6 ms·

>And really, why not spend additional GDP on public R&D? The benefits have been net positive over the long term, spurring new industries and economic growth. Th

>And really, why not spend additional GDP on public R&D? The benefits have been net positive over the long term, spurring new industries and economic growth. This is a no brainer. Is there any proof for such a claim? Please, before attacking me, realize that there are many states between "more money for R&D" and "no money for R&D". I am merely asking if there is any evidence that adding more money will produce the benefits you asserted, not proposing to cut funding completely.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Obviously there is a point where the economy can't absorb it or there is no one to do it, which is why I think keeping it steady with GDP is reasonable. 1% for public non millitary R&D is sustainable, 10% os probably not unless there is a big problem to be solved (e.g. An asteroid tumbling toward earth or something). That also allows us to keep training a healthy number of scientists to do something useful with the extra GDP (as opposed to training more day traders/speculators, capital has to go somewhere, might as well be somewhere useful).
- xamuel 12y ago
  Sure, there is hypothetically such a point. But if you've looked at the basic research job market, you'd realize we're a long, long way below that point.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Sure. 1% might be too low, but hopefully private industry picks up the slack at some point. The government only needs to prime the pump.
    - xamuel 12y ago
      A lot of basic research is unprofitable. Private industry has little incentive to pick up that slack. Individual philanthropists might throw basic research a bone here and there, but the most fundamental basic research is completely orthogonal to profit motives. We know about the basic research which led to enormous profits, but that's because of survivor bias. Almost all basic research leads nowhere or takes centuries to mature, and in the rare exceptional cases, it isn't like you can enforce a patent on laws of physics. What we'll get from industry funding is an even bigger circus of 'applied' science (highly credentialed people drawing lines through points and obfuscating everything they say and selling it all as science)
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        I'm a bit more optimistic about industry, but you probably have a good point. Academia can be a big circle jerk also, with the applied science being replaced by theoretical science in the big circus. Almost everyone is fake in this game, except for the few who aren't.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Obviously there is a point where the economy can't absorb it or there is no one to do it, which is why I think keeping it steady with GDP is reasonable. 1% for public non millitary R&D is sustainable, 10% os probably not unless there is a big problem to be solved (e.g. An asteroid tumbling toward earth or something). That also allows us to keep training a healthy number of scientists to do something useful with the extra GDP (as opposed to training more day traders/speculators, capital has to go somewhere, might as well be somewhere useful).

xamuel 12y ago
Sure, there is hypothetically such a point. But if you've looked at the basic research job market, you'd realize we're a long, long way below that point.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Sure. 1% might be too low, but hopefully private industry picks up the slack at some point. The government only needs to prime the pump.
  - xamuel 12y ago
    A lot of basic research is unprofitable. Private industry has little incentive to pick up that slack. Individual philanthropists might throw basic research a bone here and there, but the most fundamental basic research is completely orthogonal to profit motives. We know about the basic research which led to enormous profits, but that's because of survivor bias. Almost all basic research leads nowhere or takes centuries to mature, and in the rare exceptional cases, it isn't like you can enforce a patent on laws of physics. What we'll get from industry funding is an even bigger circus of 'applied' science (highly credentialed people drawing lines through points and obfuscating everything they say and selling it all as science)
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      I'm a bit more optimistic about industry, but you probably have a good point. Academia can be a big circle jerk also, with the applied science being replaced by theoretical science in the big circus. Almost everyone is fake in this game, except for the few who aren't.