4 ms·

>But some undertakings are simply too big for private corporations, and require government funding and control. Not only. The government is (at least supposed

>But some undertakings are simply too big for private corporations, and require government funding and control. Not only. The government is (at least supposed too) work for the benefit of society. You can expect the government to allocate billions for a project like the LHC if the science committee foresees that it's a viable scientific undertaking. You can't expect the same of corporations. Corporations are there to make increasing profits for their shareholders, period. This is the reason why some people were upset with the vision of private enterprises replacing NASA. Sure private enterprises will bring competition, but only where private enterprises can make profit.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
"Corporations are there to make increasing profits for their shareholders, period." This is an overly-simplistic and ultimately quite wrong view of corporations. Corporations exist to achieve the goals their shareholders set for them, which may include increasing profits, but it may not. That's certainly not the only goal the shareholders may set.
- lumberjack 14y ago
  How did you manage to be pedantic on me? You are right. However I don't agree that it's "overly-simplistic" but I don't have statistics to back up my impression. Also I think you are wrong when it comes to the US. In the US, corporations are legally obligated to maximize profits.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    No, though that's a very common belief. The reality is more complicated. The directors of a for-profit corporation have to make decisions that they in good faith believe will lead to shareholder value, and there is considerable leeway in determining what that means. It does not always mean maximizing profit, and the timeframe for the increased value can be very long. In addition, there are a number of other forms of corporations (non-profits, Low-Profit, Benefit, etc) that can expressly put a public good ahead of profits.
brg 14y ago
I disagree that leaving funding in the hands of a single bureaucracy will lead to the outcomes you hope. Funding for the super-conducting super-collider set in Waxahachie, Texas was cut as a direct result of the 1992 US Presidential election. The scientific community was in agreement on its advantages, but political retribution won out. That the LHC survived was due in large part by the desire of European agencies to bring science back to Europe. That the US had failed to complete construction of their beam operations gave them an opening and and opportunity. This is the motiviation more so, I would say, than it was any desire to fund basic research in HE physics.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

"Corporations are there to make increasing profits for their shareholders, period." This is an overly-simplistic and ultimately quite wrong view of corporations. Corporations exist to achieve the goals their shareholders set for them, which may include increasing profits, but it may not. That's certainly not the only goal the shareholders may set.

lumberjack 14y ago
How did you manage to be pedantic on me? You are right. However I don't agree that it's "overly-simplistic" but I don't have statistics to back up my impression. Also I think you are wrong when it comes to the US. In the US, corporations are legally obligated to maximize profits.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  No, though that's a very common belief. The reality is more complicated. The directors of a for-profit corporation have to make decisions that they in good faith believe will lead to shareholder value, and there is considerable leeway in determining what that means. It does not always mean maximizing profit, and the timeframe for the increased value can be very long. In addition, there are a number of other forms of corporations (non-profits, Low-Profit, Benefit, etc) that can expressly put a public good ahead of profits.

brg 14y ago

I disagree that leaving funding in the hands of a single bureaucracy will lead to the outcomes you hope. Funding for the super-conducting super-collider set in Waxahachie, Texas was cut as a direct result of the 1992 US Presidential election. The scientific community was in agreement on its advantages, but political retribution won out. That the LHC survived was due in large part by the desire of European agencies to bring science back to Europe. That the US had failed to complete construction of their beam operations gave them an opening and and opportunity. This is the motiviation more so, I would say, than it was any desire to fund basic research in HE physics.