3 ms·
> After all, why spend money on a telescope when the government can cut the budget to lower taxes a little bit more? The NSF budget had been steadily growing i
by xyzzyz 6y ago
> After all, why spend money on a telescope when the government can cut the budget to lower taxes a little bit more?
The NSF budget had been steadily growing in real terms, and is now over 3 times larger than in early 80s (8 times in nominal terms). If Arecibo has not been getting enough money to maintain it, and if there is no plan for new telescope in its budget, it’s not because of “budget cuts”, but rather because of spending decisions.
I do believe that we are getting less than we used to for the spend, but it’s clear that it’s not budget cuts that are responsible: rather, it’s the productivity of science is falling, and so is efficiency of the government, despite growing expenditures.
- 1MoreThing 6y agoIs it productivity, or is the work to mine new "knowledge coins" just harder now that we've done some of the easier work?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThat is an excellent question that also strikes to the heart of how we measure "productivity."
- xyzzyz 6y agoBy falling productivity, I simply mean that the same amount of funding results in fewer, less valuable and less useful results. Whether it’s caused by research itself becoming progressively more difficult, or some kind of fundamental dysfunction within science, I cannot accurately determine: I think it’s both at least to some degree. I think it’s reasonable to expect that keeping pace of results requires growth in spending, in general.