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

231–240 of 529 posts

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

#231

Post by generativenoise »

Retric wrote: post #123
jack_h wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if those attribution studies are 100% correct that doesn’t mean this system optimally allocates resources. The ultimate issue with our social programs is due to demographics. An aging population whose replacement rate is projected to go negative (more deaths than births) within the next few years is catastrophic for the way we fund those programs. We absolutely should try and reduce their operating costs though;…

Noting people do is 100% optimal, but productivity gains mean resource constraint problems are more solvable than they first appear. People are worried about automation driving people out of the workplace while others are worried about a lack of workers due to changing demographics. What’s going to happen is the result of a bunch of different forces, simplified projections are easy to make and unlikely to prove accur…

It is insane that people think we need a growing population to make this perfect population pyramid, to make things work easily in monetary terms with taxes. It really does ignore so many of the other forces as you mention.

The picture looks radically different if you focus on real resources and allocation. In fact a growing population could make things very economically tenuous in real terms, depending on how a few key environmental factors play out over the coming centuries.

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

#232

Post by didgetmaster »

linksnapzz wrote: post #161
jack_h wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if those attribution studies are 100% correct that doesn’t mean this system optimally allocates resources. The ultimate issue with our social programs is due to demographics. An aging population whose replacement rate is projected to go negative (more deaths than births) within the next few years is catastrophic for the way we fund those programs. We absolutely should try and reduce their operating costs though;…

As a purely practical matter, trying to fix federal budget outlays by cutting indirect funds attached to NSF/NIH/DOE etc. grants is like telling a guy who is morbidly obese by 350lbs that you can lose weight quickly by shaving your head and trimming your fingernails really, really close.

And yet that morbidly obese guy probably got that way by a thousand unhealthy snacks between meals. While just a few extra calories generally doesn't do much; a steady stream of them over time can do the trick.

As DOGE is finding, that $36 trillion of government debt didn't come in one blow. When every agency has a bunch of bloated programs; it really adds up.

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

#233

Post by Retric »

FredPret wrote: post #175
linksnapzz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While true, you overstate the problem. Look up the companies in the S&P 500 today, 10 years ago, 20, 30, 50. There are dramatic changes with only a handful of long term survivors.

That overstates the difference as mergers hardly destroy the old companies in their entirety.

Instead it’s the same kind of shakeups you regularly see in government agencies. Picking one small example, HERSA is a merger of the Health Services Administration (1973–1982) and Health Resources Administration (1973–1982). However currently one of its major functions is managing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program that showed up in 1990.

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

#234

Post by Hammershaft »

jack_h wrote: post #52
cs702 wrote: post #7

Worth reading in its entirety. The following four paragraphs, about post-WWII funding of science in Britain versus the US, are spot-on, in my view: > Britain’s focused, centralized model using government research labs was created in a struggle for short-term survival. They achieved brilliant breakthroughs but lacked the scale, integration and capital needed to dominate in the post-war world. > The U.S. built a decent…

> In 2025, with the abandonment of U.S. government support for university research, the long run of U.S. dominance in science may be over. I find it amazing that this is the conclusion when earlier in the article it was stated that "[Britain] was teetering on bankruptcy. It couldn’t afford the broad and deep investments that the U.S. made." The US debt is starting to become an existential problem. Last year the secon…

US research funding still drives a positive return on investment for tax dollars because of the economic growth it drives, so ending research funding would expedite the debt crisis.

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

#235

Post by potato3732842 »

generativenoise wrote: post #221
potato3732842 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't they just shoot the bears? You'd figure libertarians would be all for that.

Because they couldn't reach a consensus with their governance mechanisms. There were people feeding and encouraging the bears. I guess they could have shot all the bears. Eliminating all the bears because a sensible consensus can't be reached seems like a gross failure of humanity to coexist with the natural (uncontrolled) world.

Sounds like they just couldn't put their money where their mouths were and wanted daddy gov to manage the bears and couldn't agree on how. If the neighborhood has bears just store your stuff better and you won't have to shoot them causing problems with the neighbors. Easier than bickering and cheaper than paying for government to do it.

Edit: I guess this works of thieves too.

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

#236

Post by chiefalchemist »

A better title would be: "How this one time the U.S. became a science superpower".

We all know the rule: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Two significant and obvious difference come to mind. I'm sure there are others.

1) WWII did major physical damage to Europe and Japan, to say nothing of the underlying economic damage (e.g., Britain's war debt handcuffed them). Sans any serious competition, of course the US excelled.

2) Along the same lines, the US then didn't have the trillions in debt the US has now. Many of the universities seeing their grants cut are well into the black. On the other hand, Uncle Sam is drenched red ink.

I understand the value of investing. But given the financial fitness of the universities, it feels more like subsidies. Subsidies that aren't benefitting Sam a/o US taxpayers. Yes, Sam can continue to buy success, but at what cost?

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

#237

Post by monero-xmr »

patagurbon wrote: post #215
jack_h wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2025, with the abandonment of U.S. government support for university research, the long run of U.S. dominance in science may be over. I find it amazing that this is the conclusion when earlier in the article it was stated that "[Britain] was teetering on bankruptcy. It couldn’t afford the broad and deep investments that the U.S. made." The US debt is starting to become an existential problem. Last year the secon…

US research funding is not what you want to cut though. It is among the most productive funding possible and there is evidence aplenty that it pays for itself many times over. University bureaucracy is by and large fairly small for research . When you get into undergraduate education I will agree the administration has been bloated by the current system. But research has been surprisingly lean in my experience.

I hear this about everything. “Don’t cut this thing because it’s the most efficient and productive thing ever!” Food stamps, homeless funding, public transport, public schools. Supposedly every single thing is the most efficient thing ever and we can’t possibly cut a dollar

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

#238

Post by charlie90 »

consumer451 wrote: post #138
monknomo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, a relatively easy fix to a negative replacement rate (at least when you have a well-run, wealthy, attractive country) is immigration. Replacement rate isn't a problem when you let more folks in

I agree, but this only works if one is willing to accept a changing racial profile/culture. It appears that many people do not accept this idea. Not just in the USA, but look at Japan or South Korea, for example. To me, the really interesting question is how to stop what appears to have been inevitable for the last 40+ years: when an economy becomes "advanced," the birth rates drop to tragic levels. I believe what co…

I assume if it reaches dire levels the government will just mandate that you raise children. I dont see anything wrong with that, personally. Raising kids is a duty like paying taxes or registering for the draft. Previously, it was just assumed that people would do it on their own, but it seems like the government needs to add "sticks" to get people to do it.

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

#239

Post by tsol »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #152
WeylandYutani wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So is democracy not real? I find it funny that when things do right it's because of our superior system of people choosing their leaders, and when things go wrong it's because people don't have any choice.

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

#240

Post by bch »

woooooo wrote: post #200
sgregnt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. Could you share some sources to back this up? At least a sources to back up at least a few case studies would be curious. I'm interested in economics and never have been aware that free market self-correction is a well documented fantasy and would love to understand where is your claim coming from.

Libertarians took over a town in NH and abolished town wide garbage collection. The free market produced a bunch of trash in people's yards, which attracted bears, causing havoc all around town. True story. That's not to say you can't solve a lot of problems with markets. It just means waving your hands at "the free market" like it's a magic talisman is a childish thing to do.

> Libertarians took over a town in NH and abolished town wide garbage collection.

Presumably this is the case you’re citing: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...

Post reply on HN