they started at least in the hippiescene. of course the hippies arent there anymore as they existed in the old days. Still the first networkprotocols were written by hippies. And think of all the open source technology written by idealists.

as a matter of fact, not "enterpreneurs" invented the internettechnolgy we are just using today. that is just silly capitalistic mystic.

Some might not say the Juicero is the pinnacle of inventions but it is and I'll fight anyone who says different.

todays silicon valley hasnt anything todo with those hippie grandfathers as black peter pointed out. still there was a time where a socialist friendly group, as the hippies were, made inventions just out of curiousity and not so much for profit.

1. Spew, what are you trying to get at by pointing out some "hippies" invented a few things?

2. Are you trying to suggest socialism will produce the same amount of innovation that would occur under capitalism?

3. Technology wise what year would we be living in today if the whole world was socialist and always was? What about if the whole world was capitalistic and always was?

I am looking for something like you filling in the blank:
If every country was socialist and capitalism was never invented, today we would have the same technology we had in _____.
If every country was capitalistic and socialism was never invented, today we would have technology from the year _____.
(Please explain why you think what you wrote if your first answer is greater than 1985 and the second answer is less 2017.)

That it is not always nessesary or possible that "profit" is the driving force behind any invention.

cant say that. i think the inventions that socialism will make are obviously not dictated by the market. So i guess the inventions of socialism will be more long-term things, while capitalist inventions are direct responses to the market, and therfor mostly shortterm.

First question: i dont know
Second question: i think of capitalism existing for about 250 years. It needed democracy to ensure the private property of the capitalist against greedy kings you know :-). Of course market interaction was always important, the silk road produced alot of culture around its wealth and prosperity, till the discovery of the America. Still, the organized production for profit needed manufactory to really function the way it does today. Because without his factory the capitalist cant make profit from other peoples labour that much.

no idea sorry. thats way to big of a guess, im not competent enough to make it and im afraid nobody is.

ok.
i give you one non-hippie example.

If you want immidiate profit from any invention, do you really think higher mathematics would ever be invented?

There are several examples in mathematics that had no use for decades, like matrices, which are now used almost everywhere.

Science needs the freedom to play around, it cant guarantee immidiate profit, in fact, big inventions often need decades to work.

Capitalists would stop pumping money in all these big inventions, and i can assure you, we would live in a much less developed world if capitalists dictate where the research funds are going

So ummm, degree from MIT all of a sudden worthless in a capitalist system? And there would be no Linux, or C programming language? Makes no sense to me.

Without the profit seeking, it would never have gotten anywhere near what it is today. Every packet of data, along every step of the way, passing through every machine along the way, is generating profit for a myriad of companies that your hippies have no involvement in.

It's amazing how blind some people are to the reality of the world.

Scientists get the freedom to play around because companies or individuals pay them to do to just that. Do you want a system where the govt just pays random people to sit around, smoke weed, and think up clever ideas? Don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of smoking weed, but i do mine after hours. lol

The reality is that capitalists DO dictate where the research funds go in the vast majority of cases, including NIH, NSF, etc. You just don't get how the system works. You can't even have a fraction of those grant monies without a successful capitalistic system providing the $$.

open source exist, because there are people out there that dont believe in capitalism. You think a capitalist is writing down 1 line of code without getting paid for it?

that doesnt change the fact, that "my" hippies began that stuff without hopeing to be the boss of a big company.

If you watch the history of silicon valley, you can clearly see that the invention of the transistor was based on some scientists who wanted to do science in the first place.
In fact, the original team got destroyed soon after getting the Nobel Prize, because the leader tried to manage those scientists like a company and those scientists didnt want to act like they their employee of a friggin company.

A clear example where capitalism did harm to research.

what im trying to tell you, is that profit driven companys are unable to do scientific research, unless the result is immidiate profit. Companys should never be allowed to dictate an university what it should do. Unfortunatly, our politicans are just allowing them to do so atm.

Scientific research needs free room, and even if that results in weed in some cases, it might still be worth it.

Example: Medical research which is profit based is much more likely to be fraud, as the researcher might fudge data just to get the pills on the market. And if someone gets hurt, they have enough money to win the trial, so whatever.

No. No. No.

The state should fund researchers and keep the capitalists out. That is how a sane system works.

And the US worked like that befor the 80s fwiw. At the 80s with the decline of the soviets capitalists began a huge march of victory with privatisation and all that mess. The result is the world we live in today and all its problems.

Companys ruin the impartiality of scientific research and replace it with money and power. As long as noone can sue them (and noone can) they are fine.

Of course there are some out there. Nobody denies that, but you're making out like tech would be the same under pure socialism. That's beyond silly.


The foundations of the internet were not built by hippies. They were built by capitalists and the military. Along the way, there were a few hippies who played in the sandbox and did some good things. That is all.

Somebody still provided them with money and food. Free **** is never free.

No one is claiming that capitalism is without harm.

This is why i support strong regulations and very long prison sentences for white collar crimes.



There is no such thing as the "state" and it doesn't have any money. What you're really saying is that the people around the scientists should give them their money so the scientists can do what they want without any accountability. Meanwhile, the people who are expected to donate this money need to keep doing necessary things in order to keep the money flowing. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.

You really have no understanding of how this all works at the basic level. Like other kids, you seem to think that money grows on trees and that a magical "government" will take care of all your needs somehow... it's like religion... smh

You should read up on the history of computing.

i never said the same. i think capitalism isnt nessesary for progress/inventions and i think that this is a pretty reasonable statement.

you forget the huge impact of the universities. In the beginning of the internet capitalist influence wasnt that big btw.

Still i think you underestimate the creativity of the amateurscene. Thinking that companys or the military did the majority of the inventions is just a ridicioulus statement.

The military might funded alot of research though.

yes, thats why the state should spend alot of money into research

actually i think it is wiser to spend all (or at least some of) the money going into US-military into research instead.

I think there are alot more harmful things that our governemnt is spending money on than some lazy scientists.

And spending money in research is always a longterm investment, which will pay out to your grand children, while some stupid people playing soldiers will leave nothing behind for the next generation.

investing into war is a dangerous buisness and we shouldnt follow this path in the age of nuclear wepons.

im pretty sure that the first LAN protocol was done by amateurs.

Computer networking started in the 50s.

If capitalism never existed we would be about in the year 1850. If people who could score 750 or higher on the math SAT never existed we would be about in the year 1700.




BC

It's not as though Silicon Valley is in Cuba where you are free from the profit motive, lolololol.

standarized protocols where developed later though. Just searched the internet to backup my claim, didnt find evidence. Didnt find evidence for the opposite either though.

The internet is an innovation of older technologies. Not an invention.

The whole computing world stuff itt is atrocious from both sides.

You have leaves either a lolbertarian or ACist shouting from the rooftops that "WITHOUT CAPITALISM THERE WOULD BE NO COMPUTARZZZ LOLOL" When in fact the computing world received a buttload of public funds in the beginning. Which he opposes.

This is a dumb statement. SAT scores are a reflection of memorization. You're smart enough to know inventions and innovations require other brain activities than that.

Don't you think [a form of] capitalism led to the procurement of the public funds available to give put in grants? It's the same for the renaissance, where rich merchants had disposable income to give artists, etc. The money must come from somewhere.

My statement is a reflection of people who lap up the laissez-faire crap, not the Keynesian-esque strain of capitalism.

Ok, cool.

So you admit you have no actual point to make. Typical.

I actually made a point. You're just not apt enough to have seen it per usual. Go back to shouting about how capitalism is so great and taxes are theft (like you did for many years) while using an example of a mixture of the two.

Troll on partney. Yippie kayay yeah.

I mean I know you can't help but to over simplify what I have said or what I have to say, but it's because you are very simple overall, and have very simple things to say about what you think other people are saying. To point out your illogic is like pointing out that the sky is blue.