Maybe we should crowd-fund science projects like we do Kickstarter projects. In the Internet Age, that's about as capitalistic as you can get.
It's already happening: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6889305
Capitalist Science
41–50 of 82 posts
Re: Capitalist Science
#42But this "capitalist science" has already existed for ages, hasn't it? Plenty of companies do science, monopolize the results through patents, and exploit them for private profit. That's capitalist science. > The economic structure of basic science is currently socialist, funded by the public at large through taxes for the benefit of the public at large. Yes, but increasingly less so. The public may fund it, but too…
[deleted]
From the abstract: "This socialist system should be augmented by a capitalist system, in which basic science is also funded by private investors who reap financial benefit from the sale of subsequent technologies based on the knowledge obtained from the research funded by their investments."
Re: Capitalist Science
#43Contradiction in terms, given that blue-sky, basic research has gone away in industry and academia and it's capitalism's fault. Capitalism is great at technology and incremental innovation, but bad at science. This sort of thing is why a functional society needs some aspects of both (socialism and communism) in it. That's also why I dislike the term "data scientist". I'm not a scientist, because I'm not impartially s…
> *"Capitalism is great at technology and incremental innovation, but bad at science." Be careful with those broad strokes - they're likely to be a result of selective perception unless supported by external fact. I actually read the paper (not just the abstract), and I'll be the first to agree that ant that the paper is a little basic, and it makes too many "economics in a vacuum" assumptions. If you're going to tak…
I'd argue that a such a sweeping hypothesis as one made by the "paper" is so broad so as to be meaningless, and that you couldn't actually come up with enough facts to prove it one way or another. Just seems like troll bait, honestly.
Re: Capitalist Science
#44This is daft.
From reading the abstract, i assumed it was satire. Is it serious? See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Based on his previous two papers which detail a way of determining the value of various research projects, I'm inclined to say yes, he's serious. Either that or I'm unable to hear the whoosh.
Re: Capitalist Science
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Patents are a legal construct designed by and for corporations for their benefit. To argue that they are somehow not capitalist is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? It always bothers me when I see absolutist statements such as this one. Are you claiming that there's some plausible 'pure-capitalism' existent outside of all laws? Isn't the basis of capitalism itself wholly dependent on the governmental construct called c…
>Patents are a legal construct designed by and for corporations for their benefit. To argue that they are somehow not capitalist is somewhat disingenuous isn't it?
Some people distinguish between free market capitalism and crony capitalism. Others don't. Some of the people who make the distinction do not consider crony capitalism to be capitalism. That is why you will see people who say things like patents are not capitalist or Too big to fail is anti-capitalist.
Re: Capitalist Science
#46Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something has the potential to be directly turned into profit, people create businesses around that. Governments professing to be capitalist shouldn't interfere with that process. Academic science ought not to be capitalist. Governments should fund science that benefits s…
[deleted]
Maybe, but not necessarily.
Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally choose still not to contribute unless coerced to do their part.
Re: Capitalist Science
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Patents are a legal construct designed by and for corporations for their benefit. To argue that they are somehow not capitalist is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? It always bothers me when I see absolutist statements such as this one. Are you claiming that there's some plausible 'pure-capitalism' existent outside of all laws? Isn't the basis of capitalism itself wholly dependent on the governmental construct called c…
[deleted]
Re: Capitalist Science
#48But this "capitalist science" has already existed for ages, hasn't it? Plenty of companies do science, monopolize the results through patents, and exploit them for private profit. That's capitalist science. > The economic structure of basic science is currently socialist, funded by the public at large through taxes for the benefit of the public at large. Yes, but increasingly less so. The public may fund it, but too…
The public may fund it, but too much of the results get copyrighted by Elsevier and patented by other parties.
Though it is lamentable that publicly funded research papers are often encumbered by a fee for access, the general knowledge contained within is still free for the public benefit.
Furthermore, the content within most papers is not patented or even patentable.
His fundamental assessment is still true: publicly funded science is currently a socialist enterprise.
Re: Capitalist Science
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Patents are a legal construct designed by and for corporations for their benefit. To argue that they are somehow not capitalist is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? It always bothers me when I see absolutist statements such as this one. Are you claiming that there's some plausible 'pure-capitalism' existent outside of all laws? Isn't the basis of capitalism itself wholly dependent on the governmental construct called c…
> To argue that they are somehow not capitalist is somewhat disingenuous isn't it?
There is even a term for this: "laissez faire capitalism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
> Isn't the basis of capitalism itself wholly dependent on the governmental construct called currency?
No, we've used gold for hundreds of years without any government intervention. Fiat money is relatively recent invention.
More recent example: bitcoin, which works as currency without any governments.
> It's hard to imagine anything approximating the modern idea of trade without those functions.
Yes, but these services can be provided through free market. They'll become more cheap and available. Take for example government-run courts: they are slow, inefficient and expensive(which is the reason why patent trolling is viable: in many cases it is cheaper to hand some money to at troll instead of trying to resolve a conflict using government system).
True, such ideas may seem radical to you(No government, won't there be violence and chaos?!). If you want to know how such system will work, take a look at Murray Rothbard's awesome book "For a new liberty: libertarian manifesto" mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf . There is a chapter "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts", which you'll enjoy.
Re: Capitalist Science
#50Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something has the potential to be directly turned into profit, people create businesses around that. Governments professing to be capitalist shouldn't interfere with that process. Academic science ought not to be capitalist. Governments should fund science that benefits s…
[deleted]
You mean like the forced government coercion that enables land ownership? Would managing development of farmland work best through voluntary non-profits?