In other words, why is okay that there inequality is so great and progress is applied so unequally?
Because inequality is the result of competitive capitalism, which allows some people to become extremely wealthy by providing value to others. Almost all of the advances in quality of life have come around because enterprising people were able to profit from providing them.
This one idea is a massively pervasive, invasive meme. It is not remotely true and it is used to justify so much of the harm caused by current neoliberal policy and the growing inequality in wealth and power it creates.
Most major advances we now take for granted were the results either of government research funding or passion projects of lone researchers and inventors. Often they were a combination of the two. Many of the lifestyle changing inventions we now take for granted were invented long before they became broadly marketable and often their creators never profited from them.
Markets are handy distribution tools and individual freedoms are important. But profit is not the primary driver of innovation. Passion, curiosity, and desire to make the world a better place -- these are the drivers of innovation.
Of late, the drive toward profit has become a stifler of innovation as "competitive" capitalism, when unregulated under neoliberal policy, moves inexorably towards uncompetitive monopoly in the pursuit of profit.
I think you're placing too much emphasis on the act of invention itself. Figuring out how to build a microwave oven, i.e. inventing it, is but a small part of the enterprise of putting one in every home. Supply chains, marketing, servicing, cost cutting, etc. are all important and tricky parts of it.
Shenanigans. The same infrastructure serves basically all home delivery, marketing, service, etc. There's not a special new highway or chain store or advertising network for every kitchen gadget.
But profit is not the primary driver of innovation. Passion, curiosity, and desire to make the world a better place -- these are the drivers of innovation.
So why is it that major advances in pharmaceutical research or technology come from places driven primarily by profit motive, i.e. US? Seems that there would be a more random distribution of such businesses around the world. Are people in areas that focus on quality of life (Denmark, Costa Rica, New Zealand) less inventive, passionate or curious?
But almost none of the inventors of said advancements profited from their inventions. It seems to me there should be an upper and lower limit that all people regardless of circumstance live within.
Except not all "value" is created or appreciated equally.
Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society despite massive windfalls (especially those automated algorithms that look for arbitrage in pennies, but as massive volume and frequency). Those who provide power by coal compare to solar or wind significantly shortchange those who buy the same electricity because the "value" does not price this in (humans are terrible at choosing for long term gains compared to short term anyway). Those who save money (it's all value!) by dumping their toxic waste products in oceans and rivers do terrible harm to the world yet stay rewarded. All that value allows them to buy off politicians (more value!), which gives a cyclical effect.
I wish capitalists wouldn't speak in such abstract terms -- reality must be confronted.
Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society
Which is why their compensation is contractual. It obviously provides some value to the high net worth clients who agree to their fees.
It's not like hedge fund managers rely on MacArthur fellowships or some taxpayer assistance program for their compensation needs.
In some societies the employment in hedge fund industry is at, or near, zero. Hedge fund managers rise to the occasion, that occasion being demand for their services.
Comments
Because inequality is the result of competitive capitalism, which allows some people to become extremely wealthy by providing value to others. Almost all of the advances in quality of life have come around because enterprising people were able to profit from providing them.
This one idea is a massively pervasive, invasive meme. It is not remotely true and it is used to justify so much of the harm caused by current neoliberal policy and the growing inequality in wealth and power it creates.
Most major advances we now take for granted were the results either of government research funding or passion projects of lone researchers and inventors. Often they were a combination of the two. Many of the lifestyle changing inventions we now take for granted were invented long before they became broadly marketable and often their creators never profited from them.
Markets are handy distribution tools and individual freedoms are important. But profit is not the primary driver of innovation. Passion, curiosity, and desire to make the world a better place -- these are the drivers of innovation.
Of late, the drive toward profit has become a stifler of innovation as "competitive" capitalism, when unregulated under neoliberal policy, moves inexorably towards uncompetitive monopoly in the pursuit of profit.
I think you're placing too much emphasis on the act of invention itself. Figuring out how to build a microwave oven, i.e. inventing it, is but a small part of the enterprise of putting one in every home. Supply chains, marketing, servicing, cost cutting, etc. are all important and tricky parts of it.
Shenanigans. The same infrastructure serves basically all home delivery, marketing, service, etc. There's not a special new highway or chain store or advertising network for every kitchen gadget.
HD-DVD, Betamax and Flooz electronic currency had access to the same infrastructure.
So why is it that major advances in pharmaceutical research or technology come from places driven primarily by profit motive, i.e. US? Seems that there would be a more random distribution of such businesses around the world. Are people in areas that focus on quality of life (Denmark, Costa Rica, New Zealand) less inventive, passionate or curious?
But almost none of the inventors of said advancements profited from their inventions. It seems to me there should be an upper and lower limit that all people regardless of circumstance live within.
Except not all "value" is created or appreciated equally.
Hedge funders, for example, do not create any clear value to society despite massive windfalls (especially those automated algorithms that look for arbitrage in pennies, but as massive volume and frequency). Those who provide power by coal compare to solar or wind significantly shortchange those who buy the same electricity because the "value" does not price this in (humans are terrible at choosing for long term gains compared to short term anyway). Those who save money (it's all value!) by dumping their toxic waste products in oceans and rivers do terrible harm to the world yet stay rewarded. All that value allows them to buy off politicians (more value!), which gives a cyclical effect.
I wish capitalists wouldn't speak in such abstract terms -- reality must be confronted.
Which is why their compensation is contractual. It obviously provides some value to the high net worth clients who agree to their fees.
It's not like hedge fund managers rely on MacArthur fellowships or some taxpayer assistance program for their compensation needs.
In some societies the employment in hedge fund industry is at, or near, zero. Hedge fund managers rise to the occasion, that occasion being demand for their services.