Libertarians think computers and smart phones are purely market inventions and proof of capitalism's greatness

You're completely misconstruing the point because you're frustrated that you can't defend your bullshit ideology.

(mostly) bullshit ideology.

>implying south america fights capitalism
>implying that the existence of state interventionism being good implies that the same follows for any marginal increment of interventionism
Wrong on all accounts.

>decades of government/military spending
1) The money mostly came from taxing the free market.
2) I find it unlikely they would never be discovered if it weren't for military R&D, they would likely just be discovered a little later.
2a) There is the possibility that if the government didn't tax the free market into the ground, capital would be allocated more effectively and it might have been discovered sooner.

>if
>possibility

Why are you so utopian?

>rather than address the arguments presented I'll just create a strawman and bitch against it!

>>libertarians unironically think Steve Jobs discovered the transistor in his garage

wat

also checked

>just be discovered a little later.
>might have been discovered sooner.

There is literally 0 reasons to believe this.

>he doesn't know that Jobs actually created the first turing machine and it sparked an enormous intellectual feud, the likes of which haven't been seen since Tesla and Edison or Newton and Leibniz

Yeah but I studied electronics , Steve " I got a cancer I better threat with weed" Jobs was never mentioned in the making of the transistor.

Arguments were presented? where?

Not my fault, he literally sounded like politicians from South America that argues for big government, LITERALLY the same arguments.

>takes money from the people
>"look how good we spent the money that we stole from you!! we wouldnt steal from you if you used your money better than us but we wont give you the chance to b/c we already stole your money haha trust us we're smarter and more efficient"

Victory disease.
>because the state tossed a quarter at some mediocre R&D project that means the free markets played 0 role and could not possibly have advanced science the way the gubmint did
are you having a giggle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hollerith
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-effect_transistor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode#History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triode#History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-barrier_transistor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philco#Transistor_research_and_product_development

Libretardians should be gassed.

What is the point of the links? I'm not against progress. Besides, do you think all of those things happened completely independently of the state?

>tossed a quarter at some mediocre R&D project
Really? An overwhelming majority of funds MIT received from 1920-1950 came from the federal government.

You have no proof that particular inventions which happened from state investment would have "just happened" without the state. What kind of argument is that? How do you prove it?

>What is the point of the links?
>How do you prove it?
The links contain an overwhelming amount of evidence that free markets can successfully fund R&D and advance science thereby contradicting your statement that it would be impossible for a free market to do so.

Nobody is arguing that the markets can't innovate. What is being argued is that states can too.

As soviet union technology advances prove, they innovate in areas rockets and nuclear submarines while you are stuck with the crappiest shittiest cars and appliances ever made that never change even after decades. Capitalism is a le to achieve both state needed innovations while improving your life as well.
The market makes you, the consumer important. Instead of channeling everything into megalomaniac projects some beurocrat invented to get money and promotions.
You would know that if you had the chance to experience life in the soviet paradise of planned economy.

Acknowledging the power of state innovation does not equate to endorsing central planning.

Furthermore, states do indeed outperform the markets in certain services, and states often form the markets in which private entities thrive.

Computers are an obvious example of this in the present. The Opium Wars was an example of this in the past. NASA and SpaceX may be an example of this in the future.

This is how economies function.

The state can invest 15 years and tens of billions in projects.
Modern corporations are very short sighted.
>If it takes more than five years, fuck it and let's spend our money on something else.
Governments can absorb much greater losses and have money left to play around with. In the private sector, the entire board of directors would fired for incompetence.
I would say that government funding and projects makes the major breakthroughs and the free market makes it more efficient or integrate it into the consumer goods market.

The market's capacity for innovation is even limited by the quality of social services in the country.

If there are fewer public safety nets, the risks for entrepreneurs to bet everything and pursue something is made even higher. Market innovation in the US is actually thought by some to be suppressed because of this.

pic unrelated

reee you said there are 0 reasons to believe the free market could do it and OP said the state is holding up the facade of capitalism

I don't believe the state is completely useless, but government is limited to the influence voters have. The state just pours money into the most obvious scientific projects that average people can understand or the majority of scientists are willing to invest time and energy advertizing to voters. It will always be less efficient. If the government is already investing in something, what is the point of the free market doing so? That is the sole reason the free market did not invest in certain things.

>The state can invest 15 years and tens of billions in projects.
P/E ratios on the stock market are often bigger tha 15. Many biotech companies don't yield a profit for years and years. It is not a stretch for big tech companies to put some money into a company so that they can have a share of the returns of its patents and use said patents without charge.

What about politicians? At best they only care about winning an election in 4 years.

There is a role for government, but currently we lean too heavily towards big government.

>posts a picture of Shanghai as an example of free markets working
Good lord

Leftists LITERALLY want everyone to be poverty stricken slaves.

>reee you said there are 0 reasons to believe the free market could do it
No, I said there were 0 reasons to believe the free market would end up inventing this technology in particular, meaning computers. See:>You have no proof that particular inventions which happened from state investment would have "just happened" without the state.
>particular inventions

And if the then argument is this theory saying "they would've gotten to it if you just gave them time", then you still lose because a) you still lose because the state got to it first and b) that's unverifiable and weak bullshit.

Was it worth it that states got there? Do you think the tech industry is important for the domestic and global economy? Think long and hard about this one.

>holding up the facade of capitalism
The idea that market innovation is solely behind so much of this technology is a facade, yes. Discovering this shit first is alot harder than making it better for consumers later. The first part has been the state's success, and the second is the market's - though there is tremendous overlap, of course.

I think there is alot more subtly and nuance to this than you're seeing.

>image
Statlin, trotsky and lenin would have murdered every single anime fan

Good thing Japan has a great way of dealing with marxists. Pic related.

>politics
>on MY Veeky Forums

I dont think so friendo

its the study economics and law, political economy.

fpbp

It is pretty well known that the majority of real breakthroughs in science come from heavily-state-funded projects, either in direct government agencies (DARPA, DOE, etc) in gov-sponsored academic research (MIT, etc) or in some sort of gov-assisted private industry (military industrial complex, raytheon, etc, where they are only making the stuff cause the state says here is a 60bn dollar contract to make it)...
If you don't know this then you're pretty clueless.
The notion that the free market would just 'decide' to spend billions of dollars on basic research that may not pay off for a long time is nonsensical
The 'free market' always goes for the quick reliable buck over the big picture longshot. This is a well-known criticism of the market where people for a long time have been saying the corporation's overwhelming bias towards the short-term needs of the shareholders means missing out on a lot of potential (ie future-proofing company with R&D; corps like Dow, DuPont, etc are currently gutting their R&D long term research departments in favor of short term profitability, which analysts say is going to hurt them in the long run)
So yes the OP is completely right in this respect. If you think he isn't then you are completely misinformed.
None of this says capitalism is bad. It simply shows that the unrestrained free market can't be the sole aspect of society. If you want to be a world leader you should have a big enough tax base to fund big ideas in research (and also preferably infrastructure) and ideally you should educate your citizens enough so they realise this is a good idea rather than just "muh taxes!"

>muh austrian school

Part of that has to do with the fact that stock speculators don't trade on the actual value and long term viability of a company. They trade on speculation, and short term profits drive speculation. Stocks aren't an investment in the company, they're just a commodity to be traded until someone is left with the short end of the stick.

HELLO LATESTAGECAPITALISM

No one is claiming that technology happened due the free market but the industrial revolution coincides with the general spread of capitalism and free trade. The goverment as it taxes corporations and people has done investments with said money the question would be how much the technology would have increased if said money was invested in technology instead of financing and subsudizing the existance of human trash.

>industrial revolution coincides with the general spread of capitalism and free trade.
Technology made capitalism possible, not the other way around.

>Technology made capitalism possible
proto-capitalism alredy existed in the Italian city states and the United provinces you plebian.
Now that you have been BTFO you should just shut up

/thread

>expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality
well, if you insist

So it did, and the reason it didn't take over the planet and globally consume feudalism until the industrial revolution is because the technology wasn't advanced enough. Ergo technology made capitalism possible.

>libertarians don't know the 'network effect' growth strategy works by inducing market failure

>and the reason it didn't take over the planet and globally consume feudalism until the industrial revolution is because the technology wasn't advanced enough
Or maybe because the big continental empires like Spain,Portugal or England weren't urbanized.

Yeah, and maybe the reason the big continental empires weren't urbanized is because agricultural societies were simply the most efficient for the time as they did not have the technology to support mass-urbanization.

Do you even think about your posts?

>give a country to statist, Keynesian, developmentalist and other heterodox econominists to apply their theories
>it ends up starving and collapsing

Good job.

>and maybe the reason the big continental empires weren't urbanized is because agricultural societies were simply the most efficient for the time
Not really.The United provinces were extremelly urbanized. So did Italy and the HRE.They just didn't have the geographical advantage to establish an empire

Those inventions are made because of competition, planes, internet, GPS etc are all military inventions fine...
But most libertarians believe that you need a military force/police force to defend your property and life.
>socialcontract
T. Hobbes
You give away freedom to gain freedom.
Beside, the military competition on the international anarchy system is what brought those inventions and its what makes Europe so much better than other continents, we on a history board should understand. French VS Britisj, spanish vs turks etc, one has to always become better than the other to survive, so everyone builds stronger armies, bigger ships and superior technology, thats the idea of capitalism. May the best win and the loser should learn from it mistakes and try to become the best.
We fucking sent space ships to the moom because of competition, why are marxists this retarded?
>competition is bad because i hab no monis

Forgot pic

>muh competition
The spinning jenny wasn't invented to crush competitors, but because Hargreaves thought people would welcome not having to perform such dull work by hand.

It's true, and it's best illustrated by looking at an exception. Musk. Like, he must be like the first billionaire pretty much ever in the last few decades to know anything about the natural sciences, and at least in regards to technological development, he's in the process of BTFO'ing NASA and the entire car industry. He's made rockets reusable, electric cars viable and he plans on having a human on mars by 2030. And he only had about a Billion dollars to start the entire thing with. What e.g. Apple could actually do with their 200 Billion dollars if they were even the slightest bit competent and gave any actual fucks about technology instead of milking privileged western populations for their money is unimaginable.

K den?
The textile industry today uses much more advanced machinery because of
>muh competition

Is that even a argument?
You know greeks invented homosex because they thought fuggin pussy was dull...