I wonder what phillip dexter's solution would be. Socialism, perhaps, where there is zero incentive to excel or create anything? The government simply takes your invention and the proceeds from it. "Thanks, peasant. Here's your usual standard rations."

But I'm sure dexter would respond, "Socialism has never been properly implemented."

Capitalism is not racist. It is, however, intensely competitive. Usually, but not always, the best product or idea wins.

In a state-controlled economy, resources are allocated as a bureaucrat sees fit, to the projects on which the bureaucrat wants them allocated. So, once a product is "good enough," it's good enough; very few incremental improvements will be made. (compare Trabant to a Volkswagen)

Unlike socialism, capitalism is strictly an economic system, not a socio-economic order. It works best when everyone is allowed to compete and the society is minimally regimented.

Patrick, lets discuss govt creativity. How about Maine that just decreed that food servers must wear dog cones around their necks. With innovation like that we should be able to flatten the curve any day now.

Capitalist always forget that govt is motivated to be super efficient and rational.

The government is very creative ... when it comes to devising ways of taxing you out of your income. The intangibles tax was a stroke of twisted genius.

As I tweeted at Amy, and I've commented here, if a socialist society created a smart phone it would be a circa 2003 Blackberry. It would come in one color, and its distribution would be restricted to select party members and nomenklatura. It would also spy on you to the government.

And it wouldn't be updated for at least 5 years.

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

if a socialist society created a smart phone it would be a circa 2003 Blackberry. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at August 23, 2020 8:51 AM

And it would be developed only after the 2003 Blackberry had shown its value in a non-socialist economy; it would not be organically created in the socialist economy.

The Trabant was not created until Western Europe had been revolutionized by the inexpensive and readily available cars from Volkswagen, Citroen, and Fiat.

"you know it from books which you didn't read attentively enough."
no they read the books, and listened to their comrade professors, and swallowed it's nonsense.

> if a socialist society created
> a smart phone it would be a
> circa 2003 Blackberry

This article meant a lot to me at the time (1984, when Reagan was hammering Moscow with a ball-peen). TLDR, the Commies ripped off the seven-year-old Apple II, clumsily, and on shitty hardware.

As Americans were developing computer-boners in both commercial and personal contexts, that article was one of the ways I knew the Cold War was essentially won. A symbiosis of Wal-Mart and Microsoft was delivering value across our continent with a speed unseen in human history.

Nobody planned that miracle: It was a time in American life when an oblivious government stayed out of the way. As Conan put it:

> Unlike socialism, capitalism is
> strictly an economic system, not
> a socio-economic order.

Socialists love to call it capitalism, but it is actually private enterprise: the ability of individuals and groups of individuals to start and run a business. What really made private enterprise take off and make us all rich was when it joined with democratic forms of government because the prior king-based systems tended to squash business.

The idea that "capitalism" is guilty of all the oppression and violence in the world is nuts. Before the modern world, Ghengis Khan conquered half the world and killed millions--without "capitalism". Under the feudal system, millions were serfs with no way out--essentially slaves.