What's the best way to stimulate innovation? If conflict

>>9054610
>What's the best way to stimulate innovation?
capitalism and an efficient economic system

war kills a lot of potential contributors to science

>>9054618
Not to mention that researchers where drawn out from fields that weren't useful for the war effort. I feel this is often overlooked.

War simply meant lots of funds funneled into research. You could do that without a war.

>>9054610
reward it

>>9054618
>war kills a lot of potential contributors to science
anyone valuable to science (i.e. scientists and their kids) are heavily protected for obvious reasons

>>9054619
but this is good for innovation - pull scientists out of their ivory towers and make them figure out how to make something practical

>>9054622
>War simply meant lots of funds funneled into research. You could do that without a war.
I couldn't do that without a war, and neither could you. Taxation is already theft, and without the threat of a Russian cock up their ass, no one is going to be willing to pay a penny more

File: 1496434667297.png (117KB, 562x504px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 562x504px

>>9054610
1. Ban patents. They never, ever end up protecting the little guy and only prevent people from using important technologies for several decades.

2. Make the corporate tax rate proportional to market capitalization so that businesses break themselves up into smaller more competitive entities.

It really that simple. Of course pic relateds will cry about it.

>>9054641
>a penny more
Just use existing taxes diverted from military and entitlements budges.

>>9054647
>Ban patents.
Patents are supposed to increase competitiveness and innovation so you can't just have firms copying one another and winning through who can outmatch the other in sheer production.

They're supposed to protect those startups that file patents, but then become bankrupt because a factory in China is already pumping out a ton of their product before they've even secured a manufacturer.

Will banning patents improve innovation and competitiveness if it allows bigger firms to steal ideas?

>>9054673
What about reducing their lifespan by at least a half?

>>9054674
To be honest, I'm not quite sure - but I do think that patents do serve a valuable purpose (within reason).

>>9054673
>Patents are supposed to increase competitiveness
>supposed to
>supposed
Deeply ponder this before replying: do they actually? They're currently being used to deny markets to competitors even when a business has no intention whatsoever of producing the patented product. 3D printers as we know them today are a technology from the 1980's that just became available because the patent clusterfuck around it started expiring.

>>9054682
now pay me those 500 bucks for a textbook

>>9054688
B..b.b..but I'm still poor from buying my last textbooks.

>>9054622
>War simply meant lots of funds funneled into research. You could do that without a war.

nailed it. Socialism en mass, massive government spending on research and development produces incredible scientific and technological advances.

we are well beyond the time when a man working alone on his property can "innovate" some new technological marvel.

>>9054659
Yeah no shit the money is there, the government officials will just refuse to stop embezzling long enough to get anything useful done, unless they are under direct threat of death by firey explosions.

>>9054610
war is destructive and it only improves weapons, it doesn't do much to improve fundamental science, if we were always at war we'd have very good swords and armor but we'd have no steam engines and shiz because it would all get destroyed the moment we try to build one

capitalism is best, greed for energy, resources, efficiency, luxuries and arms as well, it covers everything

>>9054610
lot of money
allow trial and error

>>9054610
World War I wiped out an entire generation of scientists. Schwarzchild worked out his metric while fighting in the trenches of the Eastern front - if one errant shell had fallen in the wrong place it could have set physics back a decade, probably much more.

World War II is constantly praised as having caused a leap forward in technology, but that was only in a very narrow range of applications - and technological progress continued and indeed accelerated just fine after the war. It also set the stage for the uranium-plutonium dominated nuclear paradigm which has screwed us over in the long run.

>>9054641
>pull scientists out of their ivory towers and make them figure out how to make something practical
Let's just make them all engineers and in two years we have a colony on the sun!

>>9054641
>anyone valuable to science (i.e. scientists and their kids) are heavily protected for obvious reasons
No.

1. Government funded research.

2. Throwing all free market advocates in gulags.

>>9054647

You are making the market more hostile to innovation, fucking retard.

>must guard everything as a trade secret, cannot share anything with anyone because no way to protect it and earn royalties

>breaks big corporate bodies into smaller ones that literally are too weak to get the big projects going; no SV startup is going to do the work that Boeing is doing; some things require a whole lot of capital and manpower; of course those things are better accomplished by government entities altogether.

Even for a lolbertarian you are especially ignorant of basic economics.

File: serveimage(3).png (367KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 900x900px

>>9057618
>MUH ECONOMICS
Your pseudoscience has no power here.

File: 1500870878547.png (99KB, 147x255px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 147x255px

>>9054641

>make them figure out how to make something practical

>make

>practical

Scientist =/= engineer