If today’s “grow or perish” #capitalism is good for #innovation, how come that most of the exponential innovation in #computer technology (in #hardware) depends on a #German foundation which has in its rules to secure the right of the employees and to advance the craft — but not #economic growth?
@ArneBab
"Growth or perish" is simply a misguided construct of some pseudo-expert capitalist. First, there is no basis that a company must grow other than growth to a sustainable size to be a going concern. Second, there is no research to establish that a company must grow past that point. Third, it's also based on the false construct that capitalism is the impetus for innovation.
@ArneBab
You've said a lot that needs to be unpacked. You're right; the accumulation of wealth does harm society and, also, but more indirectly harms its economic growth. For some people getting rich from patents may drive their quest for innovation but, from my limited experience with innovators, they have an unscratchable itch that drives them forward, getting the job done at work or solving their immediate problem.
@Cirdan I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand that — sadly without having the appropriate academic background for that (I’m a physicist, not an economist).
@Cirdan
Politicians are trying to put measures in place to get a situation where economy is good for society, but we’re not actually able to really measure comprehensively what makes a society good.
We just have uncertain proxies and need people who actually try to understand. And we need to turn their understanding into policy. But just giving them power would expose them to corrupting influences which may limit their understanding.
⇒ it’s hard. And a lot of existing measures actually help.
@ArneBab
The problem with coming up with good policy is that it is largely based on harmful capitalistic assunptions. Traditional capitalist thinking permeates everything; it's ubiquitous. Was it Hyppocrates who was quoted for 1,000 years, and if a person criticized him, it was blasphemy. The same thing is happening with the concept of traditional capitalism.
@ArneBab
I appreciate your realizing how generalized it is. From my research, I realize that traditional capitalism is the sinister cause of a lot of our economic problems and any policies based on traditional capitalism. In particular, traditional capitalism causes the insane lemming-approach to garnering the most net profits possible and the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer people.
@ArneBab
I'm not a Marxist quoting socialist; I'm a capitalist. There is an alternative to traditional capitalism. It's called Commons Capitalism. It does what socialism wanted to do but never could find the path. Commons Capitalism spreads the means of production and profits by giving the workers good salaries and Nordic-style benefits while slowing down the accumulation of capital. It can out perform traditional capitalists in the market economy.
@Cirdan I’m mostly worried that you’re using the description "traditional capitalism", but I have no definition of it, so I don’t know what it applies to.
@ArneBab
Good question. Most people understandably think there is only one form of capitalism, i.e., where the net profit and the means of production are owned, directly or indirectly, by individuals. That's how it's been for 400 years. But that's not the only way those items can be owned. They don't need state ownership or public ownership. They can be held by nonprofit corporations for the benefit of workers.
In Germany we have lots of „Wohnungsbaugenossenschaften“ (home construction cooperatives) owned by those living in the homes, and many of the banks are coops owned by their customers.
They have the rule „every owner one vote“, regardless of the amount you have on your account (though, depending on the coop, such voting it can be skewed up to three votes).
@ArneBab
When people try to understand Commons Capitalism, their first thought is to think of a coop. Coops are owned like shareholders owning a corporation. This is not a coop. The best way to think of Commons Capitalism is to think of the net profits and means of production being held as a commons to give good wages and benefits to its present and future workers, a system of capitalism that will spread its wages and benefits to other workers eventually on a national scale
@ArneBab
No. Although it sounds like a good organization. I do have one question. They advertise job openings. If a person is hired for the job, do they come in as an employee or as an owner?
@ArneBab
What I'm talking about is holding the means of production as a commons, e.g., there is a town in Mexico that holds a forest for the benefit of the community. It's been running strong for 50 years. It gives higher wages and social benefits to its workers that are virtually unheard in most of Mexico. It competes in a national and global market economy.
@ArneBab Carl Zeiss Foundation looks very interesting, the enwp article is very inadequate. I read an autotranslated version of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung and looked at the articles about the two wholly owned companies Carl Zeiss AG and Schott AG.
What are you referring to with ~"most of the exponential innovation in computer hardware depends on CZ"? I couldn't discern this from reading those articles or the foundation's website, would enjoy learning about it (and perhaps adding to article).
@mlinksva The innovation in computer hardware (the only part of IT that has exponential improvement) stems from miniaturization, and all the cutting edge wafers worldwide depend on ASML, a dutch company, which in turn buys its optics equipment from Zeiss.
Add comment