4 ms·

> If this is correct, tax policy is a huge distraction, and if governments really want to jump-start growth they should be funding basic research ... which req

> If this is correct, tax policy is a huge distraction, and if governments really want to jump-start growth they should be funding basic research ... which requires taxes, which makes tax policy not a huge distraction.

nostrademons 8y ago
... but much less than what any current government currently spends. The entire DARPA budget is $3.44B this year, half as much as the wall that's currently shutting down our entire government, and less than 1/1000th of the total federal budget. The NSF gets $7.8B, a little more than the wall and about 1/500th of the budget. NASA gets $20B.
- jtuente 8y ago
  > NASA gets $20B. Which is about 3.5 walls and about 1/200th of the budget.
  - OscarCunningham 8y ago
    > 3.5 walls The $5.7B that Trump is asking for isn't enough to build the whole wall, it's just the amount he wants now. Cost estimates for the wall vary but they're all larger than $20B.
    - zozbot123 8y ago
      The silver lining is that $20B is still a tiny fraction of the cost for the Iraq war (a cost that one notable presidential candidate was historically quite comfortable with paying. No, I don't mean Bernie) That's progress, I guess!
      - r00fus 8y ago
        Yeah instead we spent it on a 1.1T tax cut for the 1%.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  As I understood, estimates for that wall range between 25 and 75 billion USD depending on who you ask. And this being government contracts, it might very well balloon to 100 billion or more if you factor in surprises and corruption. Other than that, I agree... NASA isn't getting enough funding. As are climate initiatives in the US. And the same goes for similar agencies and initiatives in the EU where I live. I'm more skeptical about DARPA, but to their credit they're not just enablers of death; they're also working on some certifiably good stuff, like fighting human trafficking [1]. [1]: https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    DARPA is IMHO one of the most ironic agencies on the planet: it's an organization whose fundamental purpose is evil (let's kill people better) that has managed to invent some of the best technological developments in history. The Internet, the GUI, time-sharing, TOR, and virtual reality are all DARPA-offshoots.
    - anongraddebt 8y ago
      Wouldn't effective defense of a nation-state require putting resources behind projects that lead to "killing people better?" If so, would the purpose of effectively defending a nation-state be evil?
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Yes. :-) There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. Sometimes people quibble about whether killing people in self-defense or defense of others is evil, eg. "Would it be evil to go back in time and kill Hitler?" But note the asymmetry: it may be debatable whether killing Hitler is justified, but everyone save some very fringe movements believes that Hitler himself was evil. We put up with nation-states because of survivorship bias. There are two kinds of people: those who live under the jurisdiction of a modern nation-state, and those who are now dead. From the surviving individual's POV, it's better to be the person for whom's benefit your country kills, than the person killed by them.
pessimizer 8y ago
Or borrowing foreign currency, or printing money, which does jump-start growth. The idea that higher taxes would bring growth is weird, religious, and the opposite of what should happen. It's the same as the discredited Reinhoff-Rogoff debt-to-GDP paper searching for an invisible force that punishes irresponsibility; the "Invisible Dad" as it were. Shifting taxes to people who consume with a lower proportion of their income (the rich) to people who spend a higher portion of their income (the poorer) is good; but raising taxes on the rich without transferring it to the poor (either in direct payments, employment, or structural improvements) has to mean that you're transferring it out of the country. It's an identity; using personal debt to pay down public debt.

nostrademons 8y ago

... but much less than what any current government currently spends. The entire DARPA budget is $3.44B this year, half as much as the wall that's currently shutting down our entire government, and less than 1/1000th of the total federal budget. The NSF gets $7.8B, a little more than the wall and about 1/500th of the budget. NASA gets $20B.

jtuente 8y ago
> NASA gets $20B. Which is about 3.5 walls and about 1/200th of the budget.
- OscarCunningham 8y ago
  > 3.5 walls The $5.7B that Trump is asking for isn't enough to build the whole wall, it's just the amount he wants now. Cost estimates for the wall vary but they're all larger than $20B.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    The silver lining is that $20B is still a tiny fraction of the cost for the Iraq war (a cost that one notable presidential candidate was historically quite comfortable with paying. No, I don't mean Bernie) That's progress, I guess!
    - r00fus 8y ago
      Yeah instead we spent it on a 1.1T tax cut for the 1%.
ddebernardy 8y ago
As I understood, estimates for that wall range between 25 and 75 billion USD depending on who you ask. And this being government contracts, it might very well balloon to 100 billion or more if you factor in surprises and corruption. Other than that, I agree... NASA isn't getting enough funding. As are climate initiatives in the US. And the same goes for similar agencies and initiatives in the EU where I live. I'm more skeptical about DARPA, but to their credit they're not just enablers of death; they're also working on some certifiably good stuff, like fighting human trafficking [1]. [1]: https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex
- nostrademons 8y ago
  DARPA is IMHO one of the most ironic agencies on the planet: it's an organization whose fundamental purpose is evil (let's kill people better) that has managed to invent some of the best technological developments in history. The Internet, the GUI, time-sharing, TOR, and virtual reality are all DARPA-offshoots.
  - anongraddebt 8y ago
    Wouldn't effective defense of a nation-state require putting resources behind projects that lead to "killing people better?" If so, would the purpose of effectively defending a nation-state be evil?
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Yes. :-) There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. Sometimes people quibble about whether killing people in self-defense or defense of others is evil, eg. "Would it be evil to go back in time and kill Hitler?" But note the asymmetry: it may be debatable whether killing Hitler is justified, but everyone save some very fringe movements believes that Hitler himself was evil. We put up with nation-states because of survivorship bias. There are two kinds of people: those who live under the jurisdiction of a modern nation-state, and those who are now dead. From the surviving individual's POV, it's better to be the person for whom's benefit your country kills, than the person killed by them.

pessimizer 8y ago

Or borrowing foreign currency, or printing money, which does jump-start growth. The idea that higher taxes would bring growth is weird, religious, and the opposite of what should happen. It's the same as the discredited Reinhoff-Rogoff debt-to-GDP paper searching for an invisible force that punishes irresponsibility; the "Invisible Dad" as it were. Shifting taxes to people who consume with a lower proportion of their income (the rich) to people who spend a higher portion of their income (the poorer) is good; but raising taxes on the rich without transferring it to the poor (either in direct payments, employment, or structural improvements) has to mean that you're transferring it out of the country. It's an identity; using personal debt to pay down public debt.