3 ms·
> Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate. Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our
by beefield 8y ago
> Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate.
Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our top talents have been allocated to generating financial innovations like motgage backed securities and figuring our how to get more people clicking on ads. So if this talent was reallocated to space exploration (which again someone might argue that can't be less stupid way to allocate these resources than click industry) the speed of technological progtess might change dramatically.
Just makes one wonder if there is something fishy how the free market supposedly is the most efficient allocator of resources...
- mmirate 8y agoOkay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? Space sounds exciting, sure, but Earth still has enough resources that there aren't any goods that can be produced in space that can't be produced more cheaply on Earth.
- beefield 8y ago> Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here? That's the problem. I have no better definition. I just have a feeling that the current economics 101 doctrine of free markets just might not be the right answer to all resource allocation problems. (I am vague on purpose who defines what is right and what is wrong. I have no answer to that, either. Just my personal opinion.)
- guhidalg 8y agoAs long as people believe that efficiency == profits, I doubt the view will change.