Report Freshell's Profile

You are welcome and thank you very much!

Happy New Year!

Ran into a situation i lost what i was typing and got frustrated and forgot to get back to it lol im mentally drained still so ...I had recently came across a video that highlighted same points i was trying to make in relation to capitalism and technological progress anyway. You dont have to watch the vid this is a response to to understand what is being said.
https://youtu.be/OkVk8GEr6qs

I also recently came across an old documentary on phage therapy which is pretty interesting if you are into medical stuff. You may be able to pick up how it relates to the topic at hand being how it never got widely adopted as it should.
https://youtu.be/5WXnzS7dYks

What about countries like China, Cuba, and Venezuela? I think Cuba is the only one I am aware of that has a massive amount of state owned sector i think it was like 70% going by memory. Venezuela is a weird one, i consider that one capitalist but anti market so markets technically dont define capitalism the hierarchy structure does but still many associate them since they usually go together. China is just another weird one capitalist but has a lot of things it does different here and there though not as different as some make out.

It's at least in part because shifting of resources and exploiting of people in developing countries even more than at home. Most if not all those high income countries were countries with slaves in the past and imperialist rule over other countries.
https://hbr.org/2017/01/80-of-companies-dont-know-if-their-products-contain-conflict-minerals
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-in-hiv-infection-cases-just-not-in-english/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/testing-drugs-on-the-developing-world/273329/
https://www.reuters.com/business/hershey-nestle-cargill-win-dismissal-us-child-slavery-lawsuit-2022-06-28/

Not saying that R&D is not often private plus private companies lobby control over what the government funds. Im just saying it doesnt have to be that way. I am aware some things are funded by crowd sourcing and I dont mean startup companies I mean there is a website or two where scientists ask for money for funding, ive also seen one on youtube trying to ask for donations to a study he wants to conduct. Not that i think it should be that way just i would like to see more of that sometimes.

Productivity makes no sense as a measure of innovation. Productivity is a measure private companies use to measure how much profit they make and at what rate. Has nothing to do with anything other than worker burnout. I also forgot to mention the USSR had a drought, it was very similar to what happened in the US with the dust bowl so that also was one thing that was another setback they had. So I dont feel the country is an ideal example of anything condition wise. Plus it also is hard to compare country to country even when they have the same system in place since so many factors are at play and it really doesnt help that when their systems are different.

The Founding Fathers had a very different idea of what they wanted the US economy to be than what it is today though. Some would be downright horrified. Which definition of capitalism are you using? The hierarchal structure of private ownership of the means of production and use of currency? Free markets?

Agriculture isn't that big to my recall in the US though, the US mainly just grows corn mainly for farm animals. California, Virginia, and Georgia are of the few places that grow anything else off the top of my head.

Reverse engineering and chemical analysis is a thing. Costly but it exists. No inside secrets divulged necessary.

I am unsure what would be best but I actually vaguely recall there being some social network for scientists. I think having something like that would help them build their teams of researchers but the process also could possibly be partially automated where they just say how available they are and what their abilities are etc. Are you familiar with maker-spaces ? I think something between that and how researchers work at universities. Basically places where research and development can be done and it's not privately owned by an individual but either the government or an organization. I imagine this could be in stages. Lowest stage is everyone has access and can do what they want but have less time to run their research because how open it is they cant like just hog the place but it fosters future scientists and engineers by giving people access to these things under supervision of someone experienced of course. They can move up depending on how their results turn out which is pretty much how preclinical trials and early development of products works anyway. Moving up gives them more private access at different locations and maybe access to more coveted even higher grade equipment and whatnot. That's just one idea though, im kind of improvising this on spot since it's so specific a question for a specific scenario.

Just to check, are you aware of Sci-Hub and how pirated or otherwise free access to scientific information has been of great help to scientists?

Innovation spurs more innovation, like I said before, has nothing to do with capitalism. No, there is some things ancient people did we arent even capable of in the modern age, I cant recall off top of my head at the moment but I do recall hearing of some acheivments they did that no one knows how to do today.

It is pretty obvious the cause is from globalization of information and how innovation spurs innovation not from the economic system and this also is ignoring that different countries have different economies most are actually what is called a mixed economy rather than a purely capitalist economy and these are done in different ways and they have different names and the type of currency has changed various times too current being fiat currency. Likewise scientific funding is funded by the government in some cases which has nothing to do with capitalist free markets or private ownership and many people inventing things do so out of their own interests that are often not financial ones. Nikola Tesla considered one of the greatest inventors died piss poor. Also among these different systems you are overlooking ones like Soviet innovations which regardless of what you call their system before it was reformist most agree it isnt the same capitalist economic system used elsewhere. They likely would have advanced even further if it weren't for some legal restrictions on what they researched because Lysenko (which isn't really unique to any specific system so that doesnt have to do with the economics for example the US banned research into stem cell therapy a while) and them being in the middle of WWII for some time fighting off being genocided by Nazi Germany and also later sanctions on them. What you are doing is akin to trying to say the Native Americans were a stone age people, which is wrong, archeologists do not apply that term to the Americas because the resources for a bronze age and iron age were not available in the US it was impossible to innovate without the required resources. Capitalism doesnt have a clean timeline there is no universal start date.

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? If capitalism breeds innovation then the innovation would increase the more capitalist it gets but even though the US got more and more into neoliberalism it didnt breed rapid innovation.

I never said countries need protectionism indefinitely. For example Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all grew under protectionist policies. I sort of misspoke when i said all countries. What applies to all countries is a welfare system of some kind as far as im aware there hasnt been any countries that completely lacked that which kind of goes against free market forces. There is a point protectionism harms the economy but in early development it can help establish local markets by keeping out foreign competition of big corporations that can always outprice the locals.

Uh that's not how it usually works these days you only see that when it is someone very high up as a business partner that has all the info. Most jobs involve people doing only small parts of something so they dont know how the full thing works. They rarely ever have all the information. Even when information leaks it's always just partial information.

What you are saying wouldnt really make sense because labour vouchers are called that because their value is directly tied to labour. So like one hour of work or equivalent is 1 labour voucher. There is disagreement on whether all work should be treated as equal value or not. Im not sure how it's meant to be used for research but I assume the same that someone gets paid for their research. Like I mentioned before mutual aid isnt same thing as charity although similar and is not meant as a standalone system in itself as far as i am aware, just the early workings of one.

Again, what does funding even mean here? Funding is a term to describe money, you dont use funding when money isnt part of a system you use access to resources. I was combining terms. Planned economies can be either centrally planned or decentrally planned (decentralized just means somewhat central but more localized really). Resource based economy is a term that was created by Jacque Fresco a futurist from America who died a few years ago.

I never said that. Im trying to vaguely talk about many different approaches at once.

You cant objectively measure innovation especially since we only know so much about people of the past and what we do know throws off the kind of assumptions average person would make. For example did you know the ancient Egyptians had things like pregnancy tests and skin lightening sunscreen? Ancient Egypt wasnt capitalist. Plus many things are derivative so should something derivative truely be considered an innovation that is brand new rather than just a continued progress as it really is? Why attribute something entirely to capitalism that in many cases came about in part from other systems before it and parallel to it? Also that is a really misleading way to look at it because is the most recent system that has been around just long enough will always be the one with "innovation" being "higher" due to how technology progresses at an increasing rate over time regardless of what that system is especially in any time period of global communication. In past you could have had full on modern technology figuratively speaking and it wouldnt have spread, does that somehow make something less innovative just because it didnt have chance to spread? It is very questionable whenever someone tries to attribute technological progress to capitalism rather than view it as a hinderance from how even life saving information is kept trade secrets. Every capitalist country that developed their economy did so using protectionist policies in their earlier stages in other words they made their economy less capitalistic to grow otherwise they would have just been squashed by foreign competition. Competition of closed information doesnt foster innovation where it matters, it can hinder it. Collaboration is what fosters innovation because you can learn from others mistakes and their successes. Also what is best for people isn't always what is best for private capitalist businesses so the most useful things dont come to fruition and may even become forgotten. Did you know they had electric vehicles as early as the 1820s? Imagine if that was stuck to it instead of going the route of using fuel in vehicles, we wouldnt have global warming. While that isn't capitalism's fault since they didnt even know that stuff back then BUT leaded gasoline was known to be toxic and there was barely any effort made to find an alternative anti knocking agent.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/

Funding with what? Since Im talking multiple things at once. I spoke of labour vouchers, another mutual aid, another mutual credit, and I also hinted at planned resource based economies. I never even suggested what system is best just that there are many alternative systems. In some cases the term funding could never apply so it isnt the right question to ask.

Research and development of what? Startup capital for what? Scientists and engineers are the real people behind research and development not business owners. They dont do it just because they get paid they get paid because they need money, the do science because they like science they do engineering because they like engineering. You say this like nothing has ever been invented before the type of currency we have or before capitalism. As long as they have access to the tools they need and resources they need then there is nothing stopping them.

It is difficult to explain these things. Especially since my mental state has lowered my IQ (Not that im for IQ just i happened to redo the online Norwegian MENSA test i did a couple years ago recently. I only recently learned the test results is pretty close to the real one). I cant even find info on it online, i had learned of mutual credit in a documentary that talked about the relation between money and people how money influences behaviour. They also had talked about community currency which im not really for but i understand the intent. Community currency is basically when someone gets their paycheck part of their pay is community currency and community currency is only valid where it is accepted like in the same town. The idea is to keep money in communities so they dont get squashed by big corporations but i find it a bit questionable a practice in how it could be abused. Unfortunately the documentary didnt talk about labour vouchers but there is plenty of youtube videos explaining how those work if you didnt understand my description. I see a bit of overlap between labour vouchers and mutual credit though since they work slightly similar though difference is mutual credit can accumulate and go into negative numbers for debt while labour vouchers dont accumulate which is meant to discourage capitalism from emerging or something i guess but i dont see how it would have worked in past with just paper unless it had a person's name on it or something which may have been it so i dont fully understand how it was originally theorized long ago because i havent read much anarchist literature though doesnt matter since we are in here and now just my thoughts trailing off.

Depends on what kind of investments you mean i guess. Like i said the mutual aid thing is meant as a stepping stone of social networks and acts as a safety net. Labour vouchers is meant as a replacement for currency and i dont know what stage of development it is meant to be used in whether to be used along side currency at first or only entirely instead after capitalism collapse due to fall of government, so i can only say so much. I try to be educated on all matters so it is very hard to know full details of everything i talk about in so many different subjects.

despite the fact that India has grown economically so much in the last years. but I guess some people never change.
it was, I mean, in the end of the day everything that gets you a good conversation is always worth it.
now I see a lot of people being unhappy about the new MAL changes so this place is full of life again :D.

thank you so much for the friend request!!!

The reciprocity comes from society as a whole instead of one individual to the same individual. It is about understanding the importance of different jobs. Also like i said with the mutual credit system you do actually keep track in that one through digital means like how you keep track of someone's credit score. There also is an alternate to normal currency called labour vouchers which were proposed a long time ago but seem more workable in the digital age it works similar to currency except it doesnt accumulate the same way basically it has a one time use after being given to someone for work they did but that is again just one way of doing things.

It is better now, still sore. Been laying on an electric heating pad.

They arent businesses at that point but something else but regardless of semantics co-ops are a thing and some are quite prominent. There is a massive co-op in Germany i think it was if i recall right.

That is because the existing economic society they live in has trained them in a specific mindset. Humans through history naturally worked together in groups to build civilization and a modern civilization should be no different inclination when not brainwashed. Also a system can be made more formal over time.

My lower back has been messed up for years which i only recently figured out just doing regular leg and glut stretching helps but it's my middle back right now. Don't think ive tried out much weight lifting ever just my usual lifting of somewhat heavy things just out of necesity like 40 pound bags of salt for the water softener lol

Well it's not really site I dont think at least the one in my area. Like one thing listed on the website for my local mutual aid group is transport like some random dude can pick you up and take you somewhere, they also mentioned things like doing yard work and id assume if a member was a farmer for example theyd offer food etc. Basically people just doing stuff for others at no cost like they would a friend. Probably is more reliable when more people are involved because it would have less points for delays. I'm not sure by what measure you're looking for efficiency of a system or reliability of legal system. I don't think of this as the end goal since a lot more can be done with other organization beyond mutual aid groups, it's just a loose collective thing that has been going on for a long time and bears some resemblance to some old ways of living.

it is just weird since they allowed the thread "Indian supremacy 2023" where people are racist like "let me know once people stop shitting in holes" but close the ones that are civil. pff, pff. I guess I need to get used to that. but it was worth it while it lasted :D

I can barely move. I dont know what i did. Stretched some muscle wrong.

I dont think reputation is factored in mutual aid only in mutual credit. Both can be done large scale actually. In case of mutual aid it mainly relies on local stuff anyway so it doesnt scale up it scales out though it is possible to organize it more tha the usual and if you look up gifting economies gifting has been done in past internationally. In case of mutual credit that can be done by an app with decentralized networking o keep track of credit exchanges and what someone's credit is at or in other words their reputation.

Ah I see. I suppose i can see why it may be limited by country of origin but that does seem flawed since some countries you wont be getting any migrants from anyway.

Something to do with what created the political religious climate in some middle eastern countries but im in too much pain right now to remember what i had read. Did something to my back

It's basically what it sounds like. It is like charity but it isnt because charities have exclusivity of applicability, hierarchy and funding while mutual aid it is groups of people helping eachother more directly with what they are able to do voluntarily. There is probably more to it but that is how much i know. Other than that there is a different unrelated concept called Mutual Credit. Mutual Credit basically an alternative currency where goods and services are exchanged based on how much you give in relation to how much you take though problem there is determining prices so it has some similar issues to the current currency system. Both of these systems are currently in use in various areas with mutual aid being the more widespread you likely have mutual aid groups where you live like I do but i havent tried getting involved in them currently since im such a shut in. .

I think most countries determine how many they take in based on how many people leave otherwise i dont think they would be keeping track of net migration.