DaVinci Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Scientists make discoveries which improve the strength of building materials, purify water for drinking, make medicine for when you are sick, enable long distance communication and travel, etc. Isn't it science then that is the primary driver of advancements in human life quality and not the free market? Shouldn't science be the gold medal winner and the free market be a distant second? If so, then doesn't it make more sense to say "Science solves problems" than "the free market solves problems"? Yes, the free market is a tool for bringing many of these changes to the masses, but you can't implement nothing. In other words, if the free market is a delivery system that depends on something to exist first to deliver, doesn't science deserve the largest chunk of credit as the progenitor of the thing that is being delivered? This brings up another question. If the free market is a delivery system, can it be run out of business or replaced? Some people will say the free market feeds into scientific discoveries, but isn't that just an incentive to increase the frequency of discoveries? Isn't human ambition and competition enough to achieve the same end without a trade of goods or a monetary gain? What does "free market" even mean? People freely exchanging stuff? So then we are talking about a specific sub-set of human behavior? If that's the case, then doesn't it make more sense to give it a more behavior-ish name than it does to attach an "-ism" onto the end of a word? Is there already a word for this? If so, why do we/don't we use it? 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 No, the free market generated the wealth that enabled the science. Hence why the most free market countries rocketed ahead in science. They severely restricted the free market in Venezuela and despite having the same access to technology living standards collapsed. 1
Wuzzums Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 More often that not the science that goes on in marketing and R&D is on par or even more accurate than academia science. You do bad research and draw false conclusions in academia and you might not get published, emphasis on might. You do bad research and draw false conclusions regarding some product and hundreds if not thousands of people might lose their jobs, and you will get fired, and it will be an end to your career. You think Garnier fucks around? Not to mention pointless academia science wastes our money whereas pointless free market science wastes their money. Taleb has this great example of the free market vs. academia. For decades upon decades scientists have been going to scientific conferences around the world carrying heavy briefcases and luggage's and it still had to be a suitcase manufacturer that thought of adding wheels to the damn things. I see science as a tool and nothing more, like a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Science doesn't better our lives, the free market uses science to figure out how to better our lives. 1
M.2 Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I can see your point, Teabagger, but clearly your premise is that the market came before science. Could the argument be made that it was science that enabled the free market? Hear me out: Free market is trade, a trading of goods. But how did those goods come to be? Clearly through innovation, research and work...Science. A stone-age spear does not grow in the wild. Somebody had to put in the time and effort to research which stone is the most suitable for use, which Wood, and eventually, how to put those two together. And then had he made a piece of good that nobody else around him had, laying down the foundations for trade. Without goods to trade, or the science to create them, there was no need for the free market, or any market for that matter, to exist. What do you think?
Anuojat Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I think the phrase "Free market of ideas" needs to be included to clear the confusion since, its not a Free market if the state or state sponsored entity like the church restricts the printing press of speech. (aka new ideas)
NotDarkYet Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 What's an invention without an economy to determine the value and to mass produce it?
webdever Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 The Romans had some fairly advanced technology that was relegated to circus tricks because they didn't have the incentives to put things like the steam engine to use. The free market is just what you get when you don't use force to restrict peoples actions. I see no requirement for the "Science" of knowing how to build a good spear to allow people to trade freely... you could just as easily trade blueberries. Do you need "Science" to pick a blueberry from a bush?
Goldenages Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I would say that the distinction between science and free market is somewhat artificial. Economics is the art of overcoming scarcity. To be succesfull in economics you need ideas, thinking, logic, effort, and a realistic theorie of the world. The scale to prove wether the result is true or not is reality - either it works or not. And what else should science be? regards Andi
Buer Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 As I see it one is the drive another is the means. The free market wouldn't exist without a wide variety of ever improving products, nor these products would be there without demand, set by the free market. Take the example I heard recently someway as a critique of the patriarchy (ignore that ideological function, focus on it's objective meaning regarding our topic): If all women decided to stop having sex until a cure for cancer was invented, men would produce such technology within a week". This is a fairly blatant example of how demand (and value of such demand) determines not only the volume of trade but drives innovation and research (in a capitalist economy at least). Same example go for microchips, they keep getting smaller and more efficient because that's what the demand states, the drive is profit, the means is science or plain old ingenuity.
CalebSC Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Science does not deserve the credit for improving human life. The free market deserves that credit. Studying black holes does nothing to improve human life. Nor does the study of dark matter, god particles, the reproductive cycles of sea urchins, quantum physics, hyperspace, etc. The study of science, and the conducting of experiments can require a large amount of resources. So if large amounts of resources are being used in the name of science outside of the free market, that is not going to be good. Actually that will be bad. Government subsidized research especially is bogus much of the time. Take for instance the large amount of tax money going into studies which try to prove that criminals are innocent because they have a medical condition of the brain. Science will only improve human life when it is being guided by people who are dedicated to serving people's needs in an effective way. And pretty much the only place where you find people who are dedicated to serving people's needs in an effective way is in the free market.
Tyler H Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I can see your point, Teabagger, but clearly your premise is that the market came before science. Could the argument be made that it was science that enabled the free market? Hear me out: Free market is trade, a trading of goods. But how did those goods come to be? Clearly through innovation, research and work...Science. A stone-age spear does not grow in the wild. Somebody had to put in the time and effort to research which stone is the most suitable for use, which Wood, and eventually, how to put those two together. And then had he made a piece of good that nobody else around him had, laying down the foundations for trade. Without goods to trade, or the science to create them, there was no need for the free market, or any market for that matter, to exist. What do you think? Well the free market is nothing but the absence of violence. So regardless of which came first, under which situation is science allowed to improve human life the greatest? Freedom or coercion?
Rventurelli Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 I think that at least a significant amount of free market has to exist in order for science and technology to actually improve the lives of the people. The Soviet Union and other communist countries made a lot of technological advancements with a planned economy, however, most of them, perhaps even all of them were military, industrial or aerospace related and brought little to no improvements in the average Joe's (or Ivan's) life. 1
DaVinci Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 Okay, so can you please provide me with a definition?
RichardY Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 How can a person derive a "Why" from a "What and a How" that is Science? They can't. "Free Market" In this case the focal point being an Internet "forum", the fact people are posting I would guess means they are addressing some form of need and not generally out of a sense of masochism.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Okay, so can you please provide me with a definition? Dude come on. I'm not going to do your work for you. Takes two seconds to look it up. 1
M.2 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 I see no requirement for the "Science" of knowing how to build a good spear to allow people to trade freely... you could just as easily trade blueberries. Do you need "Science" to pick a blueberry from a bush? Yes, you need a ton of science to pick blueberries. You need to figure out what container they can be transported in without spoiling them, at what temperature they should be stored, at what level of humidity they can be kept in, whether they need air or not, how to repell insects and pests from them, or where you can find a blueberry bush in the first place. All science I bet nobody on this forum knows about. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/fruits/blueberries/tips-on-harvesting-blueberries.htm http://berrygrape.org/post-harvest-handling-of-blueberries/ (literally took 2 seconds to look up) Well the free market is nothing but the absence of violence. So regardless of which came first, under which situation is science allowed to improve human life the greatest? Freedom or coercion? That is quite a bit of a logical leap there. Free market = absence of violence? I am reminded of the event when a certain American Commodore Perry blew open the gates of Japan, forcing the free market upon them. Well, he didn't fire a shot, but I find it hard to believe that one needs 8 warships for free-market negotiations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry#Opening_of_Key_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93United_States_relations Also, the free market is a result of science as well. A branch of science called economics. And it is only theoretical. There never was, and never will be a true "free market".
DaVinci Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 Dude come on. I'm not going to do your work for you. Takes two seconds to look it up. Okay. Why did you even respond then? If you disagree with me, then please say so, and if you could also explain why you disagree. I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else with my post. I want to hear what you have to say. 1
webdever Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 All science I bet nobody on this forum knows about. No I am not an expert on blueberry science, and yet somehow I still manage to be able to pick berries and eat them. I bet I could even trade them for something. Why is it relevant that you spent 2 seconds on google to look this up? That is quite a bit of a logical leap there. Free market = absence of violence? I am reminded of the event when a certain American Commodore Perry blew open the gates of Japan, forcing the free market upon them. Well, he didn't fire a shot, but I find it hard to believe that one needs 8 warships for free-market negotiations. Yes, in a free market you follow the non-agression principle, trade freely with whomever as long as you do not use force or threaten the use of force. Your example doesn't prove anything, if someone is beating their spouse and the cops come and arrest them then yes, they have used force, but that use of force has removed violence from the situation, not created it. Also, the free market is a result of science as well. A branch of science called economics. And it is only theoretical. There never was, and never will be a true "free market". No economics is not a science. Value is subjective, their is nothing to measure or compare or run experiments on. I think maybe the issue is you are using a really broad definition of "Science", which makes the question of "which came first, science or the market" kind of meaningless. 2
M.2 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 No economics is not a science. Value is subjective, their is nothing to measure or compare or run experiments on. I think maybe the issue is you are using a really broad definition of "Science", which makes the question of "which came first, science or the market" kind of meaningless. "Economics is the scientific study of the ownership, use, and exchange of scarce resources - often shortened to the science of scarcity. Economics is regarded as a social science because it uses scientific methods to build theories that can help explain the behaviour of individuals, groups and organisations. Economics attempts to explain economic behaviour, which arises when scarce resources are exchanged." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Competitive_markets/What_is_economics.html(another 2 seconds of my life) I shall not respond to your other points, since you have not read my words correctly. And you have been intellectually lazy. 1
_LiveFree_ Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 Okay. Why did you even respond then? If you disagree with me, then please say so, and if you could also explain why you disagree. I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else with my post. I want to hear what you have to say. Thought I was clear. You do not know what a free market is and therefore your argument goes completely off the rails. You should go back to square one and make sure you have clear definitions and understandings of your premises before attempting a logical deduction. 1
DaVinci Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 Thought I was clear. You do not know what a free market is and therefore your argument goes completely off the rails. You should go back to square one and make sure you have clear definitions and understandings of your premises before attempting a logical deduction. My argument is that science deserves the bulk of the credit for improving human quality of life.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 My argument is that science deserves the bulk of the credit for improving human quality of life. Read my post again.
DaVinci Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 Read my post again. This isn't really a great way to have a conversation. You responded to my original post with an image, and when I asked you to please clarify you chose not to, but yet continued to engage me. I'm interested in having a productive conversation, but it can't happen in this manner.
_LiveFree_ Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 This isn't really a great way to have a conversation. You responded to my original post with an image, and when I asked you to please clarify you chose not to, but yet continued to engage me. I'm interested in having a productive conversation, but it can't happen in this manner.Wrong again. I would love a productive conversation. However, you put forth an argument with an incorrect premise. Even in your OP you admitted to not knowing what a free market is. It was pointed out to you, but you are unwilling to go back and correct yourself. Then you tell me I'm not having a conversation the right way? For goodness sakes man. Go back and learn what a free market is before putting forth an argument about it. And don't insult people when they try to help you out by pointing to a mistake in a humorous manner. Talk about not knowing how to have a dialogue. I will continue once you've restated your argument with correct premises. Do you understand what I mean by that? 1
DaVinci Posted February 12, 2017 Author Posted February 12, 2017 Wrong again. I would love a productive conversation. However, you put forth an argument with an incorrect premise. Even in your OP you admitted to not knowing what a free market is. It was pointed out to you, but you are unwilling to go back and correct yourself. Then you tell me I'm not having a conversation the right way? For goodness sakes man. Go back and learn what a free market is before putting forth an argument about it. And don't insult people when they try to help you out by pointing to a mistake in a humorous manner. Talk about not knowing how to have a dialogue. I will continue once you've restated your argument with correct premises. Do you understand what I mean by that? No, you don't want to have a productive conversation. You want to be right. If you wanted to have a productive conversation you would have corrected me in your first post to me, and failing that you would have corrected me when I responded and asked for you to provide me with a definition. You again deflected correcting me by making it my fault that I can't look up stuff on Google. Also, saying "Oh, I was responding humorously to help you out" doesn't change the fact that I asked you to please provide me with a definition, and please respond to me in a more thorough way, and you chose not to. I've been very patient with you, and you've responded several times in which we could have been having an actual discussion about the topic and not about this. So I'll ask you again, will you please provide me with a definition of the free market, and how it relates to my follow up questions about human behavior in the OP?
_LiveFree_ Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 For fucks sake I did correct you. I told you your premise was incorrect. I showed you your own quote that said you didn't even know what a free market was. Stop being ridiculous and go figure out what a free market is. I'm not your mom. Not going to spoon feed you. The fact that you're having such a difficult time with this is far more interesting and important than whatever your OP was originally about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise 1
RichardY Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Free Market; Like "Free Trade" an Oxymoron. This website, a "forum"(perhaps not unlike Roman Civilization) is the centre of a market of ideas, the website can not be said to be free as such in terms of cost, though anyone can post within various rules. Unlike free trade which may involve systems of barter a market has a focal point where people can meet. If the Free is to mean anything it should mean freedom and not for nothing or entitlement.
meetjoeblack Posted February 15, 2017 Posted February 15, 2017 I don't think it is just one variable but, what about taking science or technology to the free market and winning?
Recommended Posts