http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:03:52 PM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: > > I'd like to go off on a tangent... a little.... > I've known and met some actual "creators"....some and not all tend to be > very focused in their fields, they do their research and come up with some > innovation, that their "creative ethic" wants leads them to divulge to > their expertise professional peers for the advancement of "knowledge".... > yes, in my opinion, many of these "creators" are genuinely motivated by the > altruistic goal of advancing knowledge (at least at first) then the " > Product Development" folks get involved... patents.... leading to > production plans sales and so no.... Most often, at the later stages is > when the so-called entrepreneurs get involved... and they are most often > people other than the actual original "creators".....the altruistic impulse > of advancing and sharing knowledge (for the betterment of all) is subverted > and diverted by the "entrepreneurs, Capitalists and the MBAs.... looking to > extract the maximum amount of profit at every stage from their business > venture.....Archytas can probably speak better and more in detail about > this than I can.... but stephen.... that's my main point.....the actual > creation and even the "working parts" of a business venture are not what I > object to.... at that level it can be beneficial to all.... it is the > others.. the middle men and on who work their "profit-making" games at > every possible stage of the actual "sale" or "business exchange" level that > I'm very wary about.... > I think that is what Archytas knows.... the actual "products and services" > in and of themselves are not the problem.... they are available in > abundance for all.... maybe even overabundance (including the new ideas > part).... the trouble lies with those who then speculate on and choke the > distribution of the "hoarded" supply of those products and services.... etc. > > > On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >> have to say most of the people I see claiming to be risk takers >> clearly are not. It may seem glib to ask how you can tell the >> difference between a risk taker and a moron but I'd argue this gets to >> the root of a big lie about risk. >> I tend to look at why humans organise so badly before thinking about >> leadership and risk-taking. I'm a long way from convinced anyone is >> much good at either. I'm also concerned on how long we have to keep >> rewarding inventors with rents (in the sense of economic rents or >> tolls). Windows should be free by now - a utility - but this is only >> one example. I suspect big companies and banks actually prevent a lot >> of creativity and would be better run as utilities until we don't need >> them. >> >> But we have nearly all economics upside down. The first question >> should be about what the planet can maintain. Economics seems to deny >> that we can organise decent, better ways of living rationally and have >> instead to rely on entrepreneurs, charismatics and other vapours in a >> system that rather fortunately keeps the rich richer and makes them >> richer. Jurgen Habermas wrote an interesting critique of this in 1970 >> called 'Technology as ideology' - but all we really lack is a true >> accounting system for what is going on. The rich need the motivation >> of something they already have (money) but workers can put up with >> wages declining in respect of productivity. And no one seems to >> think, as we approach robot heaven (admittedly not yet available on >> Earth - but we are approaching this) we might need new work and >> distributive ethics? What place in a world where robots could do all >> the work would there be for current half-wits who laud hard work as >> necessary to success? >> >> On 7 Mar, 16:19, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello stephenk..... you can be contrarian... I don't object.... you can >> > speak your mind in any way, it's your (everyone's) right that I never >> > contest.... besides, you seem to be a "good" person, too..... >> > I guess, in one sense, it gets to be a matter of semantics or >> > definition.... "entrepreneur".... as distinguished from, >> say...maybe.... >> > venture capitalist....I don't mind the actual "creator" of something, >> > object (product) or business (service), etc...but those that just >> "game" >> > the system.... they are just parasites that often wind up killing the >> > host.... I opine... >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur >> > >> > http://anthillonline.com/the-entrepreneur-vs-venture-capitalist-2/ >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:49:23 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote: >> > >> > > On 3/7/2013 10:30 AM, nominal9 wrote: >> > > > I go with the "sequestrate their assets" part... but the letting >> them >> > > > go part I'm against... As "entrepreneurs", such people would just >> > > > "steal" their way back up to wealth, without actually creating >> > > > anything beneficial for any economy, like jobs or even "products" >> to >> > > > speak of..... >> > >> > > Hi Nom, >> > >> > > Not to be merely contrarian, but how is *wealth* created in your >> > > theory of the world? Does "risk" exist in any positive sense in your >> > > model? I would like to understand your thoughts. If there is a way to >> > > define wealth creation that is not, in some way, a form of >> exploitation >> > > of one entity of another, please explain. >> > > Can entrepreneurship be a mutually beneficial process of wealth >> > > generation to and for all involved in a way that does not require >> > > top-down controls? I think it can... >> > >> > > -- >> > > Onward! >> > >> > > Stephen >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
