Socialism versus capitalism: Donahue-Friedman edition

@jonnythan Said

So the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

@Lili Said

I think it's actually somewhere in the middle. I think *completely* unregulated systems can be pretty dangerous and can create a lot of poverty and corruption too.

@Lili Said

To clarify, I think it should definitely be closer to the capitalist end of the spectrum. I'm not real keen on having no choice but to never own any property personally, lol. But there are some specific cases where risk distribution makes sense.

@Willi Said

think of the hitler day scientists building the first jets.

for the common good?

@jonnythan Said


Einstein didn't construct his theories under order of a government bureaucrat.

@Lili Said

To clarify, I think it should definitely be closer to the capitalist end of the spectrum.

@El_Tino Said

Einstein did work for the government from time to time... just sayin'.

And they do find out a lot of things from government funded research. Just sayin'.

@drman321 Said

Nuclear power, the jet engine, computers, cell phones, anesthesia, and the internet (just to name a few) were all initially developed by scientists working for the government. Don't even get me started on NASA and all that they have developed that we use everyday.

@EtoTheeyepipower Said

This is true of course, but I remember seeing a video of Walter Issacson talking about how Einstein's position as patent-office bureaucrat put him in a unique position to know about new ideas about synchronizing railroad clocks.

And I read about Wilbur Wright. He began his research with information provided by the Smithsonian.

And Fleming discovered penicillin, but he was never able to make enough of it to cure anybody.

@drman321 Said

I completely disagree with the premise when it comes to research and development. The last century has seen a rate of scientific achievement and advancement never before seen by man and it was largely funded by governments.

Nuclear power, the jet engine, computers, cell phones, anesthesia, and the internet (just to name a few) were all initially developed by scientists working for the government. Don't even get me started on NASA and all that they have developed that we use everyday.

To suggest that one lone genius working on his own and funding his own research is just as capable of innovation as one who is funded by the government and given everything he needs is completely illogical.

We have examples of innovators working on their own to better a product or change an industry but their innovations are largely just changes to already discovered technology. The most familiar example that comes to mind is Steve Jobs, he was most certainly a great thinker and inventor, but he neither invented the computer, nor the MP3 player. He took concepts that had been developed in government labs and sought to find ways to adapt them to everyday use. Without those government labs funding the initial research he never would have been able to succeed, the task would have been too daunting for any man.

Now I'm not saying that we should be some sort of socialist demand economy and the government knows best, please don't try to put those words into my mouth, but I am saying that an honest assessment of the last 100 years shows us that when government gets into the R&D business things start to happen very quickly as opposed to the model of the "for profit inventor".

@boxerdc Said

I agree, and Ford would not have been quite as successful if we didn't spend billions on roads and bridges.

@ThePainefulTruth Said



Takes one to know one I s'pose: