3 ms·

This reminds me of two other well-established area where government spending was assumed to the be the only way, but is/was preventing progress. Namely, those

by Empact 16y ago

This reminds me of two other well-established area where government spending was assumed to the be the only way, but is/was preventing progress. Namely, those are aid to Africa, and NASA. In both cases, public monies realigned the efforts of those associated to seek and maintain the public monies first, which are not necessarily related to progress whatsoever. That is, building a army of bureaucrats for any space launch, in the case of NASA, and pulling would-be African entrepreneurs away from productive efforts and toward positions in the bureaucracies best-positioned to receive and distribute the aid within Africa. If African aid money can devastate Africa by pulling the best and brightest into unproductive bureaucratic positions, then it's certainly plausible that research aid can pull the best and brightest away from the most productive pursuits and toward whatever the distributors of public money happen to demand, productive or not.

abstractbill 16y ago
In the case of NASA at least, I think things are a little more nuanced. I don't believe we would have made it to the moon if only private enterprise had been involved, nor sent probes to the planets and the outer edges of the solar system. Those are very worthwhile accomplishments. But, yes, I do believe NASA's time is coming to an end. We do seem to be reaching a point where private concerns are ready to push space exploration to the next level, and that's very exciting! I think in general the way we fund things shouldn't necessarily be an either/or question. I can think of other examples where something needed to be publicly funded up to a certain point in its development, and then equally needed to be wrestled away from a public-funding model so that private businesses to keep it moving forward.
joe_the_user 16y ago
I don't think your choosing good or typical examples here. Both are relatively "applied". The "basic science" would be a bit harder to have funded - abstract math research, basic physics research, marine biological research. Now, I would actually say the government should be spending more on basic research and less on applied research but that's an entirely different question. Most basic research has payoff sooner or later. It's just fairly clear that the market isn't going to be financing things with a fifty years window.
- Empact 16y ago
  The question is not whether basic research[1] is good or will it happen[2], the question is, what sort of activity is being crowded out by government money? You don't even have to go to the government to see the question-ability of the hands-off research bureacracy approach: compare Microsoft Research to Apple's technical efforts, or consider Xerox Park absent a few entrepreneurs to bring their efforts to market. Research expresses its value in its application, and research funded by private means, for profit or charity, is far more likely to see its result applied to productive ends. I can't tell you what sort of window for basic research private money would support, but I can tell you that connecting research to a meaningful expression is fundamental to the value of the research, and it would seem, far more likely to happen as a result of private funding. [1] I'd argue NASA has exactly this sort of 'basic research' nature, in that its efforts pay out in the very long run. Now, this has not prevented them from devolving into what is essentially an inefficient, bureaucratic jobs program for the aerospace industry. [2] The talk makes the point that basic research in math, science, &c. was funded long before government intervention, as a result of economic activity.
  - ccamrobertson 16y ago
    but I can tell you that connecting research to a meaningful expression is fundamental to the value of the research This is a really interesting point, notably with regards to NASA. From the outset, NASA was at its core a defense oriented expenditure - that is to say that it was imbued with an explicit purpose. Fast-forward to the creation of the space shuttle and the thawing of space-relations with the Apollo-Soyuz docking in 1975. It seems that from this point forward that NASA's mission of human spaceflight had lost its way, characterized today by the morass that the space shuttle has become.

by Empact 16y ago

abstractbill 16y ago

In the case of NASA at least, I think things are a little more nuanced. I don't believe we would have made it to the moon if only private enterprise had been involved, nor sent probes to the planets and the outer edges of the solar system. Those are very worthwhile accomplishments. But, yes, I do believe NASA's time is coming to an end. We do seem to be reaching a point where private concerns are ready to push space exploration to the next level, and that's very exciting! I think in general the way we fund things shouldn't necessarily be an either/or question. I can think of other examples where something needed to be publicly funded up to a certain point in its development, and then equally needed to be wrestled away from a public-funding model so that private businesses to keep it moving forward.

joe_the_user 16y ago

I don't think your choosing good or typical examples here. Both are relatively "applied". The "basic science" would be a bit harder to have funded - abstract math research, basic physics research, marine biological research. Now, I would actually say the government should be spending more on basic research and less on applied research but that's an entirely different question. Most basic research has payoff sooner or later. It's just fairly clear that the market isn't going to be financing things with a fifty years window.

Empact 16y ago
The question is not whether basic research[1] is good or will it happen[2], the question is, what sort of activity is being crowded out by government money? You don't even have to go to the government to see the question-ability of the hands-off research bureacracy approach: compare Microsoft Research to Apple's technical efforts, or consider Xerox Park absent a few entrepreneurs to bring their efforts to market. Research expresses its value in its application, and research funded by private means, for profit or charity, is far more likely to see its result applied to productive ends. I can't tell you what sort of window for basic research private money would support, but I can tell you that connecting research to a meaningful expression is fundamental to the value of the research, and it would seem, far more likely to happen as a result of private funding. [1] I'd argue NASA has exactly this sort of 'basic research' nature, in that its efforts pay out in the very long run. Now, this has not prevented them from devolving into what is essentially an inefficient, bureaucratic jobs program for the aerospace industry. [2] The talk makes the point that basic research in math, science, &c. was funded long before government intervention, as a result of economic activity.
- ccamrobertson 16y ago
  but I can tell you that connecting research to a meaningful expression is fundamental to the value of the research This is a really interesting point, notably with regards to NASA. From the outset, NASA was at its core a defense oriented expenditure - that is to say that it was imbued with an explicit purpose. Fast-forward to the creation of the space shuttle and the thawing of space-relations with the Apollo-Soyuz docking in 1975. It seems that from this point forward that NASA's mission of human spaceflight had lost its way, characterized today by the morass that the space shuttle has become.