4 ms·
This is sick. Who knows if it will go anywhere, but glad the government still finds ways to spend money on expensive experiments. It pushes collective science f
by martinky24 3y ago
This is sick. Who knows if it will go anywhere, but glad the government still finds ways to spend money on expensive experiments. It pushes collective science forward.
- schiffern 3y agoSo true. RIP "invisible hand" efficient market hypothesis. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you! I'm also happy that we use taxpayer money to subsidize corporate R&D, but let's not suddenly sugarcoat that fact (or forget it entirely) the instant our thoughts shift to economic policy. In the VC world, your one huge success needs to cover the cost of the other nine failed bets. When taxpayer-funded research gets "commercialized," this rule is quietly forgotten. That's the biggest subsidy giveaway right there.
- throw1234651234 3y agoI think the fact that we have tens of companies making different sugar water is proof that capitalism allocates capital in ways that is useful to humanity! Sarcasm aside, I don't actually have a better solution.
- gumby 3y ago> RIP "invisible hand" efficient market hypothesis. Smith didn’t claim that an “invisible” hand was a sole or even predominant mechanism, just that it could apply to specialization. In fact at a microeconomic level Coase’ “Nature of the firm” says the opposite is true, and he’s as mainstream as you can get. In general (this is not a comment about you, schiffern) most people who exalt Adam Smith have never read his book and would be shocked that he was such an enthusiast for welfare, regulation, and government intervention and support.
- schiffern 3y agoIndeed, I'm speaking to the modern mythologized usage of "invisible hand," which scarcely resembles Smith's original conception.