3 ms·

The market seems like it would preclude that. If they're making "another todo app" with nothing novel then the market will reject it, they will have no income,

The market seems like it would preclude that. If they're making "another todo app" with nothing novel then the market will reject it, they will have no income, and they never would have been taxed anyways. The thought of research tax breaks is that the market qualifies them as useful. Useless inventions make no money, and have no income to be taxed anyways.

analognoise 3y ago
Markets aren’t efficient like that though. In theory they’re supposed to be, but we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. Take a car, replace all the perfectly good knobs with touch screens you won’t be able to replace in 5 years. Innovation! Massive conglomerates control the internet and feed you expertly tuned rage engagement. Innovation! Smart home lights that stop working when the servers go offline. Innovation! On and on. If the markets were rational and efficient NFTs wouldn’t have even started. Crypto wouldn’t be a thing. Printers that refuse to print black because you’re out of cyan wouldn’t exist. Markets blow and aren’t really maximizing productive anything directly. Tangentially, occasionally, when they’re not causing cost savings that cause doors to blow off of planes to save money. Seems tenuous at best.
- everforward 3y ago
  > we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. I think in most of your examples, you want something different than what the market values, and me too! But our values are different than the average person. I'm willing to fiddle with running a home server to do those things, but most people aren't. > Printers that refuse to print black because you’re out of cyan wouldn’t exist. They do because the crappy business practices let them sell at a lower upfront cost. That appeals to enough people for the company to make money. > Markets blow and aren’t really maximizing productive anything directly. Tangentially, occasionally, when they’re not causing cost savings that cause doors to blow off of planes to save money. Seems tenuous at best. The markets optimize for profit. That generally comes from innovations in something; products, processes, equipment, who knows. I won't pretend the markets are perfect, or efficient. What I will say is that I don't have a better proposal. Planned economies have historically turned out much worse than free markets. I think there are compelling arguments that we're short on regulations in a fair few places. I'm more leery of arguments that the government should be making broad definitions of "innovation", it veers a little too close to central planning for my liking.

analognoise 3y ago

Markets aren’t efficient like that though. In theory they’re supposed to be, but we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. Take a car, replace all the perfectly good knobs with touch screens you won’t be able to replace in 5 years. Innovation! Massive conglomerates control the internet and feed you expertly tuned rage engagement. Innovation! Smart home lights that stop working when the servers go offline. Innovation! On and on. If the markets were rational and efficient NFTs wouldn’t have even started. Crypto wouldn’t be a thing. Printers that refuse to print black because you’re out of cyan wouldn’t exist. Markets blow and aren’t really maximizing productive anything directly. Tangentially, occasionally, when they’re not causing cost savings that cause doors to blow off of planes to save money. Seems tenuous at best.

everforward 3y ago
> we’ve had wave after wave of “innovation” that’s the same shit with different paint. I think in most of your examples, you want something different than what the market values, and me too! But our values are different than the average person. I'm willing to fiddle with running a home server to do those things, but most people aren't. > Printers that refuse to print black because you’re out of cyan wouldn’t exist. They do because the crappy business practices let them sell at a lower upfront cost. That appeals to enough people for the company to make money. > Markets blow and aren’t really maximizing productive anything directly. Tangentially, occasionally, when they’re not causing cost savings that cause doors to blow off of planes to save money. Seems tenuous at best. The markets optimize for profit. That generally comes from innovations in something; products, processes, equipment, who knows. I won't pretend the markets are perfect, or efficient. What I will say is that I don't have a better proposal. Planned economies have historically turned out much worse than free markets. I think there are compelling arguments that we're short on regulations in a fair few places. I'm more leery of arguments that the government should be making broad definitions of "innovation", it veers a little too close to central planning for my liking.