3 ms·

A lot of people are going to sneer at this because they like seeing rich tech people fail, but I think it’s great that he’s trying something. It is much more e

by sympil 2y ago

A lot of people are going to sneer at this because they like seeing rich tech people fail, but I think it’s great that he’s trying something. It is much more efficient for society in the form of its government to fund research. We should not leave it up to rich people to decide whether or not research is conducted.

pfdietz 2y ago
Is it? Is government really structured to do this funding in an efficient manner? Or do we end up with atrociously useless investments that are made as vehicles for delivery of pork barrel spending?
- CalChris 2y ago
  Vastly most of basic research is publicly funded.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I wasn't addressing the question of quantity of funding, but rather the efficiency of the funding. Is the research valuable, or is it just pretend-value from spending intended as pork? A lot of government funded research is of that kind. More generally: the market has a way of evaluating research value (did it lead to profit) while the government's actions have no reality check. They depend on the wisdom of officials who inevitably have conflicts of interest.
    - CalChris 2y ago
      > A lot of government funded research is of that kind. A lot of everything is of that kind. Larry's folly is of that kind. Most defense spending is of that kind. Most startups are of that kind. BTW, my brother was one of those officials, judging grants at the NSF in DC. But that was only after a career in physics at Sandia.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Simply determining the value of something is difficult. This is a big part of why communism didn't work -- it's impossible for central planners, however wise, to figure out. The communists piggybacked on price signals from other countries but that's not a great substitute for ones own market generating the price signals. Absent price signals, determinations of value inevitably get corrupted by other interests. Look at the long, sorry history of NASA's manned space program. Value there has become "does this deliver $$$ to my district".
        CalChris 2y ago
        My dad worked on Mercury and Apollo. The first put men in space and the second put men on the moon. There was a shit ton of spin offs from this. We got a step up on GPS because some grad students were saying what if after recording Sputnik ephemerides. Research doesn't work by central planning. Grants to researchers is competitive. There's corruption not because of the scientific method but rather because of the human condition. Your view of this is very politicized. I'm done here.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        The manned space program was entirely political, so complaining about politicization is hilarious. Apollo was a national potlatch. It was "look how rich and successful capitalism is; we can put 4% of the federal budget into a pile and set it on fire, we're so good." Spinoffs are an unjustifiable myth. To the extent we can know, they'd have occurred anyway (ICs, for example). The most important thing to remember about Apollo is we didn't go back, which is clear evidence it wasn't needed. But to a true space fan, like a true communist, space programs can never fail, they can only be failed.
- sympil 2y ago
  The top .1% fund very little research. Therefore it is much more efficient for society in the form of government to fund research. We should not rely on the benevolence of a few rich assholes to have research programs.
anothertroll123 2y ago
[dead]
nineplay 2y ago
Surely both the government and rich people can fund research. One doesn't preclude the other.
- smt88 2y ago
  Government's ability to publicly fund research is directly related to how much it can collect in taxes. With wealth being hoarded by individuals at unprecedented rates and taxes lower than they've been at almost any time in the country's history, there has certainly been a shift away from public research toward private research.
- sympil 2y ago
  There are no instances in the history of the world where the wealthy, out of the goodness of their hearts, have solved hunger, childhood education, funded research programs at scale, provided safe drinking water, etc. These things are handled by government. Government is far more efficient at this than hoping rich people act in the public’s best interest.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    However, there is a plethora of instances where the wealthy have addressed these issues, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but in search of revenue.
    - sympil 2y ago
      Rich people didn’t feed the poor. They didn’t provide universal k-12 education. They didn’t fund enough universities to provide higher education for the masses. They didn’t provide clean water. They didn’t get rid of smog or acid rain. They didn’t band together to start space research or build the highway system. But there are a few instances where a rich person spent a trivial amount of their wealth to fund a project or two in the interest of humanity.
      - tbrownaw 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Is it? Do you think the POTUS will do a better job directing funds to worthy causes, and not friends and allies?
- sympil 2y ago
  Until this administration funds were spent at the behest of Congress and allocated through procedures that were set up. There is no evidence of widespread misuse of those funds. Of course having an asshole concentrate power in themselves will lead to bad governance.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by sympil 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

Is it? Is government really structured to do this funding in an efficient manner? Or do we end up with atrociously useless investments that are made as vehicles for delivery of pork barrel spending?

CalChris 2y ago
Vastly most of basic research is publicly funded.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I wasn't addressing the question of quantity of funding, but rather the efficiency of the funding. Is the research valuable, or is it just pretend-value from spending intended as pork? A lot of government funded research is of that kind. More generally: the market has a way of evaluating research value (did it lead to profit) while the government's actions have no reality check. They depend on the wisdom of officials who inevitably have conflicts of interest.
  - CalChris 2y ago
    > A lot of government funded research is of that kind. A lot of everything is of that kind. Larry's folly is of that kind. Most defense spending is of that kind. Most startups are of that kind. BTW, my brother was one of those officials, judging grants at the NSF in DC. But that was only after a career in physics at Sandia.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Simply determining the value of something is difficult. This is a big part of why communism didn't work -- it's impossible for central planners, however wise, to figure out. The communists piggybacked on price signals from other countries but that's not a great substitute for ones own market generating the price signals. Absent price signals, determinations of value inevitably get corrupted by other interests. Look at the long, sorry history of NASA's manned space program. Value there has become "does this deliver $$$ to my district".
      - CalChris 2y ago
        My dad worked on Mercury and Apollo. The first put men in space and the second put men on the moon. There was a shit ton of spin offs from this. We got a step up on GPS because some grad students were saying what if after recording Sputnik ephemerides. Research doesn't work by central planning. Grants to researchers is competitive. There's corruption not because of the scientific method but rather because of the human condition. Your view of this is very politicized. I'm done here.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        The manned space program was entirely political, so complaining about politicization is hilarious. Apollo was a national potlatch. It was "look how rich and successful capitalism is; we can put 4% of the federal budget into a pile and set it on fire, we're so good." Spinoffs are an unjustifiable myth. To the extent we can know, they'd have occurred anyway (ICs, for example). The most important thing to remember about Apollo is we didn't go back, which is clear evidence it wasn't needed. But to a true space fan, like a true communist, space programs can never fail, they can only be failed.
sympil 2y ago
The top .1% fund very little research. Therefore it is much more efficient for society in the form of government to fund research. We should not rely on the benevolence of a few rich assholes to have research programs.

anothertroll123 2y ago

[dead]

nineplay 2y ago

Surely both the government and rich people can fund research. One doesn't preclude the other.

smt88 2y ago
Government's ability to publicly fund research is directly related to how much it can collect in taxes. With wealth being hoarded by individuals at unprecedented rates and taxes lower than they've been at almost any time in the country's history, there has certainly been a shift away from public research toward private research.
sympil 2y ago
There are no instances in the history of the world where the wealthy, out of the goodness of their hearts, have solved hunger, childhood education, funded research programs at scale, provided safe drinking water, etc. These things are handled by government. Government is far more efficient at this than hoping rich people act in the public’s best interest.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  However, there is a plethora of instances where the wealthy have addressed these issues, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but in search of revenue.
  - sympil 2y ago
    Rich people didn’t feed the poor. They didn’t provide universal k-12 education. They didn’t fund enough universities to provide higher education for the masses. They didn’t provide clean water. They didn’t get rid of smog or acid rain. They didn’t band together to start space research or build the highway system. But there are a few instances where a rich person spent a trivial amount of their wealth to fund a project or two in the interest of humanity.
    - tbrownaw 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Is it? Do you think the POTUS will do a better job directing funds to worthy causes, and not friends and allies?

sympil 2y ago
Until this administration funds were spent at the behest of Congress and allocated through procedures that were set up. There is no evidence of widespread misuse of those funds. Of course having an asshole concentrate power in themselves will lead to bad governance.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]