4 ms·
> There are lots of non-infrastructure advantages that exist only because the government has tax money. I'd posit that, for many of these advantages, governmen
by adbge 16y ago
> There are lots of non-infrastructure advantages that exist only because the government has tax money.
I'd posit that, for many of these advantages, government is not a necessary cause. That is to say, these non-infrastructure advantages can exist independent of government.
> But without it, we wouldn't know that cigarettes are bad...
This is demonstrably false.
"In 1938 a study by a John Hopkins University scientist suggested a strongly negative correlation between smoking and lifespan."[1][2]
"In 1953 scientists at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City demonstrated that cigarette tar painted on the skin of mice caused fatal cancers."[3]
The Sloan-Kettering Institute is by and large funded by the Rockefeller family.[4]
> "or that heart disease is correlated with red meat consumption."
The original research supporting this is, in fact, from a government institute. However, the study has been criticized using an improperly validated food frequency questionnaire[5], which has been shown to have low accuracy.[6][7] A later Harvard study found evidence that it's processed meat that causes heart disease, not red meat.[8]
> The US Gov't spends billions into research that doesn't lead to tangible products or services.
I'm constantly amazed at how many products came out of the space race. Enriched baby food, scratch resistant glasses, advances in water purification, even more aerodynamic golf balls! It's truly marvelous.
[1]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/87/2253/216?ijkey=ecbcd5e9da3399f8d66a5be2a7f36aea1dd90fc1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/87/2253/216?ijkey=ecbc...
[2] John Hopkins is a private university, but they receive a not insignificant amount of funding from the government in the form of tax breaks, grants, etc. I think it's fair to say that this study, however, originated in the private sector.
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-naomi-27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_...
[4]http://www.smokershistory.com/MSKCC.htm http://www.smokershistory.com/MSKCC.htm
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-19
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-20
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-21
[8]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704314904575250570943835414.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870431490457525...
- Travis 16y agoI understand your counterpoints. And I'd like to thank you for taking the time to research and cite all of this -- I truly had no idea of the private money behind some of this research. However, after further consideration I don't think the tobacco-cancer example was a particularly good one for me to bring up. It was highly controversial in the epi/stats community for many years, mainly because RA Fischer (the father of applied statistics) never believed in the validity of the tests. While I'm sure we could each pick studies that backed the public/private side of things, the truth is that there just wasn't a consensus (about cigarettes) until Congress started investigating. So it's probably not the best topic for me to have brought up.