31–40 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long ago?
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
[deleted]
That's too bad. Gravity waves are one of the last unknowns in science that we also know how to study. (Most other unknowns we don't know how to study.) I've always wondered, we have rich foundations doing all kinds of good - do any of them try to step in and fill budgets of this sort?
To me (as an outsider) it looks as if the USA, en masse, doesn't believe in science anymore. So many interesting research projects have been stopped lately, education is being crippled, and other avenues of education and research are being killed for religious reasons. We owe so much to science in our daily lives, why are (common) people so reluctant to see that? Or is the issue deeper. Do people hate the current, fa…
I'm also an outsider, but I think this is really a money problem. The same thing happened in the USSR in the late '80s, suddenly there was no money for science anymore, it didn't matter that the Soviet scientists had helped produce great things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
So 6 years? That's not a long time as these things go. In my question I was going to add that if it's less than 5 years you are not waiting long enough, and 10 is more realistic. (But decided to just leave it as a question.) The last internet bubble was 10 years ago, and only now are we are starting to talk about about an upswing again. Economic cycles are measured in decades. Look at this graph: http://bigcharts.mar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
So 6 years? That's not a long time as these things go. In my question I was going to add that if it's less than 5 years you are not waiting long enough, and 10 is more realistic. (But decided to just leave it as a question.) The last internet bubble was 10 years ago, and only now are we are starting to talk about about an upswing again. Economic cycles are measured in decades. Look at this graph: http://bigcharts.mar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
So 6 years? That's not a long time as these things go. In my question I was going to add that if it's less than 5 years you are not waiting long enough, and 10 is more realistic. (But decided to just leave it as a question.) The last internet bubble was 10 years ago, and only now are we are starting to talk about about an upswing again. Economic cycles are measured in decades. Look at this graph: http://bigcharts.mar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around when Bush was re-elected, I think. Although it accelerated in the last recession, this is not something new. I don't think it's about "the economy" at all. A lot of research has been done during periods of much bleaker economy than there is now. Maybe it was the cold war (and earlier country-level competition) keeping people sharp.
So 6 years? That's not a long time as these things go. In my question I was going to add that if it's less than 5 years you are not waiting long enough, and 10 is more realistic. (But decided to just leave it as a question.) The last internet bubble was 10 years ago, and only now are we are starting to talk about about an upswing again. Economic cycles are measured in decades. Look at this graph: http://bigcharts.mar…
Otherwise: There is a new upswing, all new projects, talk about going to Mars. Then a new crash, it's all cancelled again.. and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 6 years? That's not a long time as these things go. In my question I was going to add that if it's less than 5 years you are not waiting long enough, and 10 is more realistic. (But decided to just leave it as a question.) The last internet bubble was 10 years ago, and only now are we are starting to talk about about an upswing again. Economic cycles are measured in decades. Look at this graph: http://bigcharts.mar…
Maybe you're right, we'll see. A good climate for long-term science would be a sustained, growing economy, instead of the bipolar downswings/upswings that we're seeing the last decade. Otherwise: There is a new upswing, all new projects, talk about going to Mars. Then a new crash, it's all cancelled again.. and so on.
I found this graph: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Real+Gross+Domestic+Pro... (Switch it to logscale.) The most obvious thing I notice about it is the totally flat result after 2000, then improvement (but not as fast as before), and now back where we started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me (as an outsider) it looks as if the USA, en masse, doesn't believe in science anymore. So many interesting research projects have been stopped lately, education is being crippled, and other avenues of education and research are being killed for religious reasons. We owe so much to science in our daily lives, why are (common) people so reluctant to see that? Or is the issue deeper. Do people hate the current, fa…
> To me (as an outsider) it looks as if the USA, en masse, doesn't believe in science anymore. I'm also an outsider, but I think this is really a money problem. The same thing happened in the USSR in the late '80s, suddenly there was no money for science anymore, it didn't matter that the Soviet scientists had helped produce great things.
I simply don't believe it. The USA is still the biggest economy of the world, which makes this a resource allocation issue instead of a resource issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you're right, we'll see. A good climate for long-term science would be a sustained, growing economy, instead of the bipolar downswings/upswings that we're seeing the last decade. Otherwise: There is a new upswing, all new projects, talk about going to Mars. Then a new crash, it's all cancelled again.. and so on.
I agree about a stable economy, it's hard to do long term science if available resources keep changing. I found this graph: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Real+Gross+Domestic+Pro... (Switch it to logscale.) The most obvious thing I notice about it is the totally flat result after 2000, then improvement (but not as fast as before), and now back where we started.