4 ms·

Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something h

by ronaldx 13y ago

Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something has the potential to be directly turned into profit, people create businesses around that. Governments professing to be capitalist shouldn't interfere with that process. Academic science ought not to be capitalist. Governments should fund science that benefits society and that wouldn't otherwise be happening in a capitalist system. We should expect that to be indirectly-profitable (not profitable for the inventor) and loss-making work with long-term benefit. That's what we pay taxes for. Academic science is already far too capitalist for my liking - the existing funding system requires scientists to chase money, acting as poor mimics of capitalists, while corporate-sponsored grants mean lobbyists are getting their favoured R&D done on the cheap. (Edited to add: that said, the paper is still worth reading and makes good points about how we identify the value of science)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Maybe, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally choose still not to contribute unless coerced to do their part.
  - eatitraw 13y ago
    Assurance contracts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts Example: you start a project on something like kickstarter, people contribute the amount of money they like. Then after the project reaches its goal, the research starts. If goal isn't reached then people get their money back.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      That probably improves things - certainly, it eliminates the risk of "I gave and the research didn't happen anyway" - but (as typically employed) it does not eliminate the issue: the odds that my contribution will be deciding is low. If you had a contract that required defined (possibly in terms of wealth/income) contribution from everyone and would only go if unanimously accepted, that would eliminate this problem but raises obvious logistical issues.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- cma 13y ago
  You mean like the forced government coercion that enables land ownership? Would managing development of farmland work best through voluntary non-profits?
- ronaldx 13y ago
  I didn't actually exclude that as a possibility: the existence of non-profits is indeed part of a capitalist system. But, I don't think a huge depth or breadth of science gets done that way. A democratic government should seek to fund science through taxes, if that's what you're asking, yes: we collect taxes to benefit society and science provides an efficient benefit.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  No serious funding for scientific research would be accomplished this way. >"rather than using the force of gov't to coerce every citizen into paying for it" Oh please. If we're living a capitalist society, we have to realize that citizens are not incentivized to give a significant portion of their money for the improvement of society, so it's time to stop treating things as though free markets will come in and inevitably save the day without government intervention. Specifically, talking about medical research, there is no incentive for me or any other citizen to fund leukemia research, or heart disease research, and I certainly don't donate money to both causes on a regular enough basis to provide enough monetary support for this research. Unless we rethink our current economic model, this is just not a possibility.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - dylandrop 13y ago
      So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it needs to be reformed. But saying "Hey this isn't ideal, so we should throw it away" is kind of silly, no?
      - samolang 13y ago
        > So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.
        13y ago
CWuestefeld 13y ago
Governments should fund science that benefits society and that wouldn't otherwise be happening in a capitalist system. But that's not what ends up happening. The funding doesn't get allocated such that the total utility would be maximized. Instead, it is directed toward those areas having a constituency that's better organized. The result is that AIDS research -- its victims being fairly focused in a particular demographic -- gets about 350x more research funding per victim than does COPD. It gets 112x more than Hepatitis C, and 33x more than Alzheimer's disease. [1] Government funding equals political funding. And this is what leads to scandals like Solaris, too. The government is not able to make rational decisions, as much as we might tell ourselves that it does. In a democracy, the funding will go to those causes that can muster the most votes. [1] Source: http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm

by ronaldx 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dllthomas 13y ago
Maybe, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally choose still not to contribute unless coerced to do their part.
- eatitraw 13y ago
  Assurance contracts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts Example: you start a project on something like kickstarter, people contribute the amount of money they like. Then after the project reaches its goal, the research starts. If goal isn't reached then people get their money back.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    That probably improves things - certainly, it eliminates the risk of "I gave and the research didn't happen anyway" - but (as typically employed) it does not eliminate the issue: the odds that my contribution will be deciding is low. If you had a contract that required defined (possibly in terms of wealth/income) contribution from everyone and would only go if unanimously accepted, that would eliminate this problem but raises obvious logistical issues.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cma 13y ago
You mean like the forced government coercion that enables land ownership? Would managing development of farmland work best through voluntary non-profits?
ronaldx 13y ago
I didn't actually exclude that as a possibility: the existence of non-profits is indeed part of a capitalist system. But, I don't think a huge depth or breadth of science gets done that way. A democratic government should seek to fund science through taxes, if that's what you're asking, yes: we collect taxes to benefit society and science provides an efficient benefit.
dylandrop 13y ago
No serious funding for scientific research would be accomplished this way. >"rather than using the force of gov't to coerce every citizen into paying for it" Oh please. If we're living a capitalist society, we have to realize that citizens are not incentivized to give a significant portion of their money for the improvement of society, so it's time to stop treating things as though free markets will come in and inevitably save the day without government intervention. Specifically, talking about medical research, there is no incentive for me or any other citizen to fund leukemia research, or heart disease research, and I certainly don't donate money to both causes on a regular enough basis to provide enough monetary support for this research. Unless we rethink our current economic model, this is just not a possibility.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it needs to be reformed. But saying "Hey this isn't ideal, so we should throw it away" is kind of silly, no?
    - samolang 13y ago
      > So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.
      - 13y ago

CWuestefeld 13y ago

Governments should fund science that benefits society and that wouldn't otherwise be happening in a capitalist system. But that's not what ends up happening. The funding doesn't get allocated such that the total utility would be maximized. Instead, it is directed toward those areas having a constituency that's better organized. The result is that AIDS research -- its victims being fairly focused in a particular demographic -- gets about 350x more research funding per victim than does COPD. It gets 112x more than Hepatitis C, and 33x more than Alzheimer's disease. [1] Government funding equals political funding. And this is what leads to scandals like Solaris, too. The government is not able to make rational decisions, as much as we might tell ourselves that it does. In a democracy, the funding will go to those causes that can muster the most votes. [1] Source: http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm