3 ms·

I'm not sure NZ needs this: Throwing the baby out with the bath water makes great sound bites for politicians, but weaker societies for everyone else.

GenerocUsername 2y ago
[flagged]
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Maybe our institutions need to stop pooping in the tub …and there's the sound bite.
nradov 2y ago
Spending public money on unproductive work makes society weaker for everyone else. I'm not necessarily opposed to government funding for social science research but it's not clear that this research produces a positive ROI for taxpayers.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  Plenty of government programs that benefit the public are not cash flow positive so how do you define a positive return on investment?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Mostly programs will either have a positive return on investment in the conventional sense (e.g. hire more tax inspectors, make more tax income), or have an arguable, positive overall long-term return on investment hopefully, (e.g. infrastructure spending, sending smart kids to college) or will enjoy widespread public support and provide non-monetary benefits, (e.g. public parks, libraries, maternity leave) or will be widely accepted as a core function of government (e.g. police and military), or a morally good and virtuous act (e.g. caring for the disabled, foreign aid) or will be the pet project of someone powerful, semi-useful, and inexpensive enough no-one cares to fight them over it (e.g. opera subsidy) or will convince people they're one of the above regardless of the truth of the matter or will be at risk of cancellation.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Government programs like research funding aren't measured by cash flow but rather by long term impact on GDP (or perhaps other metrics related to quality of life). For basic research in the hard sciences we can draw a direct line from grant funding in various fields to commercial products years later. When it comes to allocating a limited pool of government grant funding across fields, this shouldn't be the only factor but it has to be a factor. If nothing else this helps to ensure continued public support for government science funding because taxpayers see that their money isn't being frittered away.
- kristopolous 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nradov 2y ago
    You missed the word "public". If private individuals or foundations want to spend their own money on whatever then go ahead. But if bureaucrats are allocating tax dollars then there needs to be more careful scrutiny and accountability for results. Is it better to spend public money on this, or a replacement for the HMNZS Manawanui research ship? There are limited funds to go around. https://maritime-executive.com/article/new-zealand-navy-survey-vessel-runs-aground-and-sinks-off-samoa https://maritime-executive.com/article/new-zealand-navy-surv...
    - kristopolous 2y ago
      "fiscal responsibility" and railing about public money are usually just ruses used by people pushing a political agenda. I've had countless discussions with people who want to spend billions on sports stadiums and the military but then scream endlessly about "big government" when it comes to the arts and education. They'll bail out wall street at the drop of a hat and then shrug with big eyes, "where's the money going to come from" when someone brings up say, having an anthropology department at UCLA. It's an obvious bullshit game of a political project masquerading as virtue that you'd have to be a toddler to fall for. I don't care.
      - nradov 2y ago
        I'm not sure where that unhinged rant came from but it has zero relevance to my comment. Ultimately there are only a limited pool of funds to allocate so hard choices have to be made and some people won't get what they want.
        kristopolous 2y ago
        No. That's not how currency works when you're the issuer. Thinking that way is already baking yourself into Murray Rothbard.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Spending public money on unproductive work makes society weaker for everyone else. Fortunately, the rest of us not computers, and are happy that our tax dollars go to symphonies and art and orphanages and other "unproductive" works.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Quit trying to score cheap points with low-effort snark. This is an article about research funding, not symphonies or art or orphanages, and my comment above was obviously intended in that context. If we have to qualify every comment to prevent possible misinterpretation then the discussions become really tedious.
fallingknife 2y ago
When the ratio of bath water to baby reaches a certain point it becomes the best solution.

GenerocUsername 2y ago

[flagged]

reaperducer 2y ago
Maybe our institutions need to stop pooping in the tub …and there's the sound bite.

nradov 2y ago

Spending public money on unproductive work makes society weaker for everyone else. I'm not necessarily opposed to government funding for social science research but it's not clear that this research produces a positive ROI for taxpayers.

BadHumans 2y ago
Plenty of government programs that benefit the public are not cash flow positive so how do you define a positive return on investment?
- michaelt 2y ago
  Mostly programs will either have a positive return on investment in the conventional sense (e.g. hire more tax inspectors, make more tax income), or have an arguable, positive overall long-term return on investment hopefully, (e.g. infrastructure spending, sending smart kids to college) or will enjoy widespread public support and provide non-monetary benefits, (e.g. public parks, libraries, maternity leave) or will be widely accepted as a core function of government (e.g. police and military), or a morally good and virtuous act (e.g. caring for the disabled, foreign aid) or will be the pet project of someone powerful, semi-useful, and inexpensive enough no-one cares to fight them over it (e.g. opera subsidy) or will convince people they're one of the above regardless of the truth of the matter or will be at risk of cancellation.
- nradov 2y ago
  Government programs like research funding aren't measured by cash flow but rather by long term impact on GDP (or perhaps other metrics related to quality of life). For basic research in the hard sciences we can draw a direct line from grant funding in various fields to commercial products years later. When it comes to allocating a limited pool of government grant funding across fields, this shouldn't be the only factor but it has to be a factor. If nothing else this helps to ensure continued public support for government science funding because taxpayers see that their money isn't being frittered away.
kristopolous 2y ago
[flagged]
- nradov 2y ago
  You missed the word "public". If private individuals or foundations want to spend their own money on whatever then go ahead. But if bureaucrats are allocating tax dollars then there needs to be more careful scrutiny and accountability for results. Is it better to spend public money on this, or a replacement for the HMNZS Manawanui research ship? There are limited funds to go around. https://maritime-executive.com/article/new-zealand-navy-survey-vessel-runs-aground-and-sinks-off-samoa https://maritime-executive.com/article/new-zealand-navy-surv...
  - kristopolous 2y ago
    "fiscal responsibility" and railing about public money are usually just ruses used by people pushing a political agenda. I've had countless discussions with people who want to spend billions on sports stadiums and the military but then scream endlessly about "big government" when it comes to the arts and education. They'll bail out wall street at the drop of a hat and then shrug with big eyes, "where's the money going to come from" when someone brings up say, having an anthropology department at UCLA. It's an obvious bullshit game of a political project masquerading as virtue that you'd have to be a toddler to fall for. I don't care.
    - nradov 2y ago
      I'm not sure where that unhinged rant came from but it has zero relevance to my comment. Ultimately there are only a limited pool of funds to allocate so hard choices have to be made and some people won't get what they want.
      - kristopolous 2y ago
        No. That's not how currency works when you're the issuer. Thinking that way is already baking yourself into Murray Rothbard.
reaperducer 2y ago
Spending public money on unproductive work makes society weaker for everyone else. Fortunately, the rest of us not computers, and are happy that our tax dollars go to symphonies and art and orphanages and other "unproductive" works.
- nradov 2y ago
  Quit trying to score cheap points with low-effort snark. This is an article about research funding, not symphonies or art or orphanages, and my comment above was obviously intended in that context. If we have to qualify every comment to prevent possible misinterpretation then the discussions become really tedious.

fallingknife 2y ago

When the ratio of bath water to baby reaches a certain point it becomes the best solution.