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? Yo

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.