products / medicine / energy extraction technology -- especially if innovation changes the profit structure?

The thing responsible for the most innovative in human history is somehow responsible for hindering it? Weird theory.

 

[Jacksprat]

Many universities get huge US government funding for scientific research. It would seem science is not based on the capitalist model.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The thing responsible for the most innovative in human history is somehow responsible for hindering it? Weird theory.

Such as what? Lets compare our lists.

 

[Fishking]

Such as what? Lets compare our lists.

Every modern piece of equipment

 

[Dans La Lune]

Every modern piece of equipment

Give me specifics about the GREATEST innovations of capitalism.

 

[Fishking]

Give me specifics about the GREATEST innovations of capitalism.

You're posting on it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

You're posting on it.

DebatePolitics? The internet wasn't a capitalist invention, just FYI. And the code is open source.

 

[aociswundumho]

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

Yes, because those appliances were unregulated in the past. Today appliance manufacturers have to build appliances the way the filthy government wants, instead of what the consumer wants. The increased complexity to comply with all of the mandates and regulations is what is ruining the appliance market.

Appliance Regulations Are Bringing Back Dirt, Filth, and Disease – The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

Low-flow toilets cause a stink in SF

Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes,...

www.sfgate.com

Sam Kazman: How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

In The Wall Street Journal, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes that the top-loading washer continues to disappear, thanks to the usual nanny state suspects.

www.wsj.com

Lawsuit aims to cleanse federal regulations hampering washing machines, dishwashers

(The Center Square) – Twelve attorneys general filed an opening brief Friday in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for changes made this year to energy and

www.thecentersquare.com

What Has Government Done to Our Bathrooms?

The net effect of all of this has been to ruin our bathrooms. You might not realize it because the change has been slow, extending over 25 years. Only by encountering a bathroom with original fixtures from the 1940s can you perceive the full horror of what has happened. Our showers are lame, our...

www.aier.org

And there is no end in sight:

Opinion | A Regulatory Burden for Every Room of Your House

The Biden administration moves to make appliances more expensive and less effective.

www.wsj.com

 

[Dans La Lune]

Yes, because those appliances were unregulated in the past. Today appliance manufacturers have to build appliances the way the filthy government wants, instead of what the consumer wants. The increased complexity to comply with all of the mandates and regulations is what is ruining the appliance market.

Which laws require products to break down faster?

 

[Juks]

The thing responsible for the most innovative in human history is somehow responsible for hindering it? Weird theory.

Where did you get that from?

I would say that the thing responsible for the most innovative times in human history is democracy and better equal opportunaties.

Edit: and Sweden, one of the most innovative countries in the world, can thank socialism for it. I predict it is soon to change...

 

[Fishking]

DebatePolitics? The internet wasn't a capitalist invention, just FYI. And the code is open source.

DebatePolitics, your phone, computer, the internet what it is today, driving in a car, living with electricity, eating goods produced via modern farm equipment and shipped by trains or truck, ect, ect, ect.

 

[Fishking]

Where did you get that from?

I would say that the thing responsible for the most innovative times in human history is democracy and better equal opportunaties.

Edit: and Sweden, one of the most innovative countries in the world, can thank socialism for it. I predict it is soon to change...

Capitalism is essential for a democratic and free society.

 

[aociswundumho]

Which laws require products to break down faster?

None, but the increase in complexity that government regulation imposes reduces reliability. We see the same thing in the auto industry caused by CAFE regulations, which force manufacturers to come up with complicated ways to comply with the idiotic regulations, i.e. AFM, stop/start, etc, and AFM in particular was so bad there's a class action lawsuit:

General Motors Engine Valve Lifter- Class Action Lawsuit - My Lemon

Learn about General Motors Engine Valve-Lifter Class Action Lawsuit & how you can get a refund, or a new car or truck.

www.mylemon.com

It's a terrible technology that would not exist if not for idiotic government regulation.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The incentive structure of capitalism requires that all innovation be profit-driven, rather than aimed producing the most effective, most efficient, or best product. In healthcare, it means focusing on medicine that can generate the most profit, often (always?) at the expense and detriment of the patient. Ailments that do not generate a profit are either overlooked, or for the people that suffer for them, the medicine is jacked up to astronomical proportions to cover the more limited market. Meanwhile the vast majority of medical innovation and research is publicly funded -- which makes the ethics and morality of for-profit medicine highly suspect. Just look at some of the stories surrounding Joe Manchin's family.

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

If profit is the motivation behind innovation in a capitalist economy, what incentive is there to actually create better products / medicine / energy extraction technology -- especially if innovation changes the profit structure?

Newer and better products will outsell the old.

 

[Juks]

Capitalism is essential for a democratic and free society.

No it is not

 

[Dans La Lune]

DebatePolitics, your phone, computer, the internet what it is today

Phones and computers are commercialized. The technology existed, and with regard to smart phones, they run on microprocessors. Those are not capitalist inventions.

, driving in a car, living with electricity

Again, commercialized does not mean invented or innovated by. Battery capacity, for example, has been hindered by capitalism -- because a more efficient battery would result in less commercialization.

, eating goods produced via modern farm equipment and shipped by trains or truck, ect, ect, ect.

Capitalism rewards farmers for destroying crops that could otherwise be donated to the poor. It's cheaper to destroy them and manage the commercial supply.

That seems... uh... morally suspect, wasteful, and ridiculously lacking in innovation.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Newer and better products will outsell the old.

Newer does not mean better. It just means newer.

The fact that it's more cost effect to mass destroy products to keep the supply chain limited should tell you something.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No it is not

The freedom he speaks of is an illusion. In the current system, you don't have the freedom to pursue your interests. The ability to expand your knowledge and add something meaningful to the world (in your short life) is a luxury. How many innovative geniuses are stuck working a minimum wage job in order to (barely) stave off a worse form of poverty? Contrary to popular belief, geniuses to not automatically (if ever) rise to the top of capitalism.

Vast swaths of Americans are angry, but they don't have the time or resources to properly identify the source of their anger (thus its directed at 'The Other'). They just know that they work, they struggle, and ultimately get nowhere in life before they croak.

 

[Dans La Lune]

None, but the increase in complexity that government regulation imposes reduces reliability.

I call total BS. Complexity is designed for people without the resources to navigate it. The complexity of the tax code, for example, does not hinter the ability for ultra billionaires to accrue the greatest wealth in American history. Funny how complexity in laws only matter when it gets in the way of profit.

Try not to cite libertarian sources, please. They don't believe in any regulations, not even with regard to clean food and water.

Here's what a lack of regulation produces in capitalism.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Capitalism may hinder innovation, but it does so less than all the alternatives. Did the Soviet Union produce any non-military product that wasn’t a piece of shit?

 

[Antiwar]

The incentive structure of capitalism requires that all innovation be profit-driven, rather than aimed producing the most effective, most efficient, or best product. In healthcare, it means focusing on medicine that can generate the most profit, often (always?) at the expense and detriment of the patient. Ailments that do not generate a profit are either overlooked, or for the people that suffer for them, the medicine is jacked up to astronomical proportions to cover the more limited market. Meanwhile the vast majority of medical innovation and research is publicly funded -- which makes the ethics and morality of for-profit medicine highly suspect. Just look at some of the stories surrounding Joe Manchin's family.

Do you notice that appliances tend to break down more than they have in the past? That's by design, either through increased cost cutting in the manufacturing, or specifically to get you to replace those appliances. A good percentage of those products are simply destroyed, because it's more profitable to do so.

Green energy could transform this planet, even by capitalist metrics, but in the short term its cheaper (and thus more lucrative for the existing corporate infrastructure) to utilize fossil fuels -- even though the costs are absorbed by (and from) the public, not to mention the planet.

If profit is the motivation behind innovation in a capitalist economy, what incentive is there to actually create better products / medicine / energy extraction technology -- especially if innovation changes the profit structure?

How would a more socialist mixed economy change industrialism so that it doesn't further degrade what's left of Earth's ecosystems?