Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the U.S. became a science superpower

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 529 posts

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#151

Post by jasonhong »

philwelch wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US government funding of science isn’t a net cost due to taxes on the long term economic productivity that results. This is unlike say corn subsidies which not only reduce economic efficiency but also have direct negative heath impacts furthering the harm. Medicare spending is problematic because it’s consumptive, but there’s ways to minimize the expense without massively reducing care. The VA for example dramaticall…

> US government funding of science isn’t a net cost due to taxes on the long term economic productivity that results. There's an assumption here that deserves some closer examination. If we are taking this as a justification for federal science spending, we would have to also support a policy of awarding research grants on the basis of expected long term return on investment, which is not the criteria applied now. Fu…

First, it's highly unclear a priori which scientific discoveries will pay off. The discoverer of Green Fluorescent Protein was denied funding, with others eventually winning the Nobel Prize for it. Same for mRNA vaccines, most recently featured in COVID-19 vaccine, which also recently won a Nobel Prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3

Second, while there are always improvements to be made, the system as is (or was) worked pretty well in practice without knowing what the expected ROI was. The PageRank algorithm which led to Google was funded in part by an NSF grant on Digital Libraries. The ROI on that single invention just from taxes, jobs, and increased productivity likely exceeds NSF's annual budget. DataBricks and Duolingo are also based in part on NSF research.

Yeah, the system is imperfect, as all human-oriented systems are, but for the most part it works pretty well in practice and has been a linchpin in the US economic growth and national security.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#152

Post by DontchaKnowit »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #69
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.

They could have voted socialist at any point in time. Americans could have had healthcare, 36 hour work week and a pension system. That is the tragedy of the American empire- instead of improving the lives of its citizens all the money went to tax cuts.

Could we have though? Last I checked neither majir party has seriously persued this. So how are the american people to vote for it?

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#154

Post by arrosenberg »

fifilura wrote: post #124
arrosenberg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't do it, individual states can't print money and freedom of movement means the free rider problem will pop up quickly.

> can't print money But can they raise taxes? > freedom of movement EU also has freedom of movement, but vastly different social security systems. Language is of course an extra barrier, but how much people will move is overrated. And maybe you could restrict supposed benefits to people who have lived there in a few years. Obviously IANAL, but i am thinking - seems like you generally hate your government no matter wh…

> But can they raise taxes?

Sure, but the math doesn't work out. Vermont and California have both tried in various forms.

> EU also has freedom of movement, blah blah blah

They also coordinated the laws between the member countries. That's exactly what the federal government would need to do in this case, very good! The EU system doesn't work particularly well either, because it's loosely confederated. The US government has far more ability to coordinate the States.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#156

Post by kergonath »

philwelch wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US government funding of science isn’t a net cost due to taxes on the long term economic productivity that results. This is unlike say corn subsidies which not only reduce economic efficiency but also have direct negative heath impacts furthering the harm. Medicare spending is problematic because it’s consumptive, but there’s ways to minimize the expense without massively reducing care. The VA for example dramaticall…

> US government funding of science isn’t a net cost due to taxes on the long term economic productivity that results. There's an assumption here that deserves some closer examination. If we are taking this as a justification for federal science spending, we would have to also support a policy of awarding research grants on the basis of expected long term return on investment, which is not the criteria applied now. Fu…

I don’t think that is the point. The argument is usually that we cannot predict what will be “high impact” 20 years from now but the current system works well enough that it is a net benefit despite a lot of research not being directly applicable in the end.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#158

Post by linksnapzz »

wskinner wrote: post #140
tw04 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever actually worked with a Fortune 500 company? I’m assuming not or you’d know “inefficient allocation of resources” isn’t a government issue, it’s a large organization issue that’s as bad if not worse in the private sector.

There is a natural garbage collection mechanism for corporations that become too inefficient. Inefficient government agencies can last much longer.

There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#159

Post by jay_kyburz »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #113
jack_h wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that’s fair, but kind of tangential. The point I was making was that if discretionary spending, approximately 25% of outlays, could be completely cut we would still have a deficit. I’m not suggesting this is even possible, I’m merely using it as a demonstration of the scale of the problem.

Fair enough. I'd still quibble with your whole framing though. For example: > This is a trillion dollars that cannot be used to provide government services. I don't know if you have a mortgage, but assuming you do, is it useful to say of the interest payments you make on that "this is X dollars that cannot be used to buy food, heat, gas or streaming services" ? I suggest that it is not, and for reasons that apply to…

> I suggest that it is not, and for reasons that apply to government too.

I disagree, I think it is useful, and in fact important for young people to carefully consider the size of their mortgage and the interest they have to pay.

A persons long term financial health can be greatly impacted by the size of their mortgage, and I would always recommend taking the smallest possible loan. Taking a mortgage only makes sense if you would otherwise have to pay rent.

Same applies to governments.

In fact, I go one step further and think its shocking that one generation of people would leave behind a massive debt for their children and grandchildren have to service.

I don't agree with how DOGE is going about things, and I'm not a US citizen, but I strongly believe governments should be generating surpluses for their children to enjoy, not deficits for their children to pay off.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#160

Post by jasonhong »

fallingknife wrote: post #105
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m skeptical that the current system is efficient at allocating the funds Probably. But the solution almost certainly doesn't involve the federal government policing what is and isn't researched, discussed and taught. We had a system that worked. We're destroying the parts of it that worked, while retaining the parts that are novel. (Turning conservatives into a protected class, for instance--not even the CCP expl…

Why would the people paying for the research not control what it can be spent on? Letting the people who spend the money decide is typically not a good system.

They do control what it's spent on. There are volumes of compliance about how you can spend the money. For example, can't use the funds on food, alcohol, paying rent, bribing people (yes, seriously, some idiot tried it and then they had to make a rule about it), you have to fly US carriers where possible, etc.

There are also reports you submit showing your progress and how you spent the money, to check that you are spending it on things you said you would.

This thread (not just the person I'm replying to) demonstrates a lot of misconceptions about why we have research funding, how it works, and what the results have been in practice. Please, everyone, don't rely on stereotypes of how you think research funding works.

Post reply on HN