3 ms·
Meh, most of it’s just having capital.
by drb91 7y ago
Meh, most of it’s just having capital.
- dwaltrip 7y agoIndeed, inert stacks of cash are widely known for being innovative.
- 6jwfhfture 7y agoNo, just for being simultaneously (a) the means of innovation and (b) the goal of innovation.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- drb91 7y agoActually yea, the modern sense of innovation exists as an idea to serve capital. See: Joseph Schumpeter. The non-capital bound version is simply invention.
- dwaltrip 7y agoHmm, I took the parent to be implying that capital is the main ingredient in innovation. It sounds like you are saying something different. Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation.
- drb91 7y ago> Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation. Yes, this is true. My point was more that innovative products are profitable, not necessarily the novel tool we need. See: smartphones and walled garden app stores. Innovative for sure, but an objectively shittier scenario than one built around the tool people want to use. I don't see innovation (as in, using market forces to push forward technology) as playing any role in collective problems. The regulated market's popular hope for fighting global emissions with market effects, the carbon tax, will do very little to slow emissions on a global scale. We need to think outside the market to have any optimism.
- dwaltrip 7y agoInteresting take, we definitely would agree on some things. Although, I perhaps would use a broader definition innovation. I wouldn't described it is as purely a market based phenomenon. Open source software is one obvious example of how innovation can occur outside of markets.