Embed Notice

@Shamar @toiletpaper @scottsantens > Uhm… no: only van Gogh was an artist.

Sorry, yes I mispoke. I should have said “people” not artist. Otherwise my poiunt stands

Meucci was a inventor (invented the phone)

I am aware of who is. He had the marketable skill of being able to create a device that was more less a telephone, but lacked the complete set of marketable skills needed to market it. Namely, he was not particularly skillful in how to create or file patents and thus was unable to monetize his invention.

Which is again in strong support of my position, you need marketable skills, not just some random melange of skills that might create genius, but will prevent that genius from having utility since you lack the needed, and complete, skills to take it there.

and Olivetti was a visionary enterpreneur (his company invented the first programmabke desktop computer, then illegally copied by HP).

Olivette is in fact the strongest example in support of my point. He managed to start a company, it was quite successful during his lifetime (albeit it more so after too). In fact in his own words he praised the capitalist system, specifically the USA where he moved to be the pinnacle of modern economies.

The market was unable to understand the utility provided, because it simply does not work as in the classical economy models.

What are you talking about, the market cant “understand” utility, again thats not what utility is… The market can not exist in any state other than one in which utility is represented in the market, it is by definition.

Not to mention these are all examples of things where the market literally did demonstrate the utility. Van gogh had his paintings sold for millions. The fact that it was after his death only means they had utility to people later and not before… When he was alive his paintings brought people less joy, and thus had less utility,a nd people paid less for it. Later after his death people enjoyed his paintings more, meaning they had more utility then they had during his life, and as such their price reflected it.

Similarly with Meucci, his invention certainly had utility to people, but since he poorly documented the patent his invention it had less utility for people. A well documented good idea has more utility (by a large margin) then a less documented one.

And finally again Olivette literally had a very successful company and very much realized the utility of his work in his life.

There is an annoying feature of the market called information asymmetry that makes often impossible to understand (and thus pay for) what provide value. It’s a slightly advanced topic in microeconomics (that in fact, I studied at the University, in the course of Political Science, decades ago).

Again you seem to fail to understand the meaning of utility here. The utility of a thing is intimitatly related to the information attached to it. If your product is not well documented or have the info needed to show its value it objectively has less utility, the information you attach to a thing is a large part of how much utility that thing has. Things dont exist in a vacuum.

So there is no need to continue this convesation: keep thinking that I confirmed your opinion if it make you feel better than understanding what I actually wrote..

I mean, you can also just actually listen to what i said and try to understand it rather than disagreeing with concepts you clearly never bothered to understand before you decided if you agreed with it… that works too.

@toiletpaper @scottsantens