Autonomous Truck Completes driverless run

[Madner Kami]

And how many other developments has it "stifled" because they looked like they wouldn't pay off, because there probably wouldn't be any real use for them? How do you avoid wasting resources developing medicines that won't do many people much good? Sometimes you'll get it wrong - no system is perfect, no system has a crystal ball, but that's not a good argument against capitalism.

We do, however, need to avoid going to extremes - yet again. 100% commercially-driven interests alone - not good. The increasing commercialisation of academia concerns me.

And that's where government-control comes into it. It's not a failure of capitalism when people starve right next to rich people. It's not the failure of capitalism if medicine or treatment isn't developed because it's not profitable. The economic system is doing exactly what it's meant to do: Funnel money to where it creates more money. It's the failure of the government (and society not putting enough pressure to it) to not skim off the top to raise the bottom-line. It works for Europe.

[Riedquat]

And how many other developments has it "stifled" because they looked like they wouldn't pay off, because there probably wouldn't be any real use for them? How do you avoid wasting resources developing medicines that won't do many people much good? Sometimes you'll get it wrong - no system is perfect, no system has a crystal ball, but that's not a good argument against capitalism.

We do, however, need to avoid going to extremes - yet again. 100% commercially-driven interests alone - not good. The increasing commercialisation of academia concerns me.

And that's where government-control comes into it. It's not a failure of capitalism when people starve right next to rich people. It's not the failure of capitalism if medicine or treatment isn't developed because it's not profitable. The economic system is doing exactly what it's meant to do: Funnel money to where it creates more money. It's the failure of the government (and society not putting enough pressure to it) to not skim off the top to raise the bottom-line. It works for Europe.

Yes... ish. It's certainly the job of the government to keep various things balanced, no argument there.

That unbridled capitalism produces those issues though is a failure of capitalism. And ultimately everyone is responsible for their actions and what impact it has on the world. Better to think of it as a tool, pne of many, to be used where appropriate, for what it's appropriate for. Then you can say, fairly enough, that it's not the fault of the tool but the people who use it when it produces undesirable results.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Real political theory there.

If someone steals, then the public conscious doesn't really view the matter in a Hobbsian/Darwin rationale of self-responsibility among the two parties. Everybody agrees in spirit who property belongs to, and we come up with a public response to recognize that belonging by accountability.

[Madner Kami]

That unbridled capitalism produces those issues though is a failure of capitalism. And ultimately everyone is responsible for their actions and what impact it has on the world. Better to think of it as a tool, pne of many, to be used where appropriate, for what it's appropriate for. Then you can say, fairly enough, that it's not the fault of the tool but the people who use it when it produces undesirable results.

Is it a failure, if it's by design though? I mean yeah, from a sociological point of view it definitly is. If a society leaves someone behind, then said society has failed the person in question. That however is my point: It's the society that failed to deliver, not capitalism. As a matter of fact, capitalism may actually be the cause why a society has the means to deliver in the first place.

Looking at capitalism like a tool is a very apt metaphor in this case. You take the hammer and hammer the nail in. That's what a hammer is there for (for the most part). Now if you whack that hammer too hard, you may damage the surface that you are trying to hammer a nail in. Here comes the wielder of the hammer and needs to change how the tool is used, either by making it of a softer material or by cushioning the impact-area. The hammer does what it's there for one way or the other. It's the wielder that needs to be considerate.

unbridled capitalism

Oh and one more thing, by qualifying capitalism you are misrepresenting what I've said in my prior post. In fact, I was saying exactly that: that unbridled capitalism is the wrong tool for the trade. That however, does not mean that capitalism in and of itself is wrong, just that using it without consideration is.

[Riedquat]

Ah, OK, sounds like we're pretty much on the same page here.

[Draco Dracul]

It has its place, or more accurately had its place, when it got us out almost everyone just having to scrape by.

You're confusing capitalism and industrialization. Capitalism is in fact why most people still have to just scrape by because it makes it so the gains of industrialization go to only a scant handful of people.

They are intrinsically linked. Capitalism was the driving force behind industrialisation, the means by which enough capital could be raised to make it happen, and by which more wealth was generated to furthe industrialisation.

If having large amounts of capital was the driving force behind industrialization, why were fuedal empires, like Russia, some of the last places in Europe to industrialize? Because it took until the modern day for us to have the kind of wealth disparity that existed in fuedal nations of the time.

But that's historical, those arguments for it are solving yesterday's problems. Today's problems are how do you tackle its downsides when you don't need its upsides, that it happens to fit in pretty well with human nature, that any alternative has got a worse track record, and that we still benefit from some of what it produces - it drives innovation too, and although I've got a dim view of a lot of the supposed upsides of that there certainly are upsides to it, we all surely want improved medicine for example.

Medicine is actually a good example of where capitalism stifles rather than drives innovation. For instance there was proposals into making Corona virus vaccines years ago that were shelved because it was deemed not profitable.

And how many other developments has it "stifled" because they looked like they wouldn't pay off, because there probably wouldn't be any real use for them? How do you avoid wasting resources developing medicines that won't do many people much good? Sometimes you'll get it wrong - no system is perfect, no system has a crystal ball, but that's not a good argument against capitalism.

We do, however, need to avoid going to extremes - yet again. 100% commercially-driven interests alone - not good. The increasing commercialisation of academia concerns me.

I mean the fact that you're treating medicine as something that has to hit a certain threshold of profitability to be worthwhile is kind of a damning indictment of the capitalist mindset. Especially since medicine is very much one where research builds on itself, something that might not be useful today, could be the step to something very useful or as we've seen with Coronavirus can become very useful later. And keep in mind that while Covid-19 is a particularly deadly and contagious strain of Coronavirus, normal corona viruses are one of the major sources of the cold, and there had already been quite deadly Coronaviruses such as SARS.

[Riedquat]

If having large amounts of capital was the driving force behind industrialization, why were fuedal empires, like Russia, some of the last places in Europe to industrialize? Because it took until the modern day for us to have the kind of wealth disparity that existed in fuedal nations of the time.

Because they didn't have large amounts of capital. No feedback effect. A few people with a lot and not much incentive to gain more by development; they just had the invade someone approach to getting more personal wealth.

I mean the fact that you're treating medicine as something that has to hit a certain threshold of profitability to be worthwhile is kind of a damning indictment of the capitalist mindset. Especially since medicine is very much one where research builds on itself, something that might not be useful today, could be the step to something very useful or as we've seen with Coronavirus can become very useful later. And keep in mind that while Covid-19 is a particularly deadly and contagious strain of Coronavirus, normal corona viruses are one of the major sources of the cold, and there had already been quite deadly Coronaviruses such as SARS.

No, it's not a damning mindset at all, and note I never actually said anything about profitability. But there aren't infinite resources available for developing medicine, we can't afford to sink lots and lots in to medicines without some for of payback. In good health is one payback, and a very important one, one a purely capitalist system won't put enough weight in to, but add in some more capitalist-looking elements and we might produce enough to do more. Let them take over and profitability becomes more important than health and you've got a problem, but it's striking the right balance, not saying it's all one thing or another.

And not being wasteful of those resources is going to get you the best outcomes. You can point at coronaviruses but what about all the other types of virus which might form the next pandemic? Why aren't equal amounts being poured in to those, most of which will never amount to anything?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Industrial Revolution

Regarding India, the Marxist historian Rajani Palme Dutt said: "The capital to finance the Industrial Revolution in India instead went into financing the Industrial Revolution in Britain."[236] In contrast to China, India was split up into many competing kingdoms after the decline of the Mughal Empire, with the major ones in its aftermath including the Marathas, Sikhs, Bengal Subah, and Kingdom of Mysore. In addition, the economy was highly dependent on two sectors—agriculture of subsistence and cotton, and there appears to have been little technical innovation. It is believed that the vast amounts of wealth were largely stored away in palace treasuries by monarchs prior to the British take over.[citation needed]

Economic historian Joel Mokyr argued that political fragmentation (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India[contradictory] by providing "an insurance against economic and technological stagnation".[237] China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels of scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters.[238]

In addition, Europe's monarchs desperately needed revenue, pushing them into alliances with their merchant classes. Small groups of merchants were granted monopolies and tax-collecting responsibilities in exchange for payments to the state. Located in a region "at the hub of the largest and most varied network of exchange in history,"[239] Europe advanced as the leader of the Industrial Revolution. In the Americas, Europeans found a windfall of silver, timber, fish, and maize, leading historian Peter Stearns to conclude that "Europe's Industrial Revolution stemmed in great part from Europe's ability to draw disproportionately on world resources."[240]

Modern capitalism originated in the Italian city-states around the end of the first millennium. The city-states were prosperous cities that were independent from feudal lords. They were largely republics whose governments were typically composed of merchants, manufacturers, members of guilds, bankers and financiers. The Italian city-states built a network of branch banks in leading western European cities and introduced double entry bookkeeping. Italian commerce was supported by schools that taught numeracy in financial calculations through abacus schools.[233]

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

India seems to have a similar circumstance alluding to the IR as from what I read about it in Germany, though Germany was more up front to it obviously being next to GB.. Germany on the other hand gained its independence from the Holy Roman Empire Dissolution club in 1860 and was able to roughly rise contemporarily with Great Britain, who was into textiles like India. Great Britain though heavily exploited the industrial episode in India. And India, although abolishing serfdom rather early in its Feudal society (1500's), the effects of colonialism certainly seem to be the factor of stagflation. As far as I can tell, British policies called for the textile industry to take place instead of bigger industry but was also fostered to favor British development mostly.

https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... chapter-10

The historiography of Indian industrialization in the colonial period tries to explain three long-term processes, each one directly or indirectly connected with the defining features of the time—openness and limited state intervention. These three processes are: de-industrialization or decline of the handicraft industries in the early nineteenth century, modest revival of the handicrafts in the twentieth century, and the rise and growth of factories from the 1860s. The latter process had a few peculiar features: (a) industrialization was concentrated in a few cities and towns, and until the First World War, almost entirely confined to Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras; (b) the composition of products manufactured was narrow, and there was little production of machines or intermediate goods; (c) none of the textbook preconditions for industrialization—cheap capital, high saving, agricultural revolution, or an activist state—were present in India in the 1850s, and (d) despite the growth in manufacturing, politicians and businesses after 1947 decided to change the paradigm completely from the one that had produced the industrialization.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Britain and Germany are more contemporary to each other in industrialization and leaders on the global stage. Britain is where all the developmental history and influence comes from though.

Russia and US were both heavily agrarian economies up until the 1860's. They industrialized at the same time.

Britain and US have largely non serfdom economies unlike Germany and Russia leading up to the 1860's. US was not serfdom because Britain got rid of it by the time colonies were permanently established in the America. US invented indentured servitude and also had the slave trade.

Russia, India, and Germany all have feudal monarchies through to the 1860's, though India got rid of serfdom in the 1500's in its feudal society (while still being occupied by GB), compared to Russia and Germany ending it in 1860~. Russia, fully capitalized, ended its monarchy in 1917.