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

261–270 of 529 posts

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

#261

Post by csomar »

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.

> They could have voted socialist at any point in time.

> Lest the poorly educated masses of people

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

#262

Post by Redoubts »

sirbutters wrote: post #67
bilbo0s wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that I'd rely too heavily on midterms in 26. Gerrymandering and all that.

I don't know why this is getting shadowed. You're absolutely right. Gerrymandering is a threat.

Illinois and Maryland look pretty secure on that front. Perhaps the Democrats can try to gerrymander NYS again, without getting slapped down by the courts

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

#263

Post by stevenwoo »

csa wrote: post #172
b_emery wrote: post #2

If you read nothing else in this excellent post, read the conclusion: > A key component of this U.S. research ecosystem was the genius of the indirect cost reimbursement system. Not only did the U.S. fund researchers in universities by paying the cost of their salaries, the U.S. gave universities money for the researchers facilities and administration. This was the secret sauce that allowed U.S. universities to build…

> papers from China have gone from sparse and poorly done imitations of western papers (~15-20 yrs ago), to innovative must reads if you want to stay on top of the field. Usually when I think of a new idea, it has already been done by some Chinese researcher. Not germane to the main thread, but are the “new idea” papers written by Chinese authors mostly published in English, Chinese, or both? If Chinese is part or al…

I recently read a paper on health benefits of cheese and looked at the authors and they were all from Chinese universities, was expecting a US agricultural university, like UC Davis does a lot of work on products of California and was unaware that cheese was any part of mainland China’s traditional nutrition sources, I.e. why did they study this?!

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

#264

Post by consumer451 »

Retric wrote: post #216
consumer451 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think you need to consider history if you think this is a new thing. People literally paid for indentured servants, even outside of the slave trade. Importing cheap labor has been a constant throughout the countries history, look at camps of people building the railroads you’ll see lots of Chinese people etc.

But if we zoom out, there is an end to this. We run out of poor people to be migrants eventually, right? I don't just mean as the USA, or any country, but as the Earth.

How do we solve the issue of the end state, where all economies have reached our current level of advancement?

I assume we solve it, or we go extinct, and that would be an odd reason to do so after millions of years, wouldn't it?

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

#265

Post by defrost »

tsol wrote: post #239
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Democracy is a spectrum and the US system is but one poor flawed example.

Despite the founders being anti-party politics and wanting a spectrum of representatives each representing a block of the broader population and hammering out consensual deals that most can live with, the US has devolved into a two party system in which neither party especially represents 50% of the population despite both butting up against the median of actual voters.

This is the doom spiral of iterative FPTP and Hotelling's 'law'.

Other democracies have many parties, larger parties mixed with smaller parties, greater voter engagement, various forms of proportional voting systems (there are several), etc.

US democracy is just one example of many global democracies.

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

#266

Post by favflam »

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…

The dollar was strong, interest rates low, inflation rate competitively low (compare with other countries).

The deficit just means the US government should collect more taxes and cut spending. Efficiency efforts should have gone towards neutering nimbys.

Now with Republicans in power, we can expect tax revenue to take a huge hit, and economic recession, and the deficit to blow out.

In the last 25 years, Republicans have consistently taken positive trends in gdp, unemployment, and deficits and tanked the economy.

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

#267

Post by adrr »

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…

Tax revenue as percentage of GDP right now 17%. You can pick random countries and compare. China 26%, Sweden 41%, Japan 32% etc. Do you see the issue? When we ran a surplus during Clinton's admin, we were at 20%.

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

#268

Post by dweinus »

monero-xmr wrote: post #237
patagurbon wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All of your examples put together would be a rounding error in the US Military budget

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

#269

Post by itsmek »

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?

Yes. If you are genuinely unaware and not just asking a rhetorical question, yes socialized medicine is a major goal of the progressive left. We came close in 2010 but the votes in congress weren't quite there. The only reason major parties don't pursue it is because progressivism doesn't have the votes. You can definitely vote for it though especially if you participate in primaries.

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

#270

Post by mbesto »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205
grafmax wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. Markets don’t account for externalities, they concentrate wealth (and therefore political power), and they routinely underprovide merit goods like education, healthcare, and basic research (things that benefit society broadly but aren’t immediately profitable). As for how to address budget issues, the solution is simpl…

> The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy. > Markets don’t account for externalities Markets aren't expected to account for externalities. Externalities are the things you're supposed to tax. > they concentrate wealth (and therefore political power) You're describing regu…

> There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy.

There are no documented instances of a truly free market. The parent's point I think has less to do with "it has been tried and it failed" and moreso that the idea that truly free market can exist is pure fantasy.

FWIW - Costa Rica is probably the greatest example of a Libertarian's dream of a free market. I would love to show any free market absolutionist the colossal amount of time it takes to just pave 500m of a road in that country.

Post reply on HN