The suppliers and vendors are the ones who provide the machines and materials with which the researchers do their research. Do you think researchers build the scientific instruments from scratch that they use to do their research? Do they build their labs from scratch and run the plumbing and electrical wiring themselves? Have you ever even set foot in a research lab? There's a ton of infrastructure that a modern lab needs, which the researchers can't and won't build themselves. I used to be a physicist and knew people who had been physicists in the old Soviet Union. They had to deal with the problem of lack of infrastructure because of the nightmare of inefficiency that Soviet communism was. Sometimes they would perform miracles with what they had, but their research was usually fatally hampered. That's why they stuck mainly to working on theory.
Wow. just. Wow. A whole lot of obfuscation. There is a reason why I said that, in the context of this conversation, the vendors don't matter. I was talking about what motivates people! In this case, what motivates SCIENTISTS.
I only partially read the above paragraph, because I happened to see the words "Soviet Union" and "Communism." I think you just godwinned this thread.
You have dodged the question. Why doesn't communism work?
Uuummm....That wasn't your question. This was:
I wonder if you actually prefer capitalism to communism, and if you do, are you able actually to articulate some reasons why?
I answered it, and I articulated it. Now you ask a second question. This whole "communism" thing is starting to go off-track here
This is really, totally irrelevant to the conversation, because scientists do get compensated fairly decently in comparison to not having a profession. However, scientists don't actually become very wealthy. They aren't, for instance, as wealthy as a doctor. Or hell, even a marketing manager. Hell, even SALES managers make more than almost any scientist!
Astronomers, for instance, are typically the highest-paid scientists: They make a little over $100,000/year. (Decent pay, to be sure. Definitely upper-middle class. But not "rich.") Management positions across the board, the mean pay is about $112,000/year. "Science" positions, across the board, the mean pay is about $70,000. In comparison: A sales manager, a middle-of-the-road professional manager, will command about $137,000/year. An astronomer, the highest-paid position in the "sciences" makes about $112,000/year.
So, what does this tell us?
It tells us that people do NOT become scientists to become "rich." Yet most sciences are very challenging fields. Probably even more so than most management positions. Most scientists require a Master's or a PhD. Most "managers" only require a high school diploma or a Bachelor's. (A Purchasing Manager makes about $111,000, and usually only requires a Bachelor's and maybe some sort of certification. An astronomer makes about $112,000, and usually requires at least a Master's. But even with an excellent PhD, it is challenging to become one!)
As I posted earlier, even Forbes Magazine has done studies on "motivation." Money seems to be at the bottom of the list. And in many cases, money (greed) can actually corrupt.
So your idea of why communism failed (because it "stifles innovation," and that "everyone making the same money, will not cause people to work harder," blah, blah, blah, blah) is of only limited value. To a point that is true. But don't overstate the cause for the failure of communism. In the end, pure capitalism fails for the exact same reasons why communism fails. If you overstate how terrible communism is, then it's only fair for one to argue how terrible capitalism is. Luckily, we have found a nice little happy medium between the two, and it's called "Socialism."
So when it comes to life-saving technologies or space exploration, you prefer the communist model. Do you prefer that with respect to consumer electronics or automobiles? If not, why not?
What's with you and communism? Have you looked up the term "socialism" yet?
The personal injury bar are bloodsucking parasites on the ass of society for the most part. But even they play a role in the capitalist ecosystem. Regardless, marketing is a very important part of the product development cycle in a capitalist society. Without marketing, it would take much longer for consumers to learn about and use a new product, and competition and innovation wouldn't be as fierce as it is.
Who cares about marketing? The trouble is, people see commercials on tv and think they should take those drugs. I prefer doctors who aren't pressured by marketers, or corporate managers who are in turn pressured by investors panhandling their drugs as much as possible. I instead, prefer doctors (and drug research scientists), who are without pressure; doing their jobs, what they ENJOY doing and have a passion to get it right. The less sleazeballs involved in my healthcare, the better off I am.
) ! 
If I do, then I've failed to live up to my own expectations. I would genuinely appreciate if you can give me an idea of where I've done this?
