You’re looking at the source of new ideas: inventive people, and saying they would exist under any system. I’m looking at the system and saying great ideas go nowhere without a way to engage people who don’t care about your idea.
Imagine a world without money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to convince them it’s valuable, beneficial, and actually a great idea. Imagine a world with money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to pay them. I’m being serious here: which do you think is easier?
A massive reason why people are hard to convince in the system we live in is because they’re scared of not having enough money. Trying new things is hard and scary when you don’t have a lot of money to go around. On the flipside, if all you have to do is pay them then it doesn’t matter if your idea is good or bad, only that you have enough money to pay for it and your competitor doesn’t. A big wallet is not a good replacement for convincing people that an idea is good.
I don’t care which is easier when one of them is basically cheating. Of course it’s simpler to essentially bribe people to care, but that’s not a system we should strive for. I don’t mind a challenge if the challenge is fair, or near enough to fair.
Besides, money is definitely a fine thing to have and we know this. The problem is when it is made the central and singular goal of a system and when people who don’t have an active income stream are left in the dirt.
But like, money is what creates the profit motive? How do you keep money and remove the ability to accumulate wealth? Money is power and there are those who crave power. I agree, the less money you have, the more help you should get. Same with the opposite. But like, this discussion is based off “innovation exists without the profit motive” and I chimed in to point out that it’s not really the innovation that the profit motive is good for. It’s all the support systems around the invitation that enable these ideas to become big. The ultra-fast pace of innovation is enabled by these systems and given us all the wonderful medicines and quality of life improvements. I am on disability. My lifestyle is immense luxury compared to royalty from even just a dozen generations ago.
Money is power when the lack of it is death and/or suffering. If someone wants to work a little more or does something particularly awesome then ok, they get a cooler thing, but when you take care of everyone’s basic needs and you properly enforce taxation then everything on top is just a little bonus and not a runaway train to tyrrany. Money is not the core of that system but it can still exist.
I was thinking about this conversation earlier while watching a video about vaccines and was reminded also that the profit motive, for many companies in that sphere, actually prevents them from releasing technologies that could help people long term because they make more money off of costly, short term solutions. Life saving medicine is worthless to these people of they can’t charge a premium for it and but you better believe they’ll lock down that patent so no one else can get to it, just in case.
See, that’s the thing about putting money first, it doesn’t matter how you get it. Sometimes you gotta innovate, but these companies are chasing easy money, not honest money. I mean look at stock market traders and you’ll see an army of criminals and thieves. The very concept of private health insurance is making gobs of money off of people you never plan on actually helping in their time of greatest need. Large corporations will spend untold millions on propaganda and hush money schemes before they’ll actually make improvements. 3M knew the dangers of PFAS and still dumped it into the environment and hurt a lot of people. GM did the math and found that recalls for a faulty ignition would be more expensive than paying out any settlements if someone died so they just let it ride because the lives of their customers are less important than lining their pockets.
I need you to work on imagining a better world. It’s not that far away but we’ll never reach it if we don’t even try.
I think you take my defense of the usefulness of the profit motive, and the wonderful things it’s gotten us, as a declaration that it is the best external motivator and should be used in all situations. Of course not.
Your first paragraph is simply not true in the sense that even if everyone’s basic needs were met (and we should create a society where they are) money would still be the main source of power outside violence. Most people are not satisfied by basic necessities, especially when given examples that better is possible.
Your second paragraph is an excellent example of the limitations of the profit motive, and it’s why we should continue to fund public research and development in areas where the profit motive fails. We already do it and in fact we should significantly increase our funding levels. There are other areas where the profit motive fails (utilities, healthcare at the point of delivery, national defense, education, etc.) and I think we (the United States) should expand into internet and universal health insurance.
For your third paragraph… What do you want? For humans to be better? They will nearly always go with the easy solution. It’s weirdos who look at difficult problems and take the honest, long term, responsible solution at the expense of themselves or even just short-term pain. This is fine. You’re not going to change human nature. I just don’t know what kind of system you want to set up where money still exists, yet greedy short-sighted people don’t exist or work their ways into leadership positions at companies? I think the current punishments they receive for their bad behavior isn’t nearly harsh or immediate enough, but… They’re still gonna do it.
I have lots of improvements I want to make to the world, they just don’t involve denying human nature when you keep the fundamental structure of the system they exist in.
To respond to your last paragraph, there are regualtions to combat these things and cultural shifts we can make as populations work themselves off of the fear and stress of poverty. Everyone is terrified of not having enough money and there are so many studies showing the effect that being poor has on our ability to think critically and to plan longterm.
You live in a world that is pretty much designed to make everything seem like this is all “human nature”. We don’t have to be like this, certainly not to the degree we’re at right now, and we have ample evidence to show that this is true. I do not know why you are so resistent to these things, Liz, but I hope one day you can break free of it and see a better world than one where we need to always have the gnawing fear of abject poverty clawing at the backs of our minds 24/7. It doesn’t have to be like this.
You’re looking at the source of new ideas: inventive people, and saying they would exist under any system. I’m looking at the system and saying great ideas go nowhere without a way to engage people who don’t care about your idea.
Imagine a world without money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to convince them it’s valuable, beneficial, and actually a great idea. Imagine a world with money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to pay them. I’m being serious here: which do you think is easier?
A massive reason why people are hard to convince in the system we live in is because they’re scared of not having enough money. Trying new things is hard and scary when you don’t have a lot of money to go around. On the flipside, if all you have to do is pay them then it doesn’t matter if your idea is good or bad, only that you have enough money to pay for it and your competitor doesn’t. A big wallet is not a good replacement for convincing people that an idea is good.
I don’t care which is easier when one of them is basically cheating. Of course it’s simpler to essentially bribe people to care, but that’s not a system we should strive for. I don’t mind a challenge if the challenge is fair, or near enough to fair.
Besides, money is definitely a fine thing to have and we know this. The problem is when it is made the central and singular goal of a system and when people who don’t have an active income stream are left in the dirt.
But like, money is what creates the profit motive? How do you keep money and remove the ability to accumulate wealth? Money is power and there are those who crave power. I agree, the less money you have, the more help you should get. Same with the opposite. But like, this discussion is based off “innovation exists without the profit motive” and I chimed in to point out that it’s not really the innovation that the profit motive is good for. It’s all the support systems around the invitation that enable these ideas to become big. The ultra-fast pace of innovation is enabled by these systems and given us all the wonderful medicines and quality of life improvements. I am on disability. My lifestyle is immense luxury compared to royalty from even just a dozen generations ago.
Money is power when the lack of it is death and/or suffering. If someone wants to work a little more or does something particularly awesome then ok, they get a cooler thing, but when you take care of everyone’s basic needs and you properly enforce taxation then everything on top is just a little bonus and not a runaway train to tyrrany. Money is not the core of that system but it can still exist.
I was thinking about this conversation earlier while watching a video about vaccines and was reminded also that the profit motive, for many companies in that sphere, actually prevents them from releasing technologies that could help people long term because they make more money off of costly, short term solutions. Life saving medicine is worthless to these people of they can’t charge a premium for it and but you better believe they’ll lock down that patent so no one else can get to it, just in case.
See, that’s the thing about putting money first, it doesn’t matter how you get it. Sometimes you gotta innovate, but these companies are chasing easy money, not honest money. I mean look at stock market traders and you’ll see an army of criminals and thieves. The very concept of private health insurance is making gobs of money off of people you never plan on actually helping in their time of greatest need. Large corporations will spend untold millions on propaganda and hush money schemes before they’ll actually make improvements. 3M knew the dangers of PFAS and still dumped it into the environment and hurt a lot of people. GM did the math and found that recalls for a faulty ignition would be more expensive than paying out any settlements if someone died so they just let it ride because the lives of their customers are less important than lining their pockets.
I need you to work on imagining a better world. It’s not that far away but we’ll never reach it if we don’t even try.
I think you take my defense of the usefulness of the profit motive, and the wonderful things it’s gotten us, as a declaration that it is the best external motivator and should be used in all situations. Of course not.
Your first paragraph is simply not true in the sense that even if everyone’s basic needs were met (and we should create a society where they are) money would still be the main source of power outside violence. Most people are not satisfied by basic necessities, especially when given examples that better is possible.
Your second paragraph is an excellent example of the limitations of the profit motive, and it’s why we should continue to fund public research and development in areas where the profit motive fails. We already do it and in fact we should significantly increase our funding levels. There are other areas where the profit motive fails (utilities, healthcare at the point of delivery, national defense, education, etc.) and I think we (the United States) should expand into internet and universal health insurance.
For your third paragraph… What do you want? For humans to be better? They will nearly always go with the easy solution. It’s weirdos who look at difficult problems and take the honest, long term, responsible solution at the expense of themselves or even just short-term pain. This is fine. You’re not going to change human nature. I just don’t know what kind of system you want to set up where money still exists, yet greedy short-sighted people don’t exist or work their ways into leadership positions at companies? I think the current punishments they receive for their bad behavior isn’t nearly harsh or immediate enough, but… They’re still gonna do it.
I have lots of improvements I want to make to the world, they just don’t involve denying human nature when you keep the fundamental structure of the system they exist in.
To respond to your last paragraph, there are regualtions to combat these things and cultural shifts we can make as populations work themselves off of the fear and stress of poverty. Everyone is terrified of not having enough money and there are so many studies showing the effect that being poor has on our ability to think critically and to plan longterm.
You live in a world that is pretty much designed to make everything seem like this is all “human nature”. We don’t have to be like this, certainly not to the degree we’re at right now, and we have ample evidence to show that this is true. I do not know why you are so resistent to these things, Liz, but I hope one day you can break free of it and see a better world than one where we need to always have the gnawing fear of abject poverty clawing at the backs of our minds 24/7. It doesn’t have to be like this.
We’re arguing past each other.