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

381–390 of 529 posts

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

#381

Post by gcanyon »

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…

I'm genuinely curious what you think the "right" level of debt is, and how you justify your answer. The U.S. has only been debt-free once in its history, so obviously "zero" isn't the answer. And it seems self-evident that you are correct that there is a level where it becomes untenable. But what amount, and why that amount?

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

#382

Post by ruszki »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #337
asacrowflies wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to be a fool to believe that.

Read third bullet point https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...

Fifth bullet point contradicts it. Also, it’s not clear for me at all, what “viewpoint” means. Flat Earthers in geography departments? Or more Republicans? Or the same thing as DEI, since being black gives you different viewpoints?

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

#383

Post by stavros »

lompad wrote: post #352
fallingknife wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the balance of power here. In your mind it seems to be "those people come pleading for money so they can do research, giving it is essentially charity"- but it couldn't be further from the truth. Most top-tier researchers can do their science anywhere. If you don't make stuff easy and comfortable enough to hold them, they'll just leave the country. A significant chunk of science…

Please stop correcting them, maybe then all my friends will come back and do research here instead of in the US.

One of my friends, who is a tenured professor in a top 10 US university, already switched our Signal messages to expire after 24h the other day. I asked him why, and he said "you never know what the current administration might use against you".

So yes, I'm all for having our people back if the US voted that they don't want them.

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

#384

Post by ahtihn »

simianwords wrote: post #339
throwaway473825 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might still create more value than they cost. For example, a bus driver enables many people to work, but has a low wage and hence pays little in taxes.

On average you are paid according to your value so this doesn't track.

Where are you getting this from? The value you provide sets a kind of ceiling on what you can be paid. But you are paid based on how easy it is to replace you.

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

#385

Post by pron »

pron wrote: post #373
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…

It's important to remember that government debt doesn't ever need to be repaid, sort of how an immortal man could indefinitely refinance loans. That he'd have to borrow again to repay the old loans (while maintaining the debt) is part of the mechanism. Such an immortal could have his debt grow indefinitely and still be fine as long as lenders believe he'll be able to afford paying the interest and that other lenders…

P.S.

Another thing to remember is that government expenses are often investments. This doesn't only apply to health, education, law enforcement, and transportation infrastructure but also to social security. If people think they'll be left penniless at retirement, they'll spend less and save more. Borrowing to finance investment is a wise policy when the resulting growth can pay for the interest and then some, even if it means a growing debt.

If you invest well, leveraging your investment is exactly what you should do.

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

#386

Post by pnutjam »

BobbyJo wrote: post #194
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…

Im afraid you'd need to be pretty liberal with your definition of rich at this point to dig us out of this hole through taxes alone.

Taxing the rich will have all sorts of positive knock-on effects that will also go a long way towards fixing these issues.

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

#387

Post by Robotbeat »

bgwalter wrote: post #375
WalterBright wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

According to https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr... the top 0.1% hold $22.14 trillion and the top 1% hold $54 trillion. The total federal debt is around $35 trillion. So for sure the top 1% could pay off the debt in order to have a reset at least. I'm not saying it should be done, but it does not seem impossible.

It’s paper wealth. If you forced a sell off, the value would plummet. Look at revenue.

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

#388

Post by Robotbeat »

jack_h wrote: post #117
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…

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;…

The solution is a straightforward but painful increasing of the retirement age to like at least 70.

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

#389

Post by 6510 »

6510 wrote: post #195
philwelch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. The combined net worth of all US billionaires is about 6 trillion dollars. The US national debt is over 36 trillion dollars.

The rich half of the US populus own about $156 trillion. Thus therefore as a conclusion therefrom you only have to take 23% from half the population. Lets make it progressive from 0% at average wealth to 52% at the top. Much less than Roosevelt's 94% But I'm neither democrat nor republican, it might not make sense to anyone :)

To be sensible, you don't just pay 100% and be done with it. That would be silly. 1.3% for the top hoarders seems enough. It will grow back.

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

#390

Post by Robotbeat »

Retric wrote: post #233
FredPret wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a LOT more personnel churn in private sector than federal government.
Post reply on HN