Report Freshell's Profile

Happy New Year!

Maybe could have but the intention was totally different where ebay is an auction site for used goods primarily. Also ebay the sellers do all the shipping, they do none of that. So not about preference just use cases being different even though some sellers it's like same thing. I think Mercari is a bit more trendy right now than ebay for resellers. Patreon has some of same as OnlyFans I think, not sure.

I never really said Google is a monopoly for it's search engine and you're mainly being hung up on semantics. Point is Google or rather Alphabet I think they renamed their parent company is a very massive in how many things it does. It owns largest search engine, largest streaming video site, largest ad and analytics, largest browser (which they are being made to sell off), largest smartphone OS, as well as developing a few programming languages. It didnt develop every one of these in house it bought out other companies and there also is issue of large companies buying out the more talented programmers.

One cannot appeal to the interests of everyone, since, many interest will contradict one another. A dominant ideology must be boiled down out of that average in order to be consistent, and even then, that does not account for everybody. As for the second method, at what point are they considered "generally informed"? Most voters are not only unknowledgeable, but actively apathetic to the process of government.



I don't disagree with that. But then there's the issue of what is to be done? If the vast majority of the nation is pushing for protectionist policies, does the government go along with the policies? Or do the exact opposite thing that will actually achieve the outcome of a more prosperous economy? It doesn't seem obvious to me that the vast majority would pick the latter, and accept that they were wrong. One cannot do both of these things, as they clearly contradict each other.



Well, consider the incentive structure behind modern bureaucratic states under MMT; anything the government wishes can be provided by raising taxes, or by expanding credit. This includes war, health care, industries that are protected by the government, etc. Now consider that nobody "owns" the government, and thus has no incentive to spend wisely, since, they can confiscate present goods (by raising taxes) to fund it, or diminish future goods (by expanding credit and creating inflation) to fund it. Each one of these bureaus has it's own interests to appeal too, which leads to further spending and further inflation to satisfy them all at the expense of the public. All the while, the public has no idea where to place their frustrations.

While the monarch can still tax, he's more likely to feel the ramifications of it, if the result of that is the productivity of the kingdom were to decline. He could then adjust accordingly, since, he would incur the loss directly in the form of his livelihood. It's possible that a king could create his own "bureau", of sorts, but I would imagine it to be nothing more than an accounting firm, or something similar.

My preferred outcome would be absolute secession rights; where there is no compulsory tax, and each community is decentralized and privately owned.

Now, when you say it's "within the population's interest" to create wealth, are you saying it in the sense that this is what the public wants, or it is what would be best for them, regardless of what they want? Because, to me, the former is what I think of when I hear "public interest", which, is often something different than the creation of wealth. Socialists, nationalists, trade unionists etc. might accept a lower standard of living provided their interest is appealed too. Which is awful, objectively, but this would be appealing to the "interests of the public". Which would be actiley antithetical to the creation of wealth.

Now, if you mean it would be in their interests, in the sense that it would be good for them, that's another question, which borders on utilitarianism.



Sure, but that's not sufficient to say that it couldn't have happened under monarchy. Just that it didn't. If a monarchy were to exist today, it would still be able to reap the benefits of the industrial revolution, so it's not like the two are incompatible.



I am aware of this, this is why I reject democracy as an ethic and a form of government. It's also why I asked you to clarify about "public interest", as I think public interest is often fickle and short sighted.

Fuck, i had written a reply and it didnt send because it decided to end my login session.

Walmart is in some areas the only store and employer. Amazon is the only company in the US that does what it does as far as I am aware. Aliexpress and Temu are Chinese companies that take a long time to ship and only carry products from China mostly.

As I mentioned Google doesnt work like it used to, so it's a very low bar to pass in terms of quality since regardless of the size of their index they dont allow you access to the full results anymore and change search terms you use to ad optimized ones. Bing is closer to Google but same issues. The Russia based Yandex ironically sometimes turns better results closer to how Google used to even though their index isnt as large. There is decentralized stuff like YaCy and Seeks but they arent really popular right now but I find Right Dao and Marginalia to be good for certain searches. I like using Yahoo Japan sometimes which supposedly has the old Google code behind it.

No I was just taking about one kind not relating it to the others.

Ebay actually does fairly well still but turned into something slightly different from what it started as.

Valuable for ad revenue but it's gotten to where Google doesnt even work anymore despite being most used. They destroyed their own algorithm for whatever reason which will bite them in the ass.

"Virtual monopoly" means not literally a monopoly but acts similar to a monopoly in effect. One good example is internet providers. Internet providers make deals with eachother where they do not actually compete in the same spaces. What internet you can get will be determined where you live.

Not the only reason, just a factor. For example Amazon gained most it's money from investors. It was just a failing company, as in they were for a long time not making a profit. It's how a lot of companies operate just perpetually pull in investors until eventually it turns profit.

Social media is a tricky thing since it kind of somewhat forces people to use them until the majority shift to another platform. There is Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon and Misskey. Bluesky may lead to Mastodon being improved I think or hope.

Too bad you're not here right now to defend capitalism with me. :'D
https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=2177766
Check out my one-of-a-kind Hunter x Hunter engraving on one of my audio devices.

I didn't see your comment at the time, had a bad week.
Moving people from place A to place B will just recreate the problems in place A. That doesn't resolve the issues, it just spreads them futher.

You are welcome and thank you very much!

Happy New Year!

Ran into a situation i lost what i was typing and got frustrated and forgot to get back to it lol im mentally drained still so ...I had recently came across a video that highlighted same points i was trying to make in relation to capitalism and technological progress anyway. You dont have to watch the vid this is a response to to understand what is being said.
https://youtu.be/OkVk8GEr6qs

I also recently came across an old documentary on phage therapy which is pretty interesting if you are into medical stuff. You may be able to pick up how it relates to the topic at hand being how it never got widely adopted as it should.
https://youtu.be/5WXnzS7dYks

What about countries like China, Cuba, and Venezuela? I think Cuba is the only one I am aware of that has a massive amount of state owned sector i think it was like 70% going by memory. Venezuela is a weird one, i consider that one capitalist but anti market so markets technically dont define capitalism the hierarchy structure does but still many associate them since they usually go together. China is just another weird one capitalist but has a lot of things it does different here and there though not as different as some make out.

It's at least in part because shifting of resources and exploiting of people in developing countries even more than at home. Most if not all those high income countries were countries with slaves in the past and imperialist rule over other countries.
https://hbr.org/2017/01/80-of-companies-dont-know-if-their-products-contain-conflict-minerals
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-in-hiv-infection-cases-just-not-in-english/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/testing-drugs-on-the-developing-world/273329/
https://www.reuters.com/business/hershey-nestle-cargill-win-dismissal-us-child-slavery-lawsuit-2022-06-28/

Not saying that R&D is not often private plus private companies lobby control over what the government funds. Im just saying it doesnt have to be that way. I am aware some things are funded by crowd sourcing and I dont mean startup companies I mean there is a website or two where scientists ask for money for funding, ive also seen one on youtube trying to ask for donations to a study he wants to conduct. Not that i think it should be that way just i would like to see more of that sometimes.

Productivity makes no sense as a measure of innovation. Productivity is a measure private companies use to measure how much profit they make and at what rate. Has nothing to do with anything other than worker burnout. I also forgot to mention the USSR had a drought, it was very similar to what happened in the US with the dust bowl so that also was one thing that was another setback they had. So I dont feel the country is an ideal example of anything condition wise. Plus it also is hard to compare country to country even when they have the same system in place since so many factors are at play and it really doesnt help that when their systems are different.

The Founding Fathers had a very different idea of what they wanted the US economy to be than what it is today though. Some would be downright horrified. Which definition of capitalism are you using? The hierarchal structure of private ownership of the means of production and use of currency? Free markets?

Agriculture isn't that big to my recall in the US though, the US mainly just grows corn mainly for farm animals. California, Virginia, and Georgia are of the few places that grow anything else off the top of my head.

Reverse engineering and chemical analysis is a thing. Costly but it exists. No inside secrets divulged necessary.

I am unsure what would be best but I actually vaguely recall there being some social network for scientists. I think having something like that would help them build their teams of researchers but the process also could possibly be partially automated where they just say how available they are and what their abilities are etc. Are you familiar with maker-spaces ? I think something between that and how researchers work at universities. Basically places where research and development can be done and it's not privately owned by an individual but either the government or an organization. I imagine this could be in stages. Lowest stage is everyone has access and can do what they want but have less time to run their research because how open it is they cant like just hog the place but it fosters future scientists and engineers by giving people access to these things under supervision of someone experienced of course. They can move up depending on how their results turn out which is pretty much how preclinical trials and early development of products works anyway. Moving up gives them more private access at different locations and maybe access to more coveted even higher grade equipment and whatnot. That's just one idea though, im kind of improvising this on spot since it's so specific a question for a specific scenario.

Just to check, are you aware of Sci-Hub and how pirated or otherwise free access to scientific information has been of great help to scientists?

Innovation spurs more innovation, like I said before, has nothing to do with capitalism. No, there is some things ancient people did we arent even capable of in the modern age, I cant recall off top of my head at the moment but I do recall hearing of some acheivments they did that no one knows how to do today.

It is pretty obvious the cause is from globalization of information and how innovation spurs innovation not from the economic system and this also is ignoring that different countries have different economies most are actually what is called a mixed economy rather than a purely capitalist economy and these are done in different ways and they have different names and the type of currency has changed various times too current being fiat currency. Likewise scientific funding is funded by the government in some cases which has nothing to do with capitalist free markets or private ownership and many people inventing things do so out of their own interests that are often not financial ones. Nikola Tesla considered one of the greatest inventors died piss poor. Also among these different systems you are overlooking ones like Soviet innovations which regardless of what you call their system before it was reformist most agree it isnt the same capitalist economic system used elsewhere. They likely would have advanced even further if it weren't for some legal restrictions on what they researched because Lysenko (which isn't really unique to any specific system so that doesnt have to do with the economics for example the US banned research into stem cell therapy a while) and them being in the middle of WWII for some time fighting off being genocided by Nazi Germany and also later sanctions on them. What you are doing is akin to trying to say the Native Americans were a stone age people, which is wrong, archeologists do not apply that term to the Americas because the resources for a bronze age and iron age were not available in the US it was impossible to innovate without the required resources. Capitalism doesnt have a clean timeline there is no universal start date.

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? If capitalism breeds innovation then the innovation would increase the more capitalist it gets but even though the US got more and more into neoliberalism it didnt breed rapid innovation.

I never said countries need protectionism indefinitely. For example Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all grew under protectionist policies. I sort of misspoke when i said all countries. What applies to all countries is a welfare system of some kind as far as im aware there hasnt been any countries that completely lacked that which kind of goes against free market forces. There is a point protectionism harms the economy but in early development it can help establish local markets by keeping out foreign competition of big corporations that can always outprice the locals.

Uh that's not how it usually works these days you only see that when it is someone very high up as a business partner that has all the info. Most jobs involve people doing only small parts of something so they dont know how the full thing works. They rarely ever have all the information. Even when information leaks it's always just partial information.

What you are saying wouldnt really make sense because labour vouchers are called that because their value is directly tied to labour. So like one hour of work or equivalent is 1 labour voucher. There is disagreement on whether all work should be treated as equal value or not. Im not sure how it's meant to be used for research but I assume the same that someone gets paid for their research. Like I mentioned before mutual aid isnt same thing as charity although similar and is not meant as a standalone system in itself as far as i am aware, just the early workings of one.

Again, what does funding even mean here? Funding is a term to describe money, you dont use funding when money isnt part of a system you use access to resources. I was combining terms. Planned economies can be either centrally planned or decentrally planned (decentralized just means somewhat central but more localized really). Resource based economy is a term that was created by Jacque Fresco a futurist from America who died a few years ago.

I never said that. Im trying to vaguely talk about many different approaches at once.

You cant objectively measure innovation especially since we only know so much about people of the past and what we do know throws off the kind of assumptions average person would make. For example did you know the ancient Egyptians had things like pregnancy tests and skin lightening sunscreen? Ancient Egypt wasnt capitalist. Plus many things are derivative so should something derivative truely be considered an innovation that is brand new rather than just a continued progress as it really is? Why attribute something entirely to capitalism that in many cases came about in part from other systems before it and parallel to it? Also that is a really misleading way to look at it because is the most recent system that has been around just long enough will always be the one with "innovation" being "higher" due to how technology progresses at an increasing rate over time regardless of what that system is especially in any time period of global communication. In past you could have had full on modern technology figuratively speaking and it wouldnt have spread, does that somehow make something less innovative just because it didnt have chance to spread? It is very questionable whenever someone tries to attribute technological progress to capitalism rather than view it as a hinderance from how even life saving information is kept trade secrets. Every capitalist country that developed their economy did so using protectionist policies in their earlier stages in other words they made their economy less capitalistic to grow otherwise they would have just been squashed by foreign competition. Competition of closed information doesnt foster innovation where it matters, it can hinder it. Collaboration is what fosters innovation because you can learn from others mistakes and their successes. Also what is best for people isn't always what is best for private capitalist businesses so the most useful things dont come to fruition and may even become forgotten. Did you know they had electric vehicles as early as the 1820s? Imagine if that was stuck to it instead of going the route of using fuel in vehicles, we wouldnt have global warming. While that isn't capitalism's fault since they didnt even know that stuff back then BUT leaded gasoline was known to be toxic and there was barely any effort made to find an alternative anti knocking agent.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/

Funding with what? Since Im talking multiple things at once. I spoke of labour vouchers, another mutual aid, another mutual credit, and I also hinted at planned resource based economies. I never even suggested what system is best just that there are many alternative systems. In some cases the term funding could never apply so it isnt the right question to ask.