• AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    People, in general, do not work for material gain. They work because they have to in order to live, procreate and raise their children. People want a minimum amount of prosperity and economic safety. Beyond that, they want to work in a way and a place that fulfills them. Work itself is fun when done right, and working with others is awesome. Not even the “smart ones” or whatever work mainly for material gain in general. There are an overwhelming amount of counter examples to any variation of your claim. It would be more accurate to say people work for fame and glory, or to get laid (again reproductive success).

    But even if what you said was true, it does not justify a complete monopoly. You could have something like “congrats you patented a new idea - if it catches on you will get a free house as a price!”

    Of course you know all this and are just arguing facetiously. If “the person who can solve climate change” does anything but trade stocks they would contradict your argument. There is no money in inventing climate solutions. But nice insult to the people who are working on things like that.

    Your actual argument is that we reward gambling and non-productive activity too much. That the smartest people are not working towards the survival or wellbeing of humanity, but for… crumbs off the table of the capitalists. That our economic system is not efficient in working towards our shared human values.

    • Fleur_@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      All of the jobs needed in society are not all of the jobs people would do if left to their own pursuits. Incentives are required.

      • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Yeah absolutely. Material incentives are needed, but they don’t need to be so high, just fair. Certainly not a monopoly over predictable technological progress (more or less predictable) that allows them to prevent people using that progress. Especially since that monopoly is being captured by capitalists.

        And incentives can and should be non-materialist too. Think of a oscar or grammy show for the best new inventions. Or something similar to crowdsourcing platforms where people can vote on what inventions they want to see rewarded and implemented. A bank that can finance risky ventures like this instead of concentrating more wealth. We have more tools and possibilities today and we need an updated economic theory that can use these tools.

        The idea of a lone inventor that can profit of his own invention is sort of like fantasy economics today. I believe it comes from comics and superhero movies lol. Reality is privatizing profit and socializing the costs of previous research and slowing down implementation of progress.