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

281–290 of 529 posts

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

#281

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #280
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…

There aren't enough rich people to fund the government at the levels it spends.

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by WalterBright »

brokeAstronomer wrote: post #252
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Markets are a tool which can work extremely well if deployed carefully and within a sensible regulatory framework. Given that the world CO2 level keeps rising, we can't eat fish because of heavy metals and we all have forever microplastics in us, I think it's fair to question some of our assumptions. >> Markets aren't expected…

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created.

The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around.

> Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy.

Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textbook "Special Relativity" at a book sale for $.50. SAT prep books are available free at the library, and are often at thrift stores for a couple bucks.

It's never been easier to get educated.

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

#283

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mbesto wrote: post #270
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There are no documented instances of a truly free market.

But why is that interesting?

If you enter into a contract to sell your car to someone and then instead of paying you they steal your car and kill you, that's crime, not a free market. Killing people by dumping mercury into the river is still just crime. Killing people by burning dirty coal is something that should be crime, even if it officially isn't.

But this is different than banning things where each involved party is consenting, or imposing unfunded mandates or bureaucratic filing requirements. The less of those things there are, the freer the market is, and those places tend to do better than the places captured by central planners.

Moreover, the main point is completely valid. If Palm's product isn't as good as an iPhone then you don't have to buy it and then they go away. If the DMV sucks, what are you going to do?

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

#284

Post by WalterBright »

mbesto wrote: post #270
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There are no documented instances of a truly free market.

There's no such thing as pure water, either. Nor is there any person who has not had impure thoughts. Nor can you ever cut a board to an exact length. Nor has anything created by man (or nature) been perfect.

The historical reality is the more free a free market is, the better it performs.

A free market does not have to be a "truly free market" in order to deliver the goods.

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

#285

Post by xphos »

makeitdouble wrote: post #211
tkiolp4 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a “simple” solution. Wonder why doing a PhD in the majority of european countries is equal to a poor monthly income. Just pay them more. I guess countries don’t like long term solutions.

I was curious how much of a gap there is, and landed on about 100k in the US[0] vs 85k[1] USD in France for instance, in average. That sounds on par with most other professions where the US salary is about a third higher, with a cost of living (health, housing etc) eating most of the difference. Perhaps I'm also not buying that the US has a fundamentally better system, and not just a dominant position to begin with,…

Yeah, no PhDs in the US don't make 100K year. The stipend for an MIT PhD is about 50K a year half of what you're saying. Citing my wife who just finished their phd. MIT also makes it so everyone is paid the same as PhDs even if they bring in their own money like my wife did.

You definitely could make 70K if you worked somewhere and also won a research fellowship, but that is the exception, not the rule. I think it's amazing how much science the US produces, considering how low the pay is. Maybe I'm spoiled in CS, but it's crazy how little people in science get paid, especially considering I think their work is often fundamentally more challenging. Granted is also much more risky and hard to monetize

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

#286

Post by fallingknife »

brokeAstronomer wrote: post #243
fallingknife wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see I've hit a nerve here. But it's ok. I understand that the fact that private research grants contain indirect percentages less than half of the federal rate and yet still the universities not refuse them is a very difficult thing for you to argue against. It's understandable that you would resort to appeals to authority and ad hominems when you can't present a logical argument.

There are fixed costs associated with running research labs and facilities. Just because private funding can (sometimes) come with lower allocations for overheads doesn't mean that research can continue at pace without the public grant overheads. The vast bulk of research money is public not private. While I will happily concede that there is always room for improvement with how we fund research, your suggestions are…

I guess the problem is that I just don't trust them. It's a bunch of university administrators and government bureaucrats (two groups I trust on the level of used car dealers) spending other people's money. I think the solution to this is transparency. If these universities want to continue getting tax exempt status and generous overhead allocations out of taxpayer funds, then they should be required to release their budgets to the public. It they are actually spending all that money on reasonable research costs, then fine, but I want to see the receipts.

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

#287

Post by kaishiro »

WalterBright wrote: post #282
brokeAstronomer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy. Markets are a tool which can work extremely well if deployed carefully and within a sensible regulatory framework. Given that the world CO2 level keeps rising, we can't eat fish because of heavy metals and we all have forever microplastics in us, I think it's fair to question some of our assumptions. >> Markets aren't expected…

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around. > Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textb…

Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.

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

#288

Post by WalterBright »

bch wrote: post #240
woooooo wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

That sounds like a case of "Tragedy of the Commons", which is not free market.

Also, police is a requirement because libertarianism relies on government to protect peoples' rights. Gutting the police department is what anarchists do, not libertarians.

If you want to know of a successful libertarian experiement, see the founding of the United States. (Excluding the slave states, of course. Slavery is antiethical to libertarianism.)

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

#289

Post by 9283409232 »

philwelch wrote: post #275
9283409232 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you thought I, or anyone else thinks that by taxing billionaires we would pay off the entirety of the debt, I don't know what to tell you bud.

Silly of me to take you at your word when you said, "the problem with US debt comes from their unwillingness to tax billionaires".

Silly you indeed. I have no idea how you read that and interpret it as "taxing billionaires will pay the entire debt." As I mentioned in another comment, taxing billionaires is crucial step but one of many needed.

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

#290

Post by WalterBright »

kaishiro wrote: post #287
WalterBright wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around. > Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textb…

Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.

There's the Khan Academy, too. Apparently a lot of home schoolers rely on it, and it is used by students who need extra help.

It's true that what I wrote about is not formal education, but it is education nevertheless and freely available.

Post reply on HN