Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's the dream, anyway. I'm rather uncertain that it would work out as well as you think.

-Arrian

Well I have my doubts as to whether paying corporations, not for the goods that they produce, but so that they don't move a factory, or so that they don't polute our water, air etc... isn't going to work. In fact, I know it won't, because that's what we have now. It doesn't work and it's a great injustice.

[Az]

1) Is the return on government research as good as the return on the free market's research? I honestly don't know the answer (actually, I doubt there is a definite answer); and

They compete in the free market, now. I think they can do it just as well as any corporation. after all, in non-government corporations, the R&D employees, just like their middle management, are just salary-driven, in the economical sense. Wrt remarkble genious and invention, as long as it is not stifled by dogma, it will flourish just as well in non-profit conditions as it would in profit driven conditions.

2) To what degree is the research driven by people who know they can leave after a while and nab a lucrative job at some private company's R&D lab?

uh, why would they want to? often, these jobs ARE the most lucrative.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't say a communist system won't produce ANY innovation, I just think it will be much less.

The government employees that create things . . . can they get bonuses, advancement to higher paying jobs or lucrative private offers ? If they can, they are still in a capitalist society despite working for the government.

The communist society I am considering is one in which the MOST an innovator might get is the respect of their peers since financial incentives are not permitted as they might create an upper class

I think you would be suprised to know how many researchers actually like their job, and don't just do it for the money.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So you admit that your bottom line is to make profit. You have no true interest in benefiting society.

Actually I have an interest in both profit and benefitting society. But we are agreed on the operation which should result in additional natural gas production . .. thats a benefit, is it not?? All the negotiation is about is the level of MONEY each side pays and gets. Since both sides are capitalist corporations and no worker will get paid any more or less directly as a result of this negotiation, I would expect you to wish me well with a blessing such as.

" May your profits be large and your pollution minimal"

[Arrian]

Good for Cuba, that's excellent.

One advantage to a government-controlled research program is that you can focus it to work on a few things you find particularly important. In that regard, it can be considered superior to capitalism (since lots of private sector innovation could be called frivolous). I'll grant that.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Actually I have an interest in both profit and benefitting society. But we are agreed on the operation which should result in additional natural gas production . .. thats a benefit, is it not?? All the negotiation is about is the level of MONEY each side pays and gets. Since both sides are capitalist corporations and no worker will get paid any more or less directly as a result of this negotiation, I would expect you to wish me well with a blessing such as.

" May your profits be large and your pollution minimal"

Maybe you don't know the economic theory behind this. There is a optimal production of the product. That is where the social cost of the polution is equal to the social benefit of the product. Companies don't care about that. They only care about maximising profits. That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

[Arrian]

uh, why would they want to? often, these jobs ARE the most lucrative.

Ok, and why is that? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't attract the best & the brightest, would they? Probably not (some would still do it, but many others wouldn't). That's a very capitalistic thing.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

Indeed, and we don't.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

I would say paying them not to do it is not much different. You are not making the social cost equal to the social benefit. The social benefit is still less. And that's bad

[Az]

Ok, and why is that? Because if they weren't, they wouldn't attract the best & the brightest, would they? Probably not (some would still do it, but many others wouldn't). That's a very capitalistic thing.

-Arrian

But you see, "lucrative" doesn't just mean money. Besides, this isn't the point. The point is "can communism/government develop new technology". I say, yes it can, and it can do so very well .

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think you would be suprised to know how many researchers actually like their job, and don't just do it for the money.

NO I know many researchers that love pure research.

BUT

I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter.


It also matters when it comes to productivity but thats a whole other topic

[Arrian]

I agree it isn't just money. One of the things I've been looking for from Kid (and/or Che, once he joined the discussion) is what type of incentives a communist society would offer top performers. Obviously not money - or not a lot of money anyway, wealth disparity being a bad thing. So what, then? And if it's Time, well, we all know that's money Seriously, a higher salary in the current system can allow you to retire earlier... or you could negotiate part-time status.

I'm honestly curious about incentives under communism, Az. And I'm furthermore curious to see how they avoid somehow antithetical to the system itself.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


NO I know many researchers that love pure research.

BUT

I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter.


It also matters when it comes to productivity but thats a whole other topic

They will get an incentive. It just won't be as large.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I think YOU would be suprised at how many regular folks out there come up with a great idea and develop it to make a buck. I'm talking the regular working joes. Financial incentives matter.

But we live in a capitalist society. Of course people are going to act that way when it's advantageous to do so. If we loped off the arm of anyone who invetned something, you'd find inventions drop off pretty quickly. Socialism/communism won't do away with rewarding people for work/innovation/etc. It will just do so in a way that doesn't end up leading to a stratified society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I agree it isn't just money. One of the things I've been looking for from Kid (and/or Che, once he joined the discussion) is what type of incentives a communist society would offer top performers. Obviously not money - or not a lot of money anyway, wealth disparity being a bad thing. So what, then? And if it's Time, well, we all know that's money Seriously, a higher salary in the current system can allow you to retire earlier... or you could negotiate part-time status.

I'm honestly curious about incentives under communism, Az. And I'm furthermore curious to see how they avoid somehow antithetical to the system itself.

-Arrian

I would like to see teams working piece work where possible. After they reach a certain goal they get time off. That way you can decentralize a lot of the decision making and people will have incentive.