From the start of the video: iPhone, Android, macbook, pc, kindle, netflix, facebook, instagram...

The video really feels like a over drawn insistence that people recognize that the American economy isn't a pure capitalistic 100% free market environment. That's something that should really be obvious, and not require being said unless your audience are 12 year olds or idiots. It still stands that compared to other giants of the world in China or Russia, it is still America taking the lead on 100% of the innovations that Rob listed, and by comparison, a far more capitalist oriented economy sets America apart. Heck, even include the EU in there as a slightly more socialist economy than America's, and still low and behold it is America that came out with every single example listed...

My takeaway from the video is not about Capitalism vs. Socialism that brought about the root of those innovations (i.e. the internet), but the direct, initial involvement of the education sector, military and/or government, NOT the "free market".

*Quality information here

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Sagemind.

Yeah, that's what he said. The Government, Military and Education systems mentioned received 100% of their revenues from taxation of a capitalism based(not pure) economy. That same government and military rely heavily on issuing contracts for R&D, supplies, and equipment all to companies operating in a capitalism based economy. That education system relies heavily on private investment and grants from corporate and private entities all generating their incomes from within a capitalism based economy.

That stands in contrast to the same governments, militaries and education systems elsewhere in competing countries like China and Russia, heck even the only slightly less capitalist EU too. Not a single one of the listed innovations came from any of those sources, but instead from within America. I think it is more than naive, but in fact dishonest, to ignore that being able to profit of your own ideas and grow your own business and keep the profits from it is just maybe a contributing factor in all that.

So, take a short cherry picked list of American inventions created largely with public funding, then claim only American capitalism could have produced them? Uhhhhh......

The inventors of the internet were NOT able to profit directly from their own ideas, they were military and publicly funded schools working in conjunction to create a publicly owned private data sharing network. Later, when this publicly funded network was opened to the public, private companies used it for private profit, and (often) slowed progress and stymied advancements in the process.
It's simply wrong to claim government funded advancements are due to capitalism simply because the taxes came from a capitalist country. Wow.

What about 5G...China is ahead of any capitalist country on that, and many other computing advancements. Those technicians don't see a scintilla of profit from their inventions, ideas, and often businesses (granted, some are allowed to make billions, but only a certain few that are government affiliated oligarchs, and it can be stripped from them the instant they don't tow the party line).

perfectly summized

the term socialism should be retired

it has lost it's meaning. Better to break down words, Like the definition of fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

The United States is fascist right now. Because of the corporate media now

Canada foreign policy is to help the US overthrow governments.Canada helping overthrow governments for zero legal backlash because you cant sue back to Canada

This guy is the atheist/vegan/crossfitter attempting to score douche points that are mostly irrelevant.

newtboy's on point again, thanks.

Using bcglorf's logic, it is TAXATION that invented the internet. Name me a country (capitalist/communist/socialist or otherwise) that doesn't tax its people, bcglorf. Makes no sense to me. The video's intent is about defining the "who" invented the (early) internet, it's about credit where it's due, not blindly attributing everything to the almighty "capitalism". The video is saying IS IT NOT IT (capitalism).

I wouldn't say the inventors didn't take advantage of its research, it's just that for them it's not (only) about profit. The military benefits with precision-guided missiles, drones & satellites, universities got their connected & online classrooms.

China is ALREADY doing R&D on 6G (https://www.techradar.com/news/china-has-already-kicked-off-its-6g-research)... "capitalism" better catch up, bcglorf!

What MUST be said though, is that the world really should thank the USA to open the tech & infrastructure up to the public (including the world) to make the world a more connected place (even with its many social warts and all).

All I know is that it took about 15 minutes to download one soft porn pic on Usenet newsgroup.

Capitalism (or the slow demise of feudalism, serfdom, slavery, bigotry and the middle ages in general) made science and progress possible.

It is a common misconception that rights and freedoms are useful in their own right. Its really up to individual people what they do with what they get.

Socialism is a step back because it tries to tell you what you should and should not do, thus limiting your freedoms and possible progress. There should always only be as much socialism as is morally acceptable.

@newtboy

That'd be an obvious no to taxation strawman, and the "cherry-picked list" wasn't made by myself, but rather the guy in the video so I think it a fair list to use as a critique of his point. I'm not narrowing or selecting anything to help me out, he did.

My 'logic' was not your taxation throw away, but rather as I stated: "being able to profit of your own ideas and grow your own business and keep the profits from it is just maybe a contributing factor in all that."

Innovation being connected to the ability of the inventor to profit from innovation? Doesn't seem a huge leap, and something that is far more pronounced under capitalism than socialism. So, yeah, when 100% of the examples the guy arguing here came up with all grew out of a nation with an underlying capitalist economy isn't a huge surprise, and makes a bit of case that maybe innovation IS encouraged by that factor of self-interest.

Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

There was no ground movement to develop the internet that was somehow community or government funded and that ultimately made it popular and useful.

In reality there was a 60s military communications project that got traction (after decades of basically spare-time tinkering development by weird individuals funded by socialism) when capitalism made home computers possible. Then it skyrocketed because profits could be made.

Socialism was an expensive land telephone line. Capitalism is five different ways I could get connected tomorrow at speed if I decide today. I just realized I stopped thinking about how fast my internet connection is years ago.

In reality, it wasn't spare time tinkering at all, it was serious academics doing full time paid research funded by the government. ARPANET, while funded by the defense department, was designed by and connected college researchers, the first transmissions were between UCLA and Stanford in 69, not the military. This was the first networking, the infant internet.
The military system in the 60's was a point to point tonal encryption system that ran on proprietary bell telephone systems with dedicated direct phone lines until the FCC forced Bell to give up it's capitalistic monopoly in 68, allowing for advancements in both the public and eventually private sector that led to the infant internet instead of just individual "computers" (and I use the term lightly here) directly communicating. Remember, back then, almost into the 90's, you needed to know the direct phone number of the other computer to connect (think "War Games"), there was no publicly accessible network.
The first retail internet transaction wasn't until 94.

Also imo, it was weird individuals tinkering in their spare time that made home computing anything more than very expensive word processors/calculators. We've had PCs since the 70's in my home, I remember what they could do then....I'm one of those weird individuals.

Long and short, your 5 different capitalistic ways ALL stem from a purely socialist base and a socialist denial of private for profit monopolies, and most if not all of them were developed and implemented using at least some public funding. Without that, we would still be using bell telephone phone modems to direct dial each other. Without public/private cooperation, neither sector could advance like they have together.
Imo, it's not an either/or situation, it's both.

And for some unknown mysterious reason America beat the ever living pants off of the USSR through that entire development period...

Really? Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer telecommunication innovations, or are you just assuming? Be sure to focus on pre '68 era, before American socialism was applied in large part (public funding/monopoly busting).

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately....so what's your point? Certainly not that Capitalism always beats socialism, I hope you aren't that deluded. Both have strengths and weaknesses, both ebb and flow. Neither are the sole determining factor for inventiveness, neither has a monopoly on invention.

Russia beat America into space even with their near poverty level economy at the time, and despite the fact that their scientists definitely didn't personally profit from their myriad of inventions required to make it happen.
I'm not arguing which is better, that's like arguing over which color is better....better in what way? I'm arguing against your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation. That's clearly a mistaken assumption imo.

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

@newtboyBut.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.

I never said that. Don't go putting up quotes like I said something when I didn't.

Clearly you don't need me here. If you just want to invent arguments for both sides while ignoring everything I've actually said you can do it on your own.

My mistake. That line was vil not you. Apologies.

But I have not ignored anything you said, I only mistakenly attributed one extra statement to you.

That said, I tried to end this back and forth yesterday as it was already unproductive.

But it (the internet) took off based on the possibility of profit. Got stolen from the nerds.

Of course basic research needs public funding. No direct profit - no market value. Some capitalists (entrepreneurs, people who invest their private property) look beyond direct profit and fund science, or arts, people are whimsical.

Iphones need a market. Without a market who would care if someone invented the Iphone?

Eventually. My brother was online before there was an internet, trading programs for his Apple 2 over the phone lines, and the web existed for years before the possibility of profit, and much longer before any profit was realised. The nerds (myself included) drove the expansion for quite a while, but I don't deny commerce has made it ubiquitous and fast. Companies want you to enjoy the experience of buying from them so you come back, so they have an incentive to continue funding advancements that benefit the market, making more potential customers.
There are many incentives not based on profit too, as you mentioned. I don't think it's an either/or equation.

Didn't iPhones basically create the smartphone market?

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

1) I question your sources, because some of the earliest writings ever found were business ledgers dealing with selling grains as I understand it. Capitalism has been a thing since before writing was a thing.

2) um...I think those kids in China would dispute that....THEY made the Iphones, which created a smart phone market by being useful and fun (for most people).

3) do you believe capitalism and the industrial revolution started at the same time, or that capitalism has something to do with surfs, civil rights, or secularism? Capitalism applied to people is indentured servitude, what we lazily call slavery. Unfettered capitalism created a situation where civil rights needed to be delineated and codified, it didn't create them any more than wildfires created firemen imo.

Some people do educate themselves before acting or making purchases, but it's not the norm.

Capitalism says your poor neighbors should die, because capitalism says there is no value to human life...I did a term paper on that. Value is derived from a supply/demand equation, and there's such a glut of humanity that human life has a negative value.

The government paid for around 75% of the technology development. "...it paid for some of the technology...." is incredibly misleading, if technically correct (the best kind of correct). Without a healthy dose of socialism, progress slows to a crawl and only the privileged few can afford it.

1 word....flip-phones. ;-) (I don't even have one of those)

1) no, trading is not capitalism.
2) kids in China did not - that is borderline silly. Creating and marketing the iphone created a DEMAND, the MARKET had been in place already (the US constitution, the fed, the dollar, cellular infrastructure, people free to buy things of their own will, the internet et cetera et cetera et cetera ad nauseam - takes a lot of preconceptions to be able to sell such a product)
3) basically yes.
4) I am sure we agree on a lot of things, this is one.
5) I understand government=socialism. The government of the US of A funds a lot of things that would be hard to justify as socialism. Maybe an argument can be made that basic research is a social investment IDK.

Basic research does not equal fast progress though. You can be as clever as Archimedes or Leonardo but steam trains require capitalism to make sense. Iphones required masses of rich crazy americans to take off - a market and demand. Without a market and demand (or a war) progress is slow as f***.

1) unless that trade is privately controlled, then it is.
2) you said MADE. They make them. ;-)
3) Capitalism isn't technological industry, or civil rights...it's trade and ownership. If an individual can own a business (edit :and profit from freely selling it's products) that's capitalism. Farms count.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
4) well, that's one thing we agree on then, but it's hardly a selling point for capitalism to most people.
5) If public funds are used for any public purposes, that's socialism imo. I certainly think basic research where the results are free to the public counts.