Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Well what you describe is exactly what I thought you were saying. The fact is that a large portion of the population is always struggling just enough to survive and so your argument comes to the conclusion that all public prosperity comes from the expense of the resourceful wealthy.
|
I'm saying that with maximum capacity population there won't be any "resourceful wealthy".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
However, commercial expenditures are always driven by commercial interests. Thus, what beneficial qualities that do come from them are always either accidental (with scientific investigation) or secondary (architecture).
|
Does poetry fit into that? I don't think so as you can't make any money from it even nowadays when not everyone is working just to live and people have money to spend on books of poetry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
What you overlook is that the most beneficial innovation comes from philanthropic spending in that it allows innovation for its own sake. Of course, philanthropy is usually associated to wealthy individuals but the government also funds programs for the public good.
|
Again, in the situation I'm talking about in which we have the biggest population that can survive, everyone will be living on the bare minimum they nees. There won't be any philanthropy: there'll nothing to give!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Still, though, I don't accept the belief that innovation itself is economically driven. However, I think the application of innovation is economically driven which confuses some people.
|
No, not all innovation is economically driven. I mentioned poetry. Companies on the other will be driven to innovate to make money. My point is that in the situation I'm talking about there won't be any money for innovation because all funds will go into survival...in fact there wouldn't be any funds, everyone would be given rations: rationed food, rationed clothes etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
should be done is reducing the economic disparity between the wealthiest and poorest so that the innovation can benefit the greatest number, either by commercial or public means.
|
This isn't relevant to what I was saying.