4 ms·

In a way this is partly a good thing. If everyone focused on going to space or curing cancer and were unsuccessful for quite some time we'd be in trouble. Whil

In a way this is partly a good thing. If everyone focused on going to space or curing cancer and were unsuccessful for quite some time we'd be in trouble. While there is a place for these endeavors and they are very important we have to be careful not to allocate too much focus to them.

kmkemp 12y ago
I disagree. Decisions are made based on risk/reward. Just because the reward is raised doesn't necessarily mean that its ratio is higher than another endeavor's. Economic incentives lining up with the public good is the ultimate goal that produces the best outcomes for everyone.
copsarebastards 12y ago
> In a way this is partly a good thing. If everyone focused on going to space or curing cancer and were unsuccessful for quite some time we'd be in trouble. Implicit in this claim is the idea that somehow we need someone to own things. Why is that exactly? In fact, employee-owned cooperatives demonstrate that when the doers own what they're doing, it can have some benefits for all involved.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nightski 12y ago
  You are correct, it was worded poorly. There is no overseeing entity controlling allocation of resources. All I was trying to say is that just because there are people who choose not to work on the high risk/high reward items does not mean they are not valuable. Balance is important.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > Implicit in this claim is the idea that somehow we need someone to own things. Why is that exactly? Tragedy of the commons. When scarce resources are communally owned, they tend to get exploited even worse than when they're privately owned.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. Employee-owned cooperatives aren't communally owned, they're employee-owned (as the name indicates). The resources, in this case, are the employees themselves. So you're claiming that employees will exploit themselves more than an employer would?
hellgas00 12y ago
H igh risk endeavors in science are worth the risk because when they pay off they may shift the way we have been doing things in the past, which leads to unforeseen opportunities in the future. This is not an insightful thought, but I believe it is usually overlooked. The British Engineer Charles Babbage (Father of the Computer in many respects) wasn't afforded the opportunity to complete the first working mechanical calculator because of cost restrictions by the British Gov't, an invention which could have altered the British course in History. High risk projects in Science and Engineering may rarely pay off, but when they do the ROI is incalculable in many ways. Flipping houses, not so much. Curing cancer is a place holder for any number of fields that are still under-explored. Finance really shouldn't be a driver of growth, especially when the growth is concentrated in public financing of debt, it just doesn't seem sustainable.

kmkemp 12y ago

I disagree. Decisions are made based on risk/reward. Just because the reward is raised doesn't necessarily mean that its ratio is higher than another endeavor's. Economic incentives lining up with the public good is the ultimate goal that produces the best outcomes for everyone.

copsarebastards 12y ago

> In a way this is partly a good thing. If everyone focused on going to space or curing cancer and were unsuccessful for quite some time we'd be in trouble. Implicit in this claim is the idea that somehow we need someone to own things. Why is that exactly? In fact, employee-owned cooperatives demonstrate that when the doers own what they're doing, it can have some benefits for all involved.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nightski 12y ago
You are correct, it was worded poorly. There is no overseeing entity controlling allocation of resources. All I was trying to say is that just because there are people who choose not to work on the high risk/high reward items does not mean they are not valuable. Balance is important.
ahomescu1 12y ago
> Implicit in this claim is the idea that somehow we need someone to own things. Why is that exactly? Tragedy of the commons. When scarce resources are communally owned, they tend to get exploited even worse than when they're privately owned.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. Employee-owned cooperatives aren't communally owned, they're employee-owned (as the name indicates). The resources, in this case, are the employees themselves. So you're claiming that employees will exploit themselves more than an employer would?

hellgas00 12y ago

H igh risk endeavors in science are worth the risk because when they pay off they may shift the way we have been doing things in the past, which leads to unforeseen opportunities in the future. This is not an insightful thought, but I believe it is usually overlooked. The British Engineer Charles Babbage (Father of the Computer in many respects) wasn't afforded the opportunity to complete the first working mechanical calculator because of cost restrictions by the British Gov't, an invention which could have altered the British course in History. High risk projects in Science and Engineering may rarely pay off, but when they do the ROI is incalculable in many ways. Flipping houses, not so much. Curing cancer is a place holder for any number of fields that are still under-explored. Finance really shouldn't be a driver of growth, especially when the growth is concentrated in public financing of debt, it just doesn't seem sustainable.