patrick.net

marcus says

I'm not going to dig up the evidence to show prove to you how much . . .

Because you can't. You would have to assume that without government, all the smart people would just slept their lives away.

If you think we would have had anything close to the technology advances of the last 60 years without government investment, and that it was mostly consumer driven, then you are an idiot.

The idiocy is in your own ideology. The 60 years, or even 100 years prior to the last 60 saw technological breakthroughs that had far greater impact on human society than what we have had in the last 60 years. The internet is only the modern equivalent of telegraph/telephone. In the last 60 years we haven't had anything like the invention of automobile, the invention of heavier than air flight, and the invention of railroad itself! (BTW, this contrast was most recently drawn by none other than Paul Krugman, although I had been making that point for some time)

robertoaribas says

Reality says

You know what "partnership between the state and private firms" is also called? Fascism!

that isn't what fascism is at all, but thanks for playing!

That's the very core economic policy of Fascism. Seeing its popularity among average folks today, it should be no surporse that Mussolini was really popular with Americans before WWII.

Here's the problem with Fascist economics: government doesn't know new emerging companies; government officials have built up networks with the old oligarchs instead. If it were up to the government to fund computer research in the 1980's, it would have supported IBM mainframes instead of Apple, Intel, Compaq and Microsoft. That's actually precisely what the Japanese government did with their huge R&D funds: building world's most advanced mainframes! Which turned out to be a complete waste of money. Government bureaucrats are usually the last to know what's new and where the best return on investment is . . . Just like in housing, government bureaucrats investing in housing leads to waste and homelessness. Bureaucrats are not entreprenuers like you or me because they don't have their own money on the line: if they do well with a particular policy change, they do not benefit much personally like we do; if the policy change ends up not so well, that's the end of their career unlike we can absorb the loss and try better next time. That's why they are change-averse. That's the worst kind to be in charge of innovations. That's why the NASA Space Shuttles kept flying for 30+ years with onboard main control computer weighing a ton yet having only computational power comparable to the original PC, when each pound of weight cost something like $18k at each Shuttle launch!

Reality says

You would have to assume that without government, all the smart people would just slept their lives away.

Smart people have to make a living too.

It's a fact that many professors in Mathematics and Science at US universities, had the jobs (1960 - ? ) that they did have because of government investment.

This was the evidence that I was referring to (that I wasn't going to dig up for), but I was told this directly by a Mathematics professor, and it's easy to verify.

As for ideology, you're the one that's stretching so hard with assertions that back your ideology.

I'm not arguing against free markets or capitalism. I'm only arguing that goverment investment in research and technology is obviously sometimes very successful.

Another whacko right wing authoritarian extremist.

It's a slippery slope. Government backs research in to promising technologies, or subsidizes consumer utilization by early adopters, and the next thing you know were talking fascist takeover of the entire economy.

OH NO !!!

roberto, how is it I can agree with you and you still disagree with me? That seems odd.

Reality says

That's why the NASA Space Shuttles kept flying for 30+ years with onboard main control computer weighing a ton yet having only computational power comparable to the original PC, when each pound of weight cost something like $18k at each Shuttle launch!

Yes, they should have developed an entirely and different new shuttle, although that might have cost something too.

"when each pound of weight cost something like $18k at each Shuttle launch!"

Why do I have a feeling that such a number is just the cost of the launch divided by the weight ? (not the actual cost differential of each additional pound).

I'm done here, but knock yourself out.

marcus says

Smart people have to make a living too.

It's a fact that many professors in Mathematics and Science at US universities, had the jobs (1960 - ? ) that they did have because of government investment.

First of all, university professors in math and sciences were mushrooming even before the 1960's. Math and science students started to out-number divinity students in the 19th century because of the private sector job offers (industrial revolution underway) started to outbid the previous #1 and #2 employers of college graduates: the Church and the Government. A divinity degree was plenty sufficient for Church and government jobs.

Secondly, to the extent that smart math and science brains were diverted to work on bombs and other weapons, our society is worse off because of it.

Thirdly, it's interesting to note that Albert Einstein developed his entire theory of relativity before becoming a professor . . . and didn't put forth anything new after becoming a university professor.

This was the evidence that I was referring to (that I wasn't going to dig up for), but I was told this directly by a Mathematics professor, and it's easy to verify.

What evidence would that be? that the prof prefer the government giving him a job guarantee? No kidding. I'm sure the banksters also prefer job guarantee from the government. Everyone does. That's why civilizations eventually grinds to a halt: everyone wants to suckle on the big cheese in the sky at someone else' expense.

As for ideology, you're the one that's stretching so hard with assertions that back your ideology.

You don't need to believe in any ideology to follow what I'm writing. All you need to do is assuming that other people are not stupid.

I'm not arguing against free markets or capitalism. I'm only arguing that goverment investment in research and technology is obviously sometimes very successful.

Just like sometimes the soviet bureaucrats could successfully put some food on the store shelves. Do you really think the food got on the shelves because of the soviet bureaucrats or despite of them? Well, the soviet textbooks and schools definitely taught their pupils that food on the shelves would have been impossible without the bureaucrats, and especially the top bureaucrat.

marcus says

It's a slippery slope. Government backs research in to promising technologies, or subsidizes consumer utilization by early adopters, and the next thing you know were talking fascist takeover of the entire economy.

Government bureaucrats don't have a magic crystal ball to tell them what's a truly promising technology. To the extent that they take resources away from other R&D effort via taxation to fund what they subjectively believe to be promising, they slow down the overall pace of technological advance. Don't forget bureaucrats themselves incurr cost.

marcus says

Why do I have a feeling that such a number is just the cost of the launch divided by the weight ? (not the actual cost differential of each additional pound).

That was the going rate for commercial cargo lift into space (NASA's actual cost might have been even higher). Every pound that they could shave off that dead weight door stopper of a computer, they could have sold for income . . . but they never did.

marcus says

Another whacko right wing authoritarian extremist.

That's a funny accusation. You are the one advocating authoritarianism for R&D resources.

Reality says

Government bureaucrats don't have a magic crystal ball to tell them what's a truly promising technology.

MAybe promising was the wrong word.

I'll get get concise and summarize my point.

There is a gap (in time and investment and scaling up to production and use), between when a desirable technology becomes more than just theoretically possible, and when it is in full scale usage.

Sometimes, maybe even usually, this investment and scaling up will be done by private entities, looking to profit later. (this is true regardless of whether the original research was funded mostly by the government and universities or not).

But other times, for fairly obvious reasons, such as defense, having government expedite the process is very beneficial.

In the case of alternative energy sources, I consider government investment sensible because we have somewhat cheap sources now (not cheap enough), that is fossil fuels, with very powerful interests behind them, that prevents "the market" from doing now, what it would eventually have to do.

Governments need to help expedite the development of alternatives, because, for example, the "profit motive" doesn't help us avoid the consequences of peak oil. In fact, if oil were to get scarce, before good alternatives existed, I'm guessing that there are those who would cash in on this big time.

Marcus.. you want Govt researched cheap source of renewable energy...

its called Nuclear... but im sure you keep wanting some other nonsense...

marcus says

There is a gap (in time and investment and scaling up to production and use), between when a technology becomes more than just theoretically possible, and when it is in full scale usage.

Sometimes, maybe even usually, this investment and scaling up will be done by private entities, looking to profit later.

Agree with you on "usually." The market place is excellent at anticipating future profit and making present investment accordingly.

marcus says

But other times, for fairly obvious reasons, such as defense, having government expedite the process is very beneficial.

Agree in one aspect: the private sector would not likely have found the murderous incentive to develop the atomic bomb or the ICBM. The question is what kind of "very beneficial" is the government stepping in and making these weapons?

Heck, if not for the US continuing after Germans gave up, and eventually successfully developing the atomic bomb, the soviets probably wouldn't be able to develop it without copying from the US, hence nobody else has it either (copying from the US or from the soviets, i.e. indirectly copying form the US).

marcus says

In the case of alternative energy sources, I consider government investment sensible because we have somewhat cheap sources now (not cheap enough), that is fossil fuels, with very powerful interests behind them, that prevents "the market" from doing now, what it would eventually have to do.

Governments need to help expedite the development of alternatives, because, for example, the "profit motive" doesn't help us avoid the consequences of peak oil. In fact, if oil were to get scarce, before good alternatives existed, I'm guessing that there are those who would cash in on this big time.

1. There is no peak oil. That theory is an oil/gas industry propaganda to make their products more valuable. They have been doing that since the 1870's, yes 1870's, not just 1970's. WWII was started based on the theory that the world was running out of oil.

2. Government involvement is highly inadvisable if you care for alternative energy. Do not think government politicians and bureaucrats are robots doing your biddings. They have their own self-interest. Since you already know the powerful influence that the big oil companies wield, if you were a big oil executive, how would you like to treat alternative energy development? Controlling it and diverting it to dead-end pursuits. That's exactly the government "help" for alternative energy has done: ask yourself, why a president with strong oil industry background would promote mandatory ethanol fuel? Why all the nuclear power plants are still using very dangerous Uranium process instead of the much safer Thorium process? When government gets to fund research, as soon as the research shows good results like the Thorium liquid fuel reactor did 4 decades ago, the government can shut it down! The government takes the brains and resources away from private sector, so there's none left to do the research. That's how the big-oil prevents the rise of any meaningful alternative fuel solution . . . by getting the government involved in it!