Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/9/11 02:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um car innovation has been driven(lol) almost exclusively by the private sector (?)

How many times have we seen the auto industry intentioanlly avoid innovation because the status quo was too prfoitable?

At 7/9/11 02:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: How many times have we seen the auto industry intentioanlly avoid innovation because the status quo was too prfoitable?

If soemthing is profitable, it means demands are being satisfied and hence innovation is not required for the time being because it would be a waste of resources which could you used profitably (ie demand satisfyingly) elsewhere.

Not that I understand hwo you can simultaneously say that private companies don't innovate (which implies that there hasn't been government innovation crowding them out/disincentivising innovation) and that government has bee responsible for innovation over the psat century.

At 7/9/11 12:01 PM, djack wrote:

yeah if you're going to ignore maswsive posts of mine you can go fuck yourself

At 7/9/11 09:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 7/9/11 12:01 PM, djack wrote:

yeah if you're going to ignore maswsive posts of mine you can go fuck yourself

I've been looking through the thread and I honestly don't know which post you're talking about. Are you just pissed cause I proved you wrong with two major inventions that resulted from government innovation and you can't find a way to prove me wrong on them or is there actually a post where you prove that private innovation could equal or surpass public innovation?

At 7/9/11 09:09 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: If soemthing is profitable, it means demands are being satisfied and hence innovation is not required for the time being because it would be a waste of resources which could you used profitably (ie demand satisfyingly) elsewhere.

And we saw how that philosophy worked otu with the auto industry recently...

At 7/10/11 06:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And we saw how that philosophy worked otu with the auto industry recently...

??

People didn't like GM's cars ie. they weren't satisfying demands, hence they went under. Isn't that what I was saying.

Of course, tehre is also the issue of the massive, legally protected, politically connected (ie. not free market) auto worekrs union.

Did you know that GM was spending more every year on healthcare than they were on STEEL? lol

At 7/10/11 05:07 PM, djack wrote:

At 7/9/11 09:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I've been looking through the thread and I honestly don't know which post you're talking about.

The one that was in reply to your last post (before the inventions post, about economics).

Anyway if you want to defend the products of military research, you're basically saying that it's okay for millions of poor, innocent brown people to be killed, so long as we get some nice technology out of it.
Nice philosophy to have, really.

At 7/10/11 08:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The one that was in reply to your last post (before the inventions post, about economics).

All that post says is that we don't know for sure what will happen unless we get rid of the government and test what would happen without regulation but you're ignoring the fact that the auto industry has bought numerous patents on new technology and done nothing with it for the sole purpose of keeping that technology from developing so that they can have larger profit margins. Assuming you're right and a free market could regulate itself then it would still be possible to own ideas/technology for a reasonable amount of time. Assuming you're wrong these companies could simply kill the person developing the technology and destroy all the research.

Anyway if you want to defend the products of military research, you're basically saying that it's okay for millions of poor, innocent brown people to be killed, so long as we get some nice technology out of it.
Nice philosophy to have, really.

Most military technology is designed to minimize the number of deaths while maximizing the impact. Remote control drones can be used to better identify enemies, thus reducing the number of civilian casualties, while simultaneously removing soldiers from combat. And once the technology reaches civilian use it has numerous benefits that drastically increase the standard of living; if you've ever flown on an airplane you can thank the military for the engines, you're using the internet to claim that all military research is bad, and GPS saves lives and allows trains, ships, and planes to ship goods from one nation to another. If you really don't like military tech, look at all the new technologies released during the 1960s as a result of NASA. Throughout history it has been public innovation that led to more advances than any private source. Archimedes was working for Rome when he made the first odometer (aka that thing in every car that tells you how many miles you've driven) for the purpose of placing the mile markers on their roads.

At 7/10/11 09:45 PM, djack wrote: All that post

I'm talking about my response to your response regarding the Austrian economic and prediction.

Most military technology is designed to minimize the number of deaths while maximizing the impact.

No, that's not the point I'm making.

I'm saying that giving the military all this money and power for research been the same money and power that has enabled the military to engage in all kinds of operations that have caused innumerable civillian deaths. You can't have this "ego-based" research & innovation without the bloody and unnecessary military campaigns. It will never happen.
Either you have the current situation and somehow acecpt millions of deaths as a fair price for innovations, or you have a minimal, defensive army only. There's no inbetween.

Remote control drones can be used to better identify enemies, thus reducing the number of civilian casualties, while simultaneously removing soldiers from combat.

UM do you realise how many civillians have been killed in Pakistan because of drones?

if you've ever flown on an airplane you can thank the military for the engines

When you take trillions of dollars out the economy, and research X, private researchers A, have access to far less capital/resoruces for research than on a free market, and B are greatly disincentivised to research X becuase the government is already doing it and has a bigger budget than you.

you're using the internet to claim that all military research is bad,

Sigh...

Throughout history it has been public innovation that led to more advances than any private source.

History has been being unfree in terms of economic freedom, so you have no way of proving that things are better (in terms of research) than on a free market.

At 7/4/11 08:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

And let's not forget that the best part about the free market is that THE GOVERNMENT IS STEALING YOUR MONEY WITH TAXES AND THAT'S MORALLY WRONG,

it isn't stealing, tax dollars are used for the publics good.