/sci/ - Science & Math

You forget it's executives who take the advances made by scientists lower down the list and put them into practice, they are essentially part of the process of technological development. It's no good just to say "uranium decay generates heat", you have to regulate the rate of decay, convert that heat into electricity and use that electricity for economically productive purposes in the big wide world which most scientists have little knowledge about despite their ability to analyze a small area of the world under a microscope.

Kudos on all the scientists like Tesla and Ritchie but the business end of science needs Edisons and Jobses, they are the ones who turn theory into practice which is a lot more difficult and strenuous task and which likewise deserves a lot more recompense.

Historically political liberalization is synonymous with wealth, the only reason ancient Greece had democracy was because it was the premier mediterannean trade center.

People get confused when they see capitalists buying minerals and oil and shit from evil African dictators, they don't realize that this economic activity is a lifeline for millions of Africans who would otherwise be facing the most decrepid poverty and oppression. The dictator does spend some of that money on weapons and palaces, but he also spends some of it on roads, ports, dams, investments in light industry, sanitation and electricity, he knows that he needs a skilled educated and peaceful labor force in order to keep his palaces and gunships, eventually the country will develop economically and the dictator will stand down like Suharto, or if not get beat down like Gaddafi. Either way it's for the greater good.

Maybe we should try to better use our economic ties to speed up liberalization or ease the transition, I don't know. I'm just stating facts, call me a gun toting hick or whatever, I care not.

What is down there that I can't already profit from using conventional technology (oil rigs)? Specifically something that causes environmental damage, causing environmental damage is a good indicator for high profits and my sole desire is to obtain power and money, in part because I want to live in opulent splendor (who doesn't) but also because I have a grand plan which will require vast sums of capital for R&D.

>>3762144
Do you realize your opinionated criticismphobic attitude towards LFTR only holds it back?

When you're wrong about something you need to shut up and fix it, not whine like a butthurt politician, admitting you are wrong might hurt your reputation but it does nothing to help advance LFTR technology and prove to rational objective investors that it is feasible and worth adding to their portfolio which should be your primary concern. But obviously not, obviously you are like Sarah Palin or someone.

Patent it and sell it to people who have already found profitable uses for such a machine, this will lower the cost of liquid oxygen/nitrogen and so forth which will result in the market opening up more uses for this machine. Previously niche activities like using liquid nitrogen as an expensive coolant will become far more economical and will in turn allow further advances in other areas which will in turn support an even wider range of economic activities, all of which will be facilitated by private enterprise and economic freedom.

Capitalism. Capitalism is not evil for accepting reality, it is good for accepting reality and the reality is humans are stupid animals, myself included. Capitalism nips problems in the bud by rejecting the conditions that cause poverty, it's not capitalism that forces people into sweatshops and exploits them, it's capitalism that allows indigenous tribes to legally own their land and have the same power as a corporate executive. When the corporate executive rubs shoulders with a politician and makes him waver their property rights how is that capitalism? Another example, some peasants are starving while the rich own all the land and use it to grow coffee, if the rich grew grain and fed the starving peasants they would just have 8 kids per family and they would have to turn over more land to grain until there is no more land left, then they would continue having 8 kids per family until population grows to fit the resources and every time there is a drought people starve. Under capitalism the peasants would have to find a way to be economically productive, instead of 1000s of peasants starving, you've had 100 or so peasants working in the coffee industry or moving to the city to work as technicians.

Is it cruel not to alleviate the poverty of the 100? Yes. Reality is cruel. Sorry.

>>3507485
Investment is work, you must study for years to understand even the basics of finance or a sector of the economy, you must then conduct intensive research and keep meticulous records, perhaps even use your equity to influence the management of a business in order to maximize profits.

What resources do I have? Am I elected prime minister tomorrow and given 100 billion by the IMF with a 1% interest rate? Or am I just a middle class white kid sat in front of a computer?

Contribute to one of these.

Spoiler: Think flexibly, for instance science and technology is a "force multiplier" component of capital, opening up new markets provides land and labor, you don't have to be a laborer to provide labor.

Capitalism is the business end of science and they have danced hand in hand for 200 years. If capitalism is evil then I glad for if a fruity communist utopia is impossible then at least tyrants will always value science.