Happy Earth Overshoot Day

[Loki]

And my point is that most of the factors you mentioned can be tied to the Soviet Union not being capitalist...

[Aimless]

And my point is that most of the factors you mentioned can be tied to the Soviet Union not being capitalist...

Tied to, sure, but they can also have independent and inter-dependent effects. And if we're looking for root causes rather than complex interactions between proximal causes, well, capitalism didn't just die in the USSR; it was killed and kept dead through the tyrannical rule of ideology and insanity that was given precedence over everything else including the sort of freedom that facilitates science and its application.

[Loki]

All that says is that capitalism is the default system modern societies return to.

[Khendraja'aro]

Ignoring the role economic incentives have in driving that kind of research, or in allowing companies with good products to make a lot of money. Where are all the great products from the Soviet Union, which had some pretty smart scientists and spent a good chuck of money on science?

I seem to recall, that a certain country now is responsible for getting most of the stuff up to the ISS. One example.

[Loki]

Commies are known for being good at white elephants. If you think that's a good thing, well...

[RandBlade]

I seem to recall, that a certain country now is responsible for getting most of the stuff up to the ISS. One example.

For now. Using decades old technology, while private companies are truly innovating and making it possible to get into space relatively cheaply.

[Flixy]

While being massively sponsored by the government and using their technology - don't get me wrong, I'm happy that is going in this direction, but it's not exactly an example of free market capitalism.

[RandBlade]

Its an example of real world capitalism.

[GGT]

Ignoring the role economic incentives have in driving that kind of research, or in allowing companies with good products to make a lot of money. Where are all the great products from the Soviet Union, which had some pretty smart scientists and spent a good chuck of money on science?

Why else did Soviet scientists fail to produce many worthwhile products?

How can you separate cultural and institutional resistances from a country's socio-economic system? How can you separate centralized decision-making from that same factor?

Sputnik? The race to the moon wasn't just an "economic incentive". Associated R & D wasn't driven by freee market capitalism, or corporate interests, but competition between geo-political international powers. The 'winner' would become the global leader, and their philosophies would be accepted, and imitated, by the rest of the world as The Model to follow.

It was an extension of The Manhattan Project during WWII, continued during nuclear arms proliferation, and the Cold War. SuperPower.

[Flixy]

Its an example of real world capitalism.

If thats the same kind of real world capitalism you expect to address this, let's see.. Space industry, of big strategic importance, essential to the global economy, slowly becoming commercially viable, but only with big government incentives, and relying massively on technology developed by the government at vast expense. Yeah. not that much unlike energy! Keep in mind that nuclear power plants, which I know are seen by some here as an answer to the problem, were also developed using very expensive and decade long government paid research. And have never been economically viable without government support, either..

[Aimless]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ctor-myth.html

Somewhat overstated but I thought this might make for an interesting discussion:

Indeed, one of the most perverse trends in recent years is that while the state has increased its funding of R&D and innovation, the private sector is apparently de-committing itself. In the name of "open innovation" big pharma is closing down its R&D labs, relying more on small biotech companies and public funds to do the hard stuff. Is this a symbiotic public-private partnership or a parasitic one?

It is time for the state to get something back for its investments. How? First, this requires an admission that the state does more than just fix market failures – the usual way economists justify state spending. The state has shaped and created markets and, in doing so, took on great risks. Second, we must ask where the reward is for such risk-taking and admit that it is no longer coming from the tax systems. Third, we must think creatively about how that reward can come back.

There are many ways for this to happen. The repayment of some loans for students depends on income, so why not do this for companies? When Google's future owners received a grant from the NSF, the contract should have said: if/when the beneficiaries of the grant make $X billion, a contribution will be made back to the NSF.

Other ways include giving the state bank or agency that invested a stake in the company. A good example is Finland, where the government-backed innovation fund SITRA retained equity when it invested in Nokia. There is also the possibility of keeping a share of the intellectual property rights, which are almost totally given away in the current system.

Recognising the state as a lead risk-taker, and enabling it to reap a reward, will not only make the innovation system stronger, it will also spread the profits of growth more fairly. This will ensure that education, health and transport can benefit from state investments in innovation, instead of just the small number of people who see themselves as wealth creators, while relying increasingly on the courageous, entrepreneurial state.