Technology Benefits: could they come about without capitalism ?

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
962

This video claims that technology development is largely due to governments spending of our tax money and then the profits from commercialisation go to private corporations that do comparatively little compared to the government spending. In addition, the taxes paid on corporate profits are claimed to be minuscule. So workers invest and corporations reap the return.

It does not sound fair when you put it like that. But is it a reasonable reflection of what really goes on ?

Without the incentives of capitalism, would the commercialisation work as well ?

Are the corporations really doing so little compared to government funded research ?

Could state funded organisations follow the research through to commercialisation ?

Ireland, with its low corporation tax, is particularly soft on large hi-tech ? Is it justifiable ?

Sweden is another story. They make it expensive on corporations to hire people in Sweden because they charge 3X the social insurance that Ireland charges. Is that the better way to go ? You use our workers then you pay the state for the privilege.

When Chomsky labels the corporation as the bad guy beneficiaries, who exactly does he mean ? The management, the investors. What about the workers ? What about the customers of the corporation ? Do they not benefit ?
 
Last edited:


Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,286

This video claims that technology development is largely due to governments spending of our tax money and then the profits from commercialisation go to private corporations that do comparatively little compared to the government spending. In addition, the taxes paid on corporate profits are claimed to be minuscule. So workers invest and corporations reap the return.

It does not sound fair when you put it like that. But is it a reasonable reflection of what really goes on ?

Without the incentives of capitalism, would the commercialisation work as well ?

Are the corporations really doing so little compared to government funded research ?

Could state funded organisations follow the research through to commercialisation ?

Ireland, with its low corporation tax, is particularly soft on large hi-tech ? Is it justifiable ?

Sweden is another story. They make it expensive on corporations to hire people in Sweden because they charge 3X the social insurance that Ireland charges. Is that the better way to go ? You use our workers then you pay the state for the privilege.

When Chomsky labels the corporation as the bad guy beneficiaries, who exactly does he mean ? The management, the investors. What about the workers ? What about the customers of the corporation ? Do they not benefit ?
Commercialisation of inventions and techs is largely beyond the civil service mentality that is content with a safe job. Entrepreneurs and innovative companies take big risks for such commercialisation in the hope of big payoffs-great wealth for entrepreneurs, big bonuses for top employee managers..
Communism had total control of resources but relied on copying western technology for economic developmnt and developed little that was new by comparison with the West.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,524

This video claims that technology development is largely due to governments spending of our tax money and then the profits from commercialisation go to private corporations that do comparatively little compared to the government spending.
There is a huge difference between research and development. Penicillin, for example was discovered in a laboratory but in order to produce it in sufficient quantity to be useful, a chemical plant had to be designed and built. The interesting point about penicillin was that the project was led by a woman engineer and years later, when Fleming was receiving the Nobel prize, she was at home taking care of her young son. Despite what happens with consumer electronics, most technologies take years to develop from an idea to a useful product.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
10,222
Do an experiment. Get a big country like Germany and split it into West and East with one side being capitalist , get an even bigger zone like Europe and do the same , to get outside Europe for sample diversification I suggest a country like Korea be split but into North and South for diversity in the sample selection. Study the technology advancements of both sides.
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
9,474
Do an experiment. Get a big country like Germany and split it into West and East with one side being capitalist , get an even bigger zone like Europe and do the same , to get outside Europe for sample diversification I suggest a country like Korea be split but into North and South for diversity in the sample selection. Study the technology advancements of both sides.
Well the space technology is going to me more durable and economic I guess, other than that...Oh yeah aircraft as well, because the inbuilt obsolescence will be factored out. They didn't make a good car.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,296
Twitter
No

///

When Chomsky labels the corporation as the bad guy beneficiaries, who exactly does he mean ? The management, the investors. What about the workers ? What about the customers of the corporation ? Do they not benefit ?

It's true that grants can make the difference. Would Intel have moved here without a lot of hand-holding by the IDA? Maybe, maybe not.

Corporation tax is a new tax from world war 1, and is taken as they are soft targets. There's usually a tax on dividends as well. That's before the payroll /social taxes.

But without know-how, which come from using other people's capital, and lots of new capital, Intel would not have set up here in 1989.
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,766

This video claims that technology development is largely due to governments spending of our tax money and then the profits from commercialisation go to private corporations that do comparatively little compared to the government spending. In addition, the taxes paid on corporate profits are claimed to be minuscule. So workers invest and corporations reap the return.

It does not sound fair when you put it like that. But is it a reasonable reflection of what really goes on ?

Without the incentives of capitalism, would the commercialisation work as well ?

Are the corporations really doing so little compared to government funded research ?

Could state funded organisations follow the research through to commercialisation ?

Ireland, with its low corporation tax, is particularly soft on large hi-tech ? Is it justifiable ?

Sweden is another story. They make it expensive on corporations to hire people in Sweden because they charge 3X the social insurance that Ireland charges. Is that the better way to go ? You use our workers then you pay the state for the privilege.

When Chomsky labels the corporation as the bad guy beneficiaries, who exactly does he mean ? The management, the investors. What about the workers ? What about the customers of the corporation ? Do they not benefit ?

Well seeing as a a communist country was the first to get to space, I don't see why not.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,296
Twitter
No
Well seeing as a a communist country was the first to get to space, I don't see why not.

But they had "state capitalism".

Capital is just people's savings, taken and lent willingly or unwillingly, in a lump sum to achieve large projects.

In the old soviet union, the planned economy more or less planned what portion of labour and materials would go into a project, but the labour and materials were paid for, and the assembly of the project was paid for.

Then it all went wrong in the 1970s, when they had to borrow extra capital from the Evil Imperialist West, and spent it badly.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,413
None of this matters anyway. ''Traditional'' free market capitalism will be replaced by something else over the next few generations. With the advent of everything from 3d printers to free power via more efficient solar capture technology, the world will look remarkably different in years to come.

I genuinely don't think any sci fi has gotten even close to the mark as to how society will look but revenue streams will need to be generated in very different ways to the current systems in place.

I wouldn't even dare guess myself but some suggest a sort of social capital system perhaps, although that sounds suspiciously like Instagram/Facebook 'likes'.

One day, we will have all the material possessions we need whenever we need them always available. Where we go after that is anyones guess.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
962
None of this matters anyway. '
It matters because this vaunted academic and activist Chomsky seems to be oversimplifying matters for young and impressionable would-be socialists. Not a fan of his politics having seen quite few interviews with him.

The rest of your post seems to argue that technological capability will somehow change the role of capitalism in the economy. Not sure what you mean really.

Simply put, you could say effective capitalism relies on enabling competition and on providing rewards to the most efficient competitors. I don't see technological capability alone having any impact on these fundamentals.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
962
Well seeing as a a communist country was the first to get to space, I don't see why not.
Any one event is possible. The question is really about whether there is a better recipe than capitalism for driving widespread and consistent improvement in technology or indeed any product or service.
 

AyaanMyHero

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
962
It's true that grants can make the difference. Would Intel have moved here without a lot of hand-holding by the IDA? Maybe, maybe not.

Corporation tax is a new tax from world war 1, and is taken as they are soft targets. There's usually a tax on dividends as well. That's before the payroll /social taxes.

But without know-how, which come from using other people's capital, and lots of new capital, Intel would not have set up here in 1989.
As far as I can see, it is hard to be critical of Ireland's tax strategy of attracting large multinationals. But that is just because there are so many jobs generated and sustained in that way. The income tax take and VAT arising from disposable income may make up for the minuscule corporation tax. I am guessing to be honest. Then again, is the state getting all they can from the multi-national ? Could they drive harder bargains and still keep the benefit of all the jobs.

Anyone know if there are studies on this point.
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,766
But they had "state capitalism".

Capital is just people's savings, taken and lent willingly or unwillingly, in a lump sum to achieve large projects.

In the old soviet union, the planned economy more or less planned what portion of labour and materials would go into a project, but the labour and materials were paid for, and the assembly of the project was paid for.

Then it all went wrong in the 1970s, when they had to borrow extra capital from the Evil Imperialist West, and spent it badly.
I see your point, but then you would stretching the term capitalism to breaking point. So the question of if it's possible to get great technological in a non capitalist society is to vague to even answer.

Also, I don't think you could call communist Russia a capitalist society just because their was some use if capital.
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,766
Any one event is possible. The question is really about whether there is a better recipe than capitalism for driving widespread and consistent improvement in technology or indeed any product or service.
You can't degrade humans first venture into space as just some "one event"!

Also, communism was barley around when they did this. Capitalism had been around much longer and couldn't get there first.

I'd say it's entirely possible for a non capitalist society to make amazing technological discoveries.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,524
I'd say it's entirely possible for a non capitalist society to make amazing technological discoveries.
There is no question that basic research can be done as well or better in a communist country as in a capitalist. The question is how well will the idea be developed? The USSR was capable of producing military jets which were superior than those in the west but they could not compete with civilian planes.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,296
Twitter
No
//

Also, I don't think you could call communist Russia a capitalist society just because their was some use if capital.
The official line was that they were using capital in their system as short term solution.

But the nomenklatura had their bank accounts abroad with plenty of capital on deposit. Most communist regimes turned out to be kleptocracies, and the spin-offs like angola and cuba.
 

Fritzbox

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,590
Using the development of space rockets and jet aircraft as an example of communist - or capitalist - technological prowess is somewhat unfortunate´. Both technologies were not perfected by either economic systems - but by the nationalist socialists of Germany.
 

Fritzbox

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,590
Space and totalitarian regimes seemed to go hand-in-hand back then. After all it was Nazi scientists who got the second country into space, and put the first man on the Moon.
Nazi scientists help put the USSR into space first too, you know.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,296
Twitter
No
As far as I can see, it is hard to be critical of Ireland's tax strategy of attracting large multinationals. But that is just because there are so many jobs generated and sustained in that way. The income tax take and VAT arising from disposable income may make up for the minuscule corporation tax. I am guessing to be honest. Then again, is the state getting all they can from the multi-national ? Could they drive harder bargains and still keep the benefit of all the jobs.

Anyone know if there are studies on this point.

The only people criticising it are the other countries who lost out. We had a 0% tax on the profit from exported goods, from the 1960s, as the EU / OECD is well aware of.

We have a saying "anything is better than nothing", that explains our tax policy.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top