lol! they went to all the trouble to rope us into a war which leaves them securing a bunch of oil, obviously they are not going to pass the saveings on to the public.
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Xenon14
Considering the cost of war, how can people argue that it's an "oil driven war."?
Because the oil in the Middle East is crucial to the world's economies.
There's BIG money in oil.
The U.S., in 2003, used about 5.7million barrels of crude oil per day. Multiply that by the current $40/barrel price and you're looking at $228 million per day or almost $7billion/mo.
And prices have dropped with us being in Iraq?
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
The private sector in the US barely even puts R&D into long-term research. It's usually short-term.
If it wasn't for government research and defense & NASA industries, we'd be decades behind in certain industries. They've been critical in the acceleration of research and entire industries. As bad as it sounds to people like you, the US government has been responsible for much of the scientific advancement around the entire world.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
Huh? Thanks for labeling me. I don't think that the government is completely altruistic or that the private sector isn't doing enough. However, it cannot hurt if the government spends more in research. It seems to have done plenty in the past and right now.
Where did you get that from? It certainly DOES hurt when the revenue for these boondoggle research projects is raised through taxation, i.e. at the point of a gun. If I gave a moron $500 billion and told him to come up with some invention, even he could probably come up with something. Would his invention be useful, and would the money have been well spent? Almost definately not. This is what the government has done to an extent. It has taken billions of dollars and thrown it at research projects, then when something like the Internet pops out it says: "Tada! Look at all these great things government research is producing!" Meanwhile no one ever considers the fact that had the free market had the funds, it would have created the Internet or something even better in a shorter amount of time.
Funding private organizations and university programs isn't wasteful through the government if private groups are doing the research itself.
Who the hell told you that? The government may give funds to private groups for research, but they don't just give it away, they have strict guidelines that must be followed. Guidelines that are sure to kill ideas. Furthermore, the fruits of the company's efforts are forked over to the government, and the free market signals are absent insuring inefficiency.
Political motivations? As long as some research and development is done. What kind of political motivation is there to fund a semiconductor materials research group?
I can't catalog and classify every political motivation for you, but I assure you they exist in every case. A politician isn't going to fund a research project that isn't politically popular, hence the killing of the stem cell research funds.
It's nice that you posted a link to an opinion article consisted of a bunch of what if's and nothing real or concrete.
Call me blind but I didn't find a single "what if" in the entire article.
Anyways, this is obviously a topic with many differing views.
Unfortunately for you, your view is grounded only in what "feels good", not what truly is best.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
The private sector in the US barely even puts R&D into long-term research. It's usually short-term.
If it wasn't for government research and defense & NASA industries, we'd be decades behind in certain industries. They've been critical in the acceleration of research and entire industries. As bad as it sounds to people like you, the US government has been responsible for much of the scientific advancement around the entire world.
Maybe it would put R&D into long-term research if the corporate tax rate wasn't 34%. Imagine that! In any event the type of research that is needed/desired most will receive the most funds. The government need not meddle with research in order to provide "long-term" research, if long-term research is needed and is profitable money will be invested in those projects.
Give me a few trillion dollars and I could do the same. You are missing the point, the claim is not that government research is no good at all (any more than the goods manufactured by communist russia were no good at all), the claim is that private sector research is far better. Specifically, the claims are as follows:
1. Government funded research distorts the free market by funding projects with "free money". A company that wants to compete is pushed out of the market because they have to actually show a profit. When a business faces a behemouth of a competitor who has virtually unlimited funds garnered by taxation, that business is bound to go out of business. This is somewhat analogous to public education. The demand for private education is artificially reduced by the "free" education offered by the government.
2. Government funded research is far less efficient than the free market, because government funded research lacks market signals which are imperative to efficiency. If no feedback is being sent indicating whether the research is of any value or not then who the hell knows whether or not a project needs more funding? They don't, being politicians they just assume that it does and throw more money at it.
3. Government funded research is subject to political motivations, political motivations kill ideas. A researcher could have a great idea but if it doesn't follow the government's guidelines, or if the idea doesn't coincide with the goals of the politicians, the researcher's idea will never see the light of day.
Where did you get that from? It certainly DOES hurt when the revenue for these boondoggle research projects is raised through taxation, i.e. at the point of a gun. If I gave a moron $500 billion and told him to come up with some invention, even he could probably come up with something. Would his invention be useful, and would the money have been well spent? Almost definately not. This is what the government has done to an extent. It has taken billions of dollars and thrown it at research projects, then when something like the Internet pops out it says: "Tada! Look at all these great things government research is producing!" Meanwhile no one ever considers the fact that had the free market had the funds, it would have created the Internet or something even better in a shorter amount of time.
Who the hell told you that? The government may give funds to private groups for research, but they don't just give it away, they have strict guidelines that must be followed. Guidelines that are sure to kill ideas. Furthermore, the fruits of the company's efforts are forked over to the government, and the free market signals are absent insuring inefficiency.
I can't catalog and classify every political motivation for you, but I assure you they exist in every case. A politician isn't going to fund a research project that isn't politically popular, hence the killing of the stem cell research funds.
Call me blind but I didn't find a single "what if" in the entire article.
Unfortunately for you, your view is grounded only in what "feels good", not what truly is best.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Where did you get that from? It certainly DOES hurt when the revenue for these boondoggle research projects is raised through taxation, i.e. at the point of a gun. If I gave a moron $500 billion and told him to come up with some invention, even he could probably come up with something. Would his invention be useful, and would the money have been well spent? Almost definately not. This is what the government has done to an extent. It has taken billions of dollars and thrown it at research projects, then when something like the Internet pops out it says: "Tada! Look at all these great things government research is producing!" Meanwhile no one ever considers the fact that had the free market had the funds, it would have created the Internet or something even better in a shorter amount of time.
What if, what if, what if. Interesting. Would there have even been a program or market without the government demand and fostering research?
You obviously didn't read the article. It specifically mentions that the private sector was well under way in developing the Internet on its own, despite all the funds taxed away from it. You are implying that I should perform the impossible which is to show you a world where the government did not tax billions away for its own research projects. I can't do this, but I can deductively explain to you that we would be more prosperous if this had occured.
Who the hell told you that? The government may give funds to private groups for research, but they don't just give it away, they have strict guidelines that must be followed. Guidelines that are sure to kill ideas. Furthermore, the fruits of the company's efforts are forked over to the government, and the free market signals are absent insuring inefficiency.
They have guidelines, but I don't think that they kill all ideas at all. What kind of guidelines do they have specific to research, besides having to show your work to the government?
First of all a myriad of paperwork has to be done, this costs time and energy on the part of the researcher, hence inefficiency. Second of all the government must receive milestone reports, indicating "progress". Deadlines are set for particular phases of the research project, if they aren't met funding gets cut off. However, these milestone reports aren't any substitute for private incentives. They are subjective, who is to determine what exactly "progress" is, and when exactly funding should be shut off? Bureaucrats with preconceived notions, and subjective ideas. The market on the other hand is objective. If your research pays off, you get rewarded, if it is an utter failure you go out of business.
I can't catalog and classify every political motivation for you, but I assure you they exist in every case. A politician isn't going to fund a research project that isn't politically popular, hence the killing of the stem cell research funds.
Again, research would still be done in vital areas. I would love it if stem cell research would be funded, but that doesn't mean that research funded is useless just because a politician doesn't want to fund stem cell research. Give me one reason why semiconductor research is politically motivated.
I never said that stem cell research is useless. On the contrary, my point is that the government picks and chooses which sectors of science to research, distorting the market. If the free market wants to research projects XYZ but can't because the government has taxed away the funds that would have gone to project XYZ, then the government uses those funds to fund projects ABC, this is called market distortion. It is like taking money away from hotdog makers to subsidize hamburger makers. One reason why semiconductor research is politially motivated? Simple, so a politician can point to the research and say: "Look what I'm doing! Isn't this so great?!" and his ignorant constituents applaud and nod their heads.
Call me blind but I didn't find a single "what if" in the entire article.
I'm not sure if I'll find a "educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics" to be very fair at all.
Who said economics had to be fair? What exactly is fair? Is it fair for the government to disrupt voluntary and peaceful exchange in the name of some "greater good"? I believe this is the opposite of fair, in fact it is quite unfair.
Unfortunately for you, your view is grounded only in what "feels good", not what truly is best.
That's nice. The same could be said of you. I would be willing to change my view on this, but you would have to provide real information within the context of the real world and not an imaginary fairy tale land.
I already did, way up above. But I suppose I have to link again. Text. This article talks about real inventions, real scientists and real problems with government research.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
The private sector in the US barely even puts R&D into long-term research. It's usually short-term.
If it wasn't for government research and defense & NASA industries, we'd be decades behind in certain industries. They've been critical in the acceleration of research and entire industries. As bad as it sounds to people like you, the US government has been responsible for much of the scientific advancement around the entire world.
Maybe it would put R&D into long-term research if the corporate tax rate wasn't 34%. Imagine that! In any event the type of research that is needed/desired most will receive the most funds. The government need not meddle with research in order to provide "long-term" research, if long-term research is needed and is profitable money will be invested in those projects.
Give me a few trillion dollars and I could do the same. You are missing the point, the claim is not that government research is no good at all (any more than the goods manufactured by communist russia were no good at all), the claim is that private sector research is far better. Specifically, the claims are as follows:
1. Government funded research distorts the free market by funding projects with "free money". A company that wants to compete is pushed out of the market because they have to actually show a profit. When a business faces a behemouth of a competitor who has virtually unlimited funds garnered by taxation, that business is bound to go out of business. This is somewhat analogous to public education. The demand for private education is artificially reduced by the "free" education offered by the government.
2. Government funded research is far less efficient than the free market, because government funded research lacks market signals which are imperative to efficiency. If no feedback is being sent indicating whether the research is of any value or not then who the hell knows whether or not a project needs more funding? They don't, being politicians they just assume that it does and throw more money at it.
3. Government funded research is subject to political motivations, political motivations kill ideas. A researcher could have a great idea but if it doesn't follow the government's guidelines, or if the idea doesn't coincide with the goals of the politicians, the researcher's idea will never see the light of day.
The government creates the need for certain forms of research. There's no way the private industry is able to foster all types of research. Look at your own computer, it's the pefect example of that.
Why should all types of research exist? Some research is better left on the back burner while more pressing and lucrative ideas are pursued.
Specifically, the responses to your claims are as follows:
1. Nobody competes much in long-term research in the US. Therefore, there is no point talking about pushing people out of the market. The US government doesn't fund the Apple iPod to push out competitors from the mp3 market.
That is irrelevant, what is relevant is that funds that could/would go to private research projects are diverted to different research projects based on what a bureaucrat sees is "best" for society. If the free market sees less value in long term research projects then so be it, that is what is best for society. I have a hunch that these "long term research projects" that you speak of are merely billion dollar boondoggles that go on for decades with no results.
2. The government spends $20 billion or so for research just at universities alone. You write proposals for the government, which indicates whether or not something is of value or you write a proposal for something in specific which the government desires. Not only that, it educates people and proliferates knowledge throughout the society and creates more educated people. It is good to lack market symbols in long-term research because the market is too far away to even consider and can possibly not even be considered.
Ok, I don't care how these proposals are evaluated, in the end the bureaucrat decides where the funds go based on their own ideas about things, not based on what the free market knows. Notice how it is something the GOVERNMENT desires, not necessarily what is best for society. A lot of this research is funded by the DOD through DARPA, which only has one narrow minded goal: to build more effective weaponry and defense systems. Granted some of this research is useful for other applications(such as the Internet), but doing researching for those applications directly would be far more efficient than this idea of "hit and miss." with only part of the research being useful outside of defense applications. Education is best served in the free market as well, but now you are just getting off topic.
3. Most research cannot be politically motivated because atoms don't belong to political parties. If something is axed due to political motivations (which is sad), then ok. Something else is still being researched.
Atoms? I can't claim I know what you are talking about. Ok, then let's axe all government funded research altogether, something else in the free market is still being researched.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
The private sector in the US barely even puts R&D into long-term research. It's usually short-term.
If it wasn't for government research and defense & NASA industries, we'd be decades behind in certain industries. They've been critical in the acceleration of research and entire industries. As bad as it sounds to people like you, the US government has been responsible for much of the scientific advancement around the entire world.
Maybe it would put R&D into long-term research if the corporate tax rate wasn't 34%. Imagine that! In any event the type of research that is needed/desired most will receive the most funds. The government need not meddle with research in order to provide "long-term" research, if long-term research is needed and is profitable money will be invested in those projects.
Give me a few trillion dollars and I could do the same. You are missing the point, the claim is not that government research is no good at all (any more than the goods manufactured by communist russia were no good at all), the claim is that private sector research is far better. Specifically, the claims are as follows:
1. Government funded research distorts the free market by funding projects with "free money". A company that wants to compete is pushed out of the market because they have to actually show a profit. When a business faces a behemouth of a competitor who has virtually unlimited funds garnered by taxation, that business is bound to go out of business. This is somewhat analogous to public education. The demand for private education is artificially reduced by the "free" education offered by the government.
2. Government funded research is far less efficient than the free market, because government funded research lacks market signals which are imperative to efficiency. If no feedback is being sent indicating whether the research is of any value or not then who the hell knows whether or not a project needs more funding? They don't, being politicians they just assume that it does and throw more money at it.
3. Government funded research is subject to political motivations, political motivations kill ideas. A researcher could have a great idea but if it doesn't follow the government's guidelines, or if the idea doesn't coincide with the goals of the politicians, the researcher's idea will never see the light of day.
The government creates the need for certain forms of research. There's no way the private industry is able to foster all types of research. Look at your own computer, it's the pefect example of that.
Why should all types of research exist? Some research is better left on the back burner while more pressing and lucrative ideas are pursued.
Specifically, the responses to your claims are as follows:
1. Nobody competes much in long-term research in the US. Therefore, there is no point talking about pushing people out of the market. The US government doesn't fund the Apple iPod to push out competitors from the mp3 market.
That is irrelevant, what is relevant is that funds that could/would go to private research projects are diverted to different research projects based on what a bureaucrat sees is "best" for society. If the free market sees less value in long term research projects then so be it, that is what is best for society. I have a hunch that these "long term research projects" that you speak of are merely billion dollar boondoggles that go on for decades with no results.
2. The government spends $20 billion or so for research just at universities alone. You write proposals for the government, which indicates whether or not something is of value or you write a proposal for something in specific which the government desires. Not only that, it educates people and proliferates knowledge throughout the society and creates more educated people. It is good to lack market symbols in long-term research because the market is too far away to even consider and can possibly not even be considered.
Ok, I don't care how these proposals are evaluated, in the end the bureaucrat decides where the funds go based on their own ideas about things, not based on what the free market knows. Notice how it is something the GOVERNMENT desires, not necessarily what is best for society. A lot of this research is funded by the DOD through DARPA, which only has one narrow minded goal: to build more effective weaponry and defense systems. Granted some of this research is useful for other applications(such as the Internet), but doing researching for those applications directly would be far more efficient than this idea of "hit and miss." with only part of the research being useful outside of defense applications. Education is best served in the free market as well, but now you are just getting off topic.
3. Most research cannot be politically motivated because atoms don't belong to political parties. If something is axed due to political motivations (which is sad), then ok. Something else is still being researched.
Atoms? I can't claim I know what you are talking about. Ok, then let's axe all government funded research altogether, something else in the free market is still being researched.
You obviously didn't read the article. It specifically mentions that the private sector was well under way in developing the Internet on its own, despite all the funds taxed away from it. You are implying that I should perform the impossible which is to show you a world where the government did not tax billions away for its own research projects. I can't do this, but I can deductively explain to you that we would be more prosperous if this had occured.
First of all a myriad of paperwork has to be done, this costs time and energy on the part of the researcher, hence inefficiency. Second of all the government must receive milestone reports, indicating "progress". Deadlines are set for particular phases of the research project, if they aren't met funding gets cut off. However, these milestone reports aren't any substitute for private incentives. They are subjective, who is to determine what exactly "progress" is, and when exactly funding should be shut off? Bureaucrats with preconceived notions, and subjective ideas. The market on the other hand is objective. If your research pays off, you get rewarded, if it is an utter failure you go out of business.
I never said that stem cell research is useless. On the contrary, my point is that the government picks and chooses which sectors of science to research, distorting the market. If the free market wants to research projects XYZ but can't because the government has taxed away the funds that would have gone to project XYZ, then the government uses those funds to fund projects ABC, this is called market distortion. It is like taking money away from hotdog makers to subsidize hamburger makers. One reason why semiconductor research is politially motivated? Simple, so a politician can point to the research and say: "Look what I'm doing! Isn't this so great?!" and his ignorant constituents applaud and nod their heads.
Who said economics had to be fair? What exactly is fair? Is it fair for the government to disrupt voluntary and peaceful exchange in the name of some "greater good"? I believe this is the opposite of fair, in fact it is quite unfair.
I already did, way up above. But I suppose I have to link again. Text. This article talks about real inventions, real scientists and real problems with government research.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Instead of focusing on the Middle East for oil, we should look to Russia. They have huge amounts of oil that can be sold and they need a lot more money than the House of Saud.
How about focusing on alternative fuels?
Think of how much we could have done with $150billion spent on alternative fuel research!
Government funded/administered scientific research is a crock. Scientific research is best done in the private sector in all cases. Think of how much could have been done with that $150 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers.
Text
You're forgetting about NASA or groups funded by government money like university research and so on.
I would love it if the government spent more on resesarch. In fact, they need to spend more money on research.
Despite its incredible incompetence, NASA has a mystique even among those who generally scoff at State-sponsored truth. In reality, it is the largest obstacle to space exploration. It disadvantages the competing private sector by drawing on "free money." Of course, the money is not free, but stolen through taxes. Thus, companies and individuals are stripped of funds that could be directed into science they believed in. But individuals are not allowed to pursue private choices in science on the same level as they do with literature or music.
No I'm not
Government funded university research is in the same boat. I would love it if the government stopped spending money on research. In fact, they need to stop screwing up the free market in this critical sector of the economy.
You like a lot of other people, turn to the government for everything that you view to be "altruistic" like research & art. Somehow you believe that the private sector isn't doing enough in this area, that somehow the private sector "wastes" resources on other less important stuff. Truth is, the government is far more wasteful than the private sector could even dream of! Furthermore, government funded research is heavily tainted by political motivations, hardly a ripe environment for free-thinkers. I think you need to re-think your views.
The private sector in the US barely even puts R&D into long-term research. It's usually short-term.
If it wasn't for government research and defense & NASA industries, we'd be decades behind in certain industries. They've been critical in the acceleration of research and entire industries. As bad as it sounds to people like you, the US government has been responsible for much of the scientific advancement around the entire world.
Maybe it would put R&D into long-term research if the corporate tax rate wasn't 34%. Imagine that! In any event the type of research that is needed/desired most will receive the most funds. The government need not meddle with research in order to provide "long-term" research, if long-term research is needed and is profitable money will be invested in those projects.
Give me a few trillion dollars and I could do the same. You are missing the point, the claim is not that government research is no good at all (any more than the goods manufactured by communist russia were no good at all), the claim is that private sector research is far better. Specifically, the claims are as follows:
1. Government funded research distorts the free market by funding projects with "free money". A company that wants to compete is pushed out of the market because they have to actually show a profit. When a business faces a behemouth of a competitor who has virtually unlimited funds garnered by taxation, that business is bound to go out of business. This is somewhat analogous to public education. The demand for private education is artificially reduced by the "free" education offered by the government.
2. Government funded research is far less efficient than the free market, because government funded research lacks market signals which are imperative to efficiency. If no feedback is being sent indicating whether the research is of any value or not then who the hell knows whether or not a project needs more funding? They don't, being politicians they just assume that it does and throw more money at it.
3. Government funded research is subject to political motivations, political motivations kill ideas. A researcher could have a great idea but if it doesn't follow the government's guidelines, or if the idea doesn't coincide with the goals of the politicians, the researcher's idea will never see the light of day.
The government creates the need for certain forms of research. There's no way the private industry is able to foster all types of research. Look at your own computer, it's the pefect example of that.
Why should all types of research exist? Some research is better left on the back burner while more pressing and lucrative ideas are pursued.
Specifically, the responses to your claims are as follows:
1. Nobody competes much in long-term research in the US. Therefore, there is no point talking about pushing people out of the market. The US government doesn't fund the Apple iPod to push out competitors from the mp3 market.
That is irrelevant, what is relevant is that funds that could/would go to private research projects are diverted to different research projects based on what a bureaucrat sees is "best" for society. If the free market sees less value in long term research projects then so be it, that is what is best for society. I have a hunch that these "long term research projects" that you speak of are merely billion dollar boondoggles that go on for decades with no results.
2. The government spends $20 billion or so for research just at universities alone. You write proposals for the government, which indicates whether or not something is of value or you write a proposal for something in specific which the government desires. Not only that, it educates people and proliferates knowledge throughout the society and creates more educated people. It is good to lack market symbols in long-term research because the market is too far away to even consider and can possibly not even be considered.
Ok, I don't care how these proposals are evaluated, in the end the bureaucrat decides where the funds go based on their own ideas about things, not based on what the free market knows. Notice how it is something the GOVERNMENT desires, not necessarily what is best for society. A lot of this research is funded by the DOD through DARPA, which only has one narrow minded goal: to build more effective weaponry and defense systems. Granted some of this research is useful for other applications(such as the Internet), but doing researching for those applications directly would be far more efficient than this idea of "hit and miss." with only part of the research being useful outside of defense applications. Education is best served in the free market as well, but now you are just getting off topic.
3. Most research cannot be politically motivated because atoms don't belong to political parties. If something is axed due to political motivations (which is sad), then ok. Something else is still being researched.
Atoms? I can't claim I know what you are talking about. Ok, then let's axe all government funded research altogether, something else in the free market is still being researched.
It's pretty obvious that all types of research cannot exist. Never, not even in a fantasy utopia world that you live in.
You were the one who brought up all types of research, not me.
The funds are already going to private research groups. What are you talking about? $20 billion is already going to private research groups within universities.
Yeah, private research groups who would have otherwise not have gotten the money. It doesn't matter who the government gives the money to or how those entities are organized. When the government takes wealth from the citizens and funds something of its choosing, it inevitably distorts the free market.
There's not much difference between a bureaucrat and the officers of a company. The officers that allocate funds within the company aren't scientists, just like the bureaucrats. They're essentially the same. How does a free market know what is best for society? It doesn't.
Wrong. By definition, the free market is merely a reflection of the end rankings of society. From one of my essays on taxation (which was almost posted to the mises.org web site):
The economy is merely a product of individuals attempting to obtain means to ends and trading those means for mutual benefit. In other words signals individuals receive relating to desires for ends are translated into market signals. This is not to say that all desired ends translate into market signals, but rather the market is a subset of desired means to ends. If an individual desires the end of leisure time, their means to that end could simply be taking a nap in which no market signals will have been generated. The market is the set of means that are best obtained through mutual trade. When it comes to enjoying leisure time no specialization in a particular skill is required to obtain the means to that end, in this case taking a nap. The attainment of this end cannot be performed by another person as a service and therefore, trade is not the best way to obtain the means to leisure in this case, and this is why no market signals are generated by the attainment of this end.
The reason why the free markets for goods are so efficient is because they are in direct relationship with the rankings of ends of individuals whom desire those goods as means to ends. Since free markets are merely the expressions of individuals? rankings of ends those markets will always reflect the rankings of those ends as closely as possible. It is through the rankings of these ends that equilibrium prices are formed and trade commences. When individuals in a free market trade they are merely giving up goods that have lower marginal utility for goods that have higher marginal utility. When they trade with someone else that individual is doing the same and this is why trade is mutually beneficial. When individuals trade, they obtain means to ends that have a higher marginal utility than the means that they gave up, this generates wealth , and since every individual involved in this trade does this at the same time wealth is constantly being created through free trade. This shatters the myth that the economy is a ?fixed pie? that is divided up amongst individuals most able to grab a slice.
Governments desires can be best for society, just like they may not. Just like how free market may or may not. The government did incubate several industries which wasn't possible with private industry alone.
The government can never know exactly what is best for society, because the government cannot possibly receive and interpret market signals. In fact the government is the product of a huge number of conflicting signals, distorted and artificial.
The fact that you stated that you don't care how anything is evaluated means a lot. It's pretty crazy how someone thinks atoms and inanimate objects have a political agenda.
What is studied and the results that come from those studies have absolutely nothing to do with why something is studied in the first place. The fact that something is being studied that otherwise wouldn't be in the free market, is one of the issues.
Personally, I don't believe in a free market or anything like that. In reality, I believe we should all be slaves to the government and when we have children, they become property of the state and the government raises them to be super-people and indoctrinated with the government's agenda. Then everyone else is executed. This would create a super-society free of imperfections.
Hardy har har...
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
You obviously didn't read the article. It specifically mentions that the private sector was well under way in developing the Internet on its own, despite all the funds taxed away from it. You are implying that I should perform the impossible which is to show you a world where the government did not tax billions away for its own research projects. I can't do this, but I can deductively explain to you that we would be more prosperous if this had occured.
I did read the article and checked up on its source. It doesn't provide much information at all. It is essentially an editorial with hardly a balanced view.
Like I said, it talks about real inventions and real scientists, the concrete evidence that you were looking for. If you want to deny this, go ahead, no skin off me.
First of all a myriad of paperwork has to be done, this costs time and energy on the part of the researcher, hence inefficiency. Second of all the government must receive milestone reports, indicating "progress". Deadlines are set for particular phases of the research project, if they aren't met funding gets cut off. However, these milestone reports aren't any substitute for private incentives. They are subjective, who is to determine what exactly "progress" is, and when exactly funding should be shut off? Bureaucrats with preconceived notions, and subjective ideas. The market on the other hand is objective. If your research pays off, you get rewarded, if it is an utter failure you go out of business.
And this is different than private industry? There's a myriad of paperwork in private industry, including progress reports, meetings, etc.
Yeah, but if that paperwork doesn't help produce results the company loses profits. With government, you could fill out enormous amounts of paperwork just because some bureaucrat thinks you should.
I never said that stem cell research is useless. On the contrary, my point is that the government picks and chooses which sectors of science to research, distorting the market. If the free market wants to research projects XYZ but can't because the government has taxed away the funds that would have gone to project XYZ, then the government uses those funds to fund projects ABC, this is called market distortion. It is like taking money away from hotdog makers to subsidize hamburger makers. One reason why semiconductor research is politially motivated? Simple, so a politician can point to the research and say: "Look what I'm doing! Isn't this so great?!" and his ignorant constituents applaud and nod their heads.
Again, how is semiconductor research politically motivated? It doesn't matter if the government picks and chooses particular secotrs. We cannot expect it now to research every type and corner of science. We can't really expect the same out of private industry. Again, we could say the same thing about private industry.
It is not a matter of researching everything, it is a matter of researching the correct things. If there is money to be had in semiconducting research, the free market will provide funding for it, guaranteed. By having the government come in and try to somehow "boost" this sector of research, all it really does is screw everything up with bureaucracy and market distortion.
Who said economics had to be fair? What exactly is fair? Is it fair for the government to disrupt voluntary and peaceful exchange in the name of some "greater good"? I believe this is the opposite of fair, in fact it is quite unfair.
I didn't say that economics has to be fair.
Ok, well you said that Austrian economics seems to be unfair.
I already did, way up above. But I suppose I have to link again. Text. This article talks about real inventions, real scientists and real problems with government research.
No you didn't.
It's nice and all that you hate the government in every possible way, but I would much prefer to keep this society as scientifically advanced as possible. You may not prefer to, but then I'm very happy that you will most likely not have it your way.
The free market wants to keep this society as scientifically advanced as possible while providing all other needed and desired goods and services, I do not see why we need to divert wealth from the free market to the government in the name of research. I do not hate the government, for even tyrannies are products of the actions of men, so I strongly dislike the actions of some men who are in power, yes. However, in general I have come to realize that government is synonomous with decadence, for the government is the anti-thesis of the individual. This is literally true, almost every government building I have been in or seen has needed repairs/remodeling (except federal government buildings of course).
I will have my way. Since technology empowers the individual, and will continue to do so and the government is the anti-thesis of the individual and individuality, technology will eventually be the death nail of government. The edges have in fact just started crumbling, since now there are private gold backed digital currencies available to businesses and consumers. I believe that once the government loses control of the monetary system (and it will, and this has little to do with tax evasion), its power will either be severely reduced or reduced to virtually nothing. Do I go out and rant and rave about government decadence? Nope, I just exercise my right to vote and my right to opt out of the monetary system as much as I can by placing my paychecks into a GoldMoney account (www.goldmoney.com).
Get back to me when you come back to reality.
I'm living in reality. In fact I live in what is the real reality. As Plato would say, what you see are merely shadows on the walls in a very dark cave.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
What if we don't know what's *right* to resesrch? Blue sky research is just that - it may turn up something completely extraordinary and life changing. It may spawn an entire new industry. However, it may also seem at the time to be a "waste" of money with no "perceived" benefits.
Industry will have a hard time taking on a risk that 10 years in the future something at the moment uncontemplated might happen.
Thus, if I read you right, then in your scenario it would never be researched. Now, in current times such blue sky research has been severely curtailed to nearer goals. I think that to a degree this is a good thing. There are pressing issues that need to be addressed and it is about risk as much as knowledge.
But - a system where such research is killed off and the only investigation that is done revolves around near-sighted goals focusing on profit is a bad one IMHO. The search for knowledge in it's purest sense isn't just an intelectual challenge, it's a way of exploring ideas and concepts that give us completely new insight and benefits that are almost impossible to otherwise contemplate in the short term.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
What if we don't know what's *right* to resesrch? Blue sky research is just that - it may turn up something completely extraordinary and life changing. It may spawn an entire new industry. However, it may also seem at the time to be a "waste" of money with no "perceived" benefits.
Industry will have a hard time taking on a risk that 10 years in the future something at the moment uncontemplated might happen.
Thus, if I read you right, then in your scenario it would never be researched. Now, in current times such blue sky research has been severely curtailed to nearer goals. I think that to a degree this is a good thing. There are pressing issues that need to be addressed and it is about risk as much as knowledge.
But - a system where such research is killed off and the only investigation that is done revolves around near-sighted goals focusing on profit is a bad one IMHO. The search for knowledge in it's purest sense isn't just an intelectual challenge, it's a way of exploring ideas and concepts that give us completely new insight and benefits that are almost impossible to otherwise contemplate in the short term.
Cheers,
Andy
I don't know what "Blue Sky Research" is exactly, but if you post a link to it I might be able to offer my opinion.
This issue regarding "long term research" is frankly a non-issue. What you see as "long term research" I see as potential 30 year billion dollar boondoggle project that comes up with a product that is obsolete the second it hits the market.
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year. If you plan too far ahead the research you do could become worthless because some other technology comes along and swallows up the market. Furthermore, current research is fueled by current developments. Instead of researching something that is virtually impossible to make progress or where very slow progress is made with current technology, it is much more cost effective to postpone such research until a later time when the technology becomes available.
Imagine doing research in a particular field for 20 years, only to have some other invention come along and make your research trivial overnight. All that work would have been for nothing.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
What if we don't know what's *right* to resesrch? Blue sky research is just that - it may turn up something completely extraordinary and life changing. It may spawn an entire new industry. However, it may also seem at the time to be a "waste" of money with no "perceived" benefits.
Industry will have a hard time taking on a risk that 10 years in the future something at the moment uncontemplated might happen.
Thus, if I read you right, then in your scenario it would never be researched. Now, in current times such blue sky research has been severely curtailed to nearer goals. I think that to a degree this is a good thing. There are pressing issues that need to be addressed and it is about risk as much as knowledge.
But - a system where such research is killed off and the only investigation that is done revolves around near-sighted goals focusing on profit is a bad one IMHO. The search for knowledge in it's purest sense isn't just an intelectual challenge, it's a way of exploring ideas and concepts that give us completely new insight and benefits that are almost impossible to otherwise contemplate in the short term.
Cheers,
Andy
I don't know what "Blue Sky Research" is exactly, but if you post a link to it I might be able to offer my opinion.
This issue regarding "long term research" is frankly a non-issue. What you see as "long term research" I see as potential 30 year billion dollar boondoggle project that comes up with a product that is obsolete the second it hits the market.
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year. If you plan too far ahead the research you do could become worthless because some other technology comes along and swallows up the market. Furthermore, current research is fueled by current developments. Instead of researching something that is virtually impossible to make progress or where very slow progress is made with current technology, it is much more cost effective to postpone such research until a later time when the technology becomes available.
Imagine doing research in a particular field for 20 years, only to have some other invention come along and make your research trivial overnight. All that work would have been for nothing.
Hi,
Actually, technically I should say "pure" as opposed to "Blue sky" research.
Blue sky research is usually based around a dicipline (telecommmunications say) but explores more exotic and esoteric avenues of research as opposed to tried and tested designs currently in use (i.e. thinking about long distance high bandwidth communications as data rates not based on existing common technologies).
Pure research is done for the sake of knowledge.
It *may* be that in 50 years time that knowledge proves useful or even revolutionary. As viewed today people would say "what's the point?". However, in order to make large leaps in technology (in fact, invent whole new unthought of technologies) this is par for the course. Take for instance particle accelerators. Expensive and looked upon as next to useless. However, it may be that one day it could - for instance - give us an understaning of anti-matter, or some other exotic process/particle that revolutionises our world. This is not quite blue sky as we can just about make out an application but it's along those lines.
Your definition of what a "long term" research project invloves focuses around an application goal. I'm saying you needn't have that as the purpose and that industry won't rarely funds such endeavors. That's one big reason why government funded research has an important role to play. It makes sure we don't become permanantly short-sighted.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
What if we don't know what's *right* to resesrch? Blue sky research is just that - it may turn up something completely extraordinary and life changing. It may spawn an entire new industry. However, it may also seem at the time to be a "waste" of money with no "perceived" benefits.
Industry will have a hard time taking on a risk that 10 years in the future something at the moment uncontemplated might happen.
Thus, if I read you right, then in your scenario it would never be researched. Now, in current times such blue sky research has been severely curtailed to nearer goals. I think that to a degree this is a good thing. There are pressing issues that need to be addressed and it is about risk as much as knowledge.
But - a system where such research is killed off and the only investigation that is done revolves around near-sighted goals focusing on profit is a bad one IMHO. The search for knowledge in it's purest sense isn't just an intelectual challenge, it's a way of exploring ideas and concepts that give us completely new insight and benefits that are almost impossible to otherwise contemplate in the short term.
Cheers,
Andy
I don't know what "Blue Sky Research" is exactly, but if you post a link to it I might be able to offer my opinion.
This issue regarding "long term research" is frankly a non-issue. What you see as "long term research" I see as potential 30 year billion dollar boondoggle project that comes up with a product that is obsolete the second it hits the market.
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year. If you plan too far ahead the research you do could become worthless because some other technology comes along and swallows up the market. Furthermore, current research is fueled by current developments. Instead of researching something that is virtually impossible to make progress or where very slow progress is made with current technology, it is much more cost effective to postpone such research until a later time when the technology becomes available.
Imagine doing research in a particular field for 20 years, only to have some other invention come along and make your research trivial overnight. All that work would have been for nothing.
Hi,
Actually, technically I should say "pure" as opposed to "Blue sky" research.
Blue sky research is usually based around a dicipline (telecommmunications say) but explores more exotic and esoteric avenues of research as opposed to tried and tested designs currently in use (i.e. thinking about long distance high bandwidth communications as data rates not based on existing common technologies).
Pure research is done for the sake of knowledge.
It *may* be that in 50 years time that knowledge proves useful or even revolutionary. As viewed today people would say "what's the point?". However, in order to make large leaps in technology (in fact, invent whole new unthought of technologies) this is par for the course. Take for instance particle accelerators. Expensive and looked upon as next to useless. However, it may be that one day it could - for instance - give us an understaning of anti-matter, or some other exotic process/particle that revolutionises our world. This is not quite blue sky as we can just about make out an application but it's along those lines.
Your definition of what a "long term" research project invloves focuses around an application goal. I'm saying you needn't have that as the purpose and that industry won't rarely funds such endeavors. That's one big reason why government funded research has an important role to play. It makes sure we don't become permanantly short-sighted.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I don't know what "Blue Sky Research" is exactly, but if you post a link to it I might be able to offer my opinion.
This issue regarding "long term research" is frankly a non-issue. What you see as "long term research" I see as potential 30 year billion dollar boondoggle project that comes up with a product that is obsolete the second it hits the market.
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year. If you plan too far ahead the research you do could become worthless because some other technology comes along and swallows up the market. Furthermore, current research is fueled by current developments. Instead of researching something that is virtually impossible to make progress or where very slow progress is made with current technology, it is much more cost effective to postpone such research until a later time when the technology becomes available.
Imagine doing research in a particular field for 20 years, only to have some other invention come along and make your research trivial overnight. All that work would have been for nothing.
You cited one of the biggest boondoggle projects in the history of government! In the '80s there was a project called the Superconducting Super Collider. It was supposed to become the largest nuclear particle accelerator ever built. One of my uncles who has a PhD in physics and was appointed by Reagan to a pretty high up position in government in the '80s was instrumental in killing that project.
He told me the story about it, the project, like so many things in government it had literally ballooned out of control. One of the things he talked about was the amount of paperwork involved, which alone was enormous. He got some serious backlash for killing the project because so many bureaucrat's salaries depended on it, so he resigned from his post.
He also worked on the Star Wars program, that was another boondoggle that was killed, but I don't think he was part of killing that one.
In any event, these blue sky projects should be funded by charities that give to research foundations. There are a lot of them in the medical field, like the search for the cures for cancer etc. Plus, many people donate their computer CPU time to distributed computing projects as well.
If you want blue sky, go out there and get it. Start a foundation, get some people to donate to your cause. Do NOT however, use the government to extract funds at the point of a gun to fund them. This is just slothful.
This is just like so many other "wonderful" things. They may be "wonderful", "educational", "utopianesque", but their pursuit does not justify exercise of force against citizens.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
George Bush had done more dammage to our country than any man in history. He's just the person we deserve.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I don't know what "Blue Sky Research" is exactly, but if you post a link to it I might be able to offer my opinion.
This issue regarding "long term research" is frankly a non-issue. What you see as "long term research" I see as potential 30 year billion dollar boondoggle project that comes up with a product that is obsolete the second it hits the market.
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year. If you plan too far ahead the research you do could become worthless because some other technology comes along and swallows up the market. Furthermore, current research is fueled by current developments. Instead of researching something that is virtually impossible to make progress or where very slow progress is made with current technology, it is much more cost effective to postpone such research until a later time when the technology becomes available.
Imagine doing research in a particular field for 20 years, only to have some other invention come along and make your research trivial overnight. All that work would have been for nothing.
Yeah, imagine the poor fools that spend:
20 years developing a cure for AIDS
45 years researching cancer treatment and prevention
20 years' research on Scramjet engines
20 to 50 years getting hydrogen cars on the road and hydrogen in filling stations
The reason why short term research is preferred is because technology changes and grows so fast you never know what will be available the next week, let alone the next year.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
I still think you are missing the point here... (for one you still talk about a "product")
You cited one of the biggest boondoggle projects in the history of government! In the '80s there was a project called the Superconducting Super Collider. It was supposed to become the largest nuclear particle accelerator ever built. One of my uncles who has a PhD in physics and was appointed by Reagan to a pretty high up position in government in the '80s was instrumental in killing that project.
He told me the story about it, the project, like so many things in government it had literally ballooned out of control. One of the things he talked about was the amount of paperwork involved, which alone was enormous. He got some serious backlash for killing the project because so many bureaucrat's salaries depended on it, so he resigned from his post.
Well, I think CERN are renovating the large hadron collider at the moment. I'm sure it is possible to have such a project work - it depends on the government more than the research maybe? Perhaps all particle accelerators in the US should be shutdown? (I very much doubt a charity would be able to support them or a company would run them). They cost a lot to run and the money could be spent elsewhere. Does it matter that the US no longer becomes expert in this technology? What about 50 years from now?
It doesn't matter. These particle accelerators are great for adding elements to the chart that break down in nanoseconds, but other than theoretical work I do not believe they have practical applications.
He also worked on the Star Wars program, that was another boondoggle that was killed, but I don't think he was part of killing that one.
This is the thing. Research is never guaranteed. That's why it's research. If we knew it worked and how it worked it wouldn't need to be researched. Now, if some politically motivated people get together and promise a group of scientists/engineers a lot of money if they can do something revoultionary - and it turns out they can't, who's fault is it? Would we be better off not knowing if it was feasible? Was it a case of it would just cost too much but could eventually be done? Noty a simple case of "government research is bad".
Government research is bad for the reasons I have cited above in other posts.
In any event, these blue sky projects should be funded by charities that give to research foundations. There are a lot of them in the medical field, like the search for the cures for cancer etc. Plus, many people donate their computer CPU time to distributed computing projects as well.
If I canvassed people in the street and explained what I did for a living and how they should give me money as opposed to "cancer research" I'd get next to nothing. If I wasn't doing it they would be the first to complain in about 5-10 years time. Luckily, there are enough people in the government, professionals employed in this capacity, to see that such research is not an option. Do you think the army should hold a raffle to buy tanks?
HuH? What does this have to do with raffles??
If you want blue sky, go out there and get it. Start a foundation, get some people to donate to your cause. Do NOT however, use the government to extract funds at the point of a gun to fund them. This is just slothful.
I'm not talking about niceties here. I'm not dreaming of maglev skateboards or teleportation - there are things that continually need to be investigated to keep up the current pace of scientific progress. I think you do not realise the extent to which everyday things come about via research that's not intended to have a specific goal. You can throw away all of your 1GB+ hard drives for a start. Don't need computer storage nowadays.
Things are continually investigated by private charities and private enterprise. Give me some very good reasons why government needs to fund research. Taxation is exercise of force against people by the government, it is not voluntary, they MAKE you pay. Tell me why people should be forced to pay for research that they probably know little or nothing about, and perhaps not even support?
This is just like so many other "wonderful" things. They may be "wonderful", "educational", "utopianesque", but their pursuit does not justify exercise of force against citizens.
You still see it as a fluffy intellectual past time rather than as a necessity for technological advance. I think that's the key difference between us.
I don't know what you mean by that, but I think the difference between you and I is that you are willing to exercise force against citizens at the drop of a hat for whatever "feels good". "Wow, a blue sky project! get out your checkbook and pay for this right now! Uncle Sam is going to come a knockin' with a gun if you don't!"
Cheers,
Andy