How the U.S. became a science superpower • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by blululu » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 1:59 PM UTC

boxed wrote: post #220

blululu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to WWII the United States was the world's leading power in terms of Science, Engineering and Industry - not Germany or the British Empire. The reason that Central European scientists fled to America (and not Britain) is because the United States had the scientific, engineering and industrial base to absorb them. Consider some of the major scientific breakthroughs to come out of the US leading up to and coming o…

> Prior to WWII the United States was the world's leading power in terms of Science, Engineering and Industry - not Germany or the British Empire Per capita? The US had a larger population.

Being the leading power is about magnitude not intensity. The country that is twice as large and operates at a similar level of intensity will be the more dominant force (see also - China today). Per capita, I would bet on the Swiss (then and now) - though it will depend on the metric at that point and their output will be comparable to the Germans, British, French and the Americans.

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

#412

Post by roenxi » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:05 PM UTC

ripe wrote: post #406

roenxi wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To believe that, they would have to believe he had done something that a prosecutor would object to and that was serious enough to get Fauci imprisoned. Which is to say, that he had committed a crime. If we're expecting it to be an arbitrary act of legal harassment, Trump's team could concoct something based on Fauci's work in 2013. Corruption isn't limited to a 2014-2025 window; unless they are basing it on facts.

As we have seen, Trump can hire prosecutors who will prosecute anybody he points his little finger at. He always hires lackeys, so it was easy to predict he would harass Fauci.

So how will the pardon help? If the assumption is that the prosecutors are going to fabricate crimes, the pardon will only help if they fabricate a crime that happened under certain conditions (see: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1385746/). If they're just making something up they can make something up and claim it happened in 2013.

The pardon doesn't protect him from harassment, it only protects him if he specifically committed crimes from 2014-2025 or in several official capacities. If the Trump team is just going to pretend they can say he did something 25 years ago in a private capacity and the pardon does nothing. The pardon only helps if he did something plausibly criminal recently (in which case there is a real question of why he got a pardon - they aren't supposed to be preemptive method of putting people above the law without even knowing what they did).

A charitable interpretation for Fauci is it is there to distract people from the numerous Biden-family pardons the same day and to stop people asking what they did (https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-jos... if anyone wants to look - C-f "Biden" & I count 4 that day + Hunter). But there are probably other things going on.

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

#413

Post by blululu » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

sinuhe69 wrote: post #350

blululu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to WWII the United States was the world's leading power in terms of Science, Engineering and Industry - not Germany or the British Empire. The reason that Central European scientists fled to America (and not Britain) is because the United States had the scientific, engineering and industrial base to absorb them. Consider some of the major scientific breakthroughs to come out of the US leading up to and coming o…

Prior WW 2, the US had even no notion of quantum physics. How could it be the world power in science?

The US definitely had a notion of quantum physics prior to WWII. Feynman got his PhD at Princeton in 1942 in Quantum Physics so I would assume that John Wheeler had some familiarity with the topic back then. I would mention that the most significant result of quantum mechanics is solid state transistors, and Shockley was awarded a phd for quantum mechanical applications back in the 30s.

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

#414

Post by littlestymaar » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

fooList wrote: post #407

littlestymaar wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are just underestimating how rich the rich are.

Could you be overestimating how easy it is to take possession of their money given global free trade? In 10 years, what are the odds you and others will have finally, after all these years, actually managed to have “taxed the rich” as has been proposed as the solution to current debt levels for many years now? If we cannot be certain of those tax revenues from finally “taxing the rich”, then they cannot solve the deb…

The US government can (and regularly do) sanction entire countries, trade is only “global” and “free” to the extent permitted by Washington.

Saying that the rich could somehow avoid the US government by moving abroad is a fallacy.

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

#415

Post by libertine » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

SecretDreams wrote: post #380

BobbyJo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tax wealth somehow, not just income. It's clear the accumulation has become a generational problem. Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have.

> Tax wealth somehow, not just income.

This is a critical point - in my opinion, wealth can't be at the same time a collateral to acquire more assets or to buy cheap money, and something that can't be taxed.

Either tax it or make credit/debt to be considered income after a certain net worth value, like 100 million would be more than enough.

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

#416

Post by Fomite » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

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.

Echoing this as well - administration for research is fairly thin in every institution I've worked at.

In my career, there's only one position I can definitely point to as "That shouldn't exist" - ironically, it's both one that played well with "The university should be more like a business" and was also, in effect, a retention move for their massively productive spouse.

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

#417

Post by pnutjam » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:48 PM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #264

Retric wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why does less then replacement rate equal extinction? It just requires a reimagination of the economy it's not an extinction level threat. That's just scare mongering.

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

#418

Post by misiek08 » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:50 PM UTC

[flagged]

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

#419

Post by atombender » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:51 PM UTC

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…

Norwegian here. It's not at all comparable. Norway has a wealth tax (about 1.09%), lots of consumption-level taxes (25% VAT, fees on gas, etc.), high capital gains tax (37.85% flat, no "qualified dividends" or tax-free bonds or Roth loopholes or anything like that).

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

#420

Post by rurp » Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

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 national debt is a complete red herring here. It's a real problem, sure, but that is completely unrelated to these cuts. The party implementing these cuts is currently debating how many trillions of dollars to increase the national debt by. They are completely unserious about reducing federal debt payments and there is zero ambiguity about what they are saying, drafting, and voting on.

That is also the same party that is actively attacking every single institution they deem too liberal. That's what they are doing here too: trying to destroy something they don't like, regardless of the consequences. The money being cut here is a drop in the bucket and the economic costs will almost certainly outweigh the savings. We shouldn't believe flimsy pretexts that are obviously lies.