> What if Sharon is selling baskets for $10, and I found a revolutionary way to sell them for $9
The comment you were originally replying to was regarding non-currency economies, so first of all I would assume "require less labour" or "more efficient use of materials".
> I wouldn't be able to since I'd be required to share my trade secret with Sharon.
If you want Patent protection you currently need to share the mechanics of how you achieved that. If you use it as a "trade secret" and someone independently figures a similar or identical way then you are out of luck.
> What incentive would I have to innovate?
Requiring less labour on your community and yourself, if both you and Sharon are more efficient then you both have more free time for other stuff, even leisure or study. Currently if you are an employee in a private company if you make something more efficient good luck because you are getting to do more work for the same pay. (and the company might decide not to hire more people or fire people depending on how much labour you saved them)
In the current political-economy where most people are employees they are desincentivized from working efficiently by the threat of losing their employment.
> In Bullshit Jobs, American anthropologist David Graeber posits that the productivity benefits of automation have not led to a 15-hour workweek, as predicted by economist John Maynard Keynes in 1930, but instead to "bullshit jobs": "a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case."
The comment you were originally replying to was regarding non-currency economies, so first of all I would assume "require less labour" or "more efficient use of materials".
> I wouldn't be able to since I'd be required to share my trade secret with Sharon.
If you want Patent protection you currently need to share the mechanics of how you achieved that. If you use it as a "trade secret" and someone independently figures a similar or identical way then you are out of luck.
> What incentive would I have to innovate?
Requiring less labour on your community and yourself, if both you and Sharon are more efficient then you both have more free time for other stuff, even leisure or study. Currently if you are an employee in a private company if you make something more efficient good luck because you are getting to do more work for the same pay. (and the company might decide not to hire more people or fire people depending on how much labour you saved them)
In the current political-economy where most people are employees they are desincentivized from working efficiently by the threat of losing their employment.
> In Bullshit Jobs, American anthropologist David Graeber posits that the productivity benefits of automation have not led to a 15-hour workweek, as predicted by economist John Maynard Keynes in 1930, but instead to "bullshit jobs": "a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case."
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bullshit_Jobs