If they could somehow monetize breathing, they would

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Economic systems are fundamentally about resource allocation. Capitalism is not the only system that allocates resources to science nor is it the optimal one. You’re making a lot of assumptions on what makes a “better” product. Under capitalism, “better” is quantified as whatever brings in the highest return on investment, which doesn’t align with and is often diametrically opposed to the interests of the end users of that technology.

    • rodhlann@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is especially relevant for things like lightbulbs, cell phones, cars, etc, which are constructed in such a way that they will only last a certain amount of time, because the other alternative would be a product that never failed, and therefore only needed to be purchased once. True technological advancement would be the perfection of technology, but capitalism would never allow that because it wouldn’t be profitable in the long term

    • Lemmino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Government regulation is the route to go for the edge cases where capitalism incentivizes dark patterns. For cases where an endeavor is unprofitable, government investment is typically the way to go, and seems to work rather well (eg NASA and the many inventions that came out of it, that arguably form the basis of our modern life.)

      I am not calling for unfettered capitalism, but I do think we have struck a somewhat happy medium today compared to almost any other point in human history. I think it can be improved further, but I see no evidence, historical or otherwise, that communism could fare better.