Thats About Right
IBM claims to have acquired a breakthrough in nano technology for memory storage. The poster states:
And it is often not the inventor who decides how and where to apply new technology. It’s the entrepreneur, the investor and ultimately the consumer who supply the imagination.
Couldn’t of said better myself. Its the capitalists that does all the work of converting some obscure discovery into something usable by consumers. To accomplish they must assume financial risk and develop a manufacturing process with no precedent. For this we offer them ownership of the fruits of their work even when it requires a labor force to generate the products.
Some wish to punish those willing to take risk and undergo sustained difficult problem solving. They wish to move ownership of the fruits of such efforts to the labor that produce the developed products. Such an inversion in incentive structure is doomed to fail. Denying wealth to financiers and entrepreneurs by shifting ownership to labors discourages economic development by forcing those that take risk and work hard to give their fruits over to those that took no risk nor worked hard. Moving ownership to labor simply reduces innovation required for economic growth. Wealth in the country is reduced over time and everyone becomes more poor.
Nope. In my country the entrepreneur and financier gets ownership of the nano memory products they develop for mass production. Sure labor gets a cut. It’s determined by the market value of the kind of labor need for production. However, labor does not get ownership of what is produced. If they want that kind of access they can take the financial risk and/or sustained problem solving required to convert discoveries like this one into something desirous by many consumers.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
You’re overlooking intellectual property laws. Let the guy who comes up with the marketable product have control over who can produce it and what percentage of their sales they have to give him in royalties, sure. That doesn’t mean he has to hire the workers and own hte factory himself. Let him go on innovating if he’s so good at it, instead of tieing him down managing a corporate beauracracy.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Not sure what your point is.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
You propose a benefit of capitalism that wouldn’t be present under a socialistic corporate model. I demonstrate how we could easily keep that benefit under a socialist corporate model. Your argument fails.
That was my point.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What the fuck is a socialistic corporate model. Seriously just define the term for me.
Additionally, your argument seems to be constrained by the class of products that fall under intellectual property. One should point out that even in the case of intellectual property the owner of said property gets to do what they want with it. Its unclear how that translates into the labor getting a piece of that property.
In fact im baffled, I really have no idea what you are talking about.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I’ve defined the socialist corporate model like 50 times: everyone who works at a company owns a part of that company, and owns a piece of it’s products/profits, instead of being a paid employee.
What category of products are you talking about which required daring and innovative entrepenuers to come up with, yet wouldn’t be covered by intellectual property laws?
September 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Now take your definition and explain how its related to intellectual property and how thats related to my original point.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Your point: entrepenuers who invent and refine products won’t do so in a socialistic corporate model because they won’t make money off of those invetions, the workers who produce them will.
My point: they can still make money because intellectual property laws will give them rights over the production of their invention and related royalties, they just won’t own the actual physical products that are produced. So your objection is irrelevant.