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

341–350 of 529 posts

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

#341

Post by nottorp »

grafmax wrote: post #174
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…

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…

> will self-correct and optimize outcomes

It does self-correct and optimize. But as you said it below, it optimizes towards

> they concentrate wealth

Monopolies or oligopolies.

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

#342

Post by lenkite »

linksnapzz wrote: post #158
wskinner wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a natural garbage collection mechanism for corporations that become too inefficient. Inefficient government agencies can last much longer.

There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".

Yea, the "too big to fail" principle needs to just go. Corporations should be prevented from becoming so big in the first place. There must be a limit on the revenue generation - once you cross a number, you should be broken up.

Humongous companies just become national-level power brokers adversely affecting both the government and the free market.

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

#343

Post by Epa095 »

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/...

Yes, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is very democratic, it says so in their name!

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

#344

Post by try_the_bass »

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 inequality can rise without regulatory capture. Government is not the source of all evil. Smaller govenrment would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power within the private sector. We need a balanced system, not blind devotion.

But there's the problem: The person you're replying to clearly thinks there's too much government. You seem to think there's not enough.

If I had to pick a side of this to bet on, I would bet on it being "too much" rather than "too little" at this point, simply because in the trend has been for the US government to get larger over time, not smaller. The bigger it gets, the less likely it is that it's "not big enough". I understand that the responsibilities we've delegated to the government continue to increase in complexity, but complexity drives exponential growth, which I would also weigh against the "there's not enough government" argument.

Also I'm really not convinced by the argument that "smaller government would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power". I think we agree that wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated--but so too is the size of the government. There's simply more direct evidence that wealth concentration grows as government complexity grows, at least in the US, because that's literally what appears to be happening!

I would wager that if I look into relative size of a country's government and its concentration on wealth, I'd find that they're not terribly correlated; or if they are, that the data indicates that increasingly government complexity drives increasingly wealth concentration. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that wager! But I also certainly don't buy the naive "markets fix everything" argument, either. People love to game markets, and if they're not controlled in some fashion, fraud tends to win out every time. Just look at crypto!

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

#345

Post by svara »

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…

> Is it so simple? The highest marginal tax rate in the US is 50.3% (37% federal + 13.3% state in California). The highest marginal tax rate in Norway is 47.4%.

Marginal income tax rate. People's aggregate incomes are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of wealth in the world.

I'm mostly a fan of free markets, but the way we've set up the game around the Western world, we're moving back towards a sort of feudal system made up of an asset owning upper class and then everyone else who needs to work to survive.

I think what we need is a 100% marginal estate tax. Maybe something along the lines of 1M$ tax free per child and spouse.

Everyone should have the right to vast financial success through free enterprise, but no one should be able to build multi generational dynasties, since it destroys the fabric of democracy over time.

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

#346

Post by simianwords »

garfield_light wrote: post #340
simianwords wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So a top TikTok influencer is more valuable than a surgeon?

Yes. They provide a scaled entertainment. You are forgetting the reach that this person has.

Compared to a surgeon who's impact is more local, they might help a few patients in a week.

Do you think a combat soldier is more important than a VP of Google?

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

#347

Post by frank20022 »

apercu wrote: post #17
Arubis wrote: post #9

Being the sole western industrialized nation that hadn't just had most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble can't have hurt.

Absolutely, but what did that give the United States, a 10-year advantage? Last time I checked, WWII ended 80 years ago.

Bretton Woods is not a 10-year advantage. US had enjoyed pretty much free money until Vietnam, point at which had to kill the gold standard to enjoy free money some more.

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

#348

Post by InDubioProRubio »

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 free market gave you all these quality bathing spots: https://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/

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

#349

Post by ptsneves »

duxup wrote: post #61
Nevermark wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect every serious/successful researcher, artist, or other creative problem solver would agree that even within the ultimate centralization of work, all in one person, a low bar for exploration of ideas and potential solutions is helpful. The problem terrain insights generated by many "failures" are what make resolving interesting trivial, silly and unlikely questions so helpful. They generate novel knowledge and…

I'm reminded of the old Connections tv series where huge breakthroughs are often a result of tons of abject failures that later, and unpredictably, come together.

There is a veritassium YouTube video describing the story of the electron microscope. At some point somebody even proved mathematically that any improvement was a dead end. Then a group of scientists whose research was mostly shunned, and almost at the point of losing their funding, found a way around the limitations and improved the electron microscope to measure atomic level fields, with great impact on science including materials.

PS: veritassium is just amazing. Yesterday I learned that conservation of energy is a local phenomenon and a geometric consequence, not a law of the universe at all. I am 36 with an engineering background and conservation laws were close to sacred laws of the universe. It turns out, not really and it has to do with the universe expanding. Veritassium just drops it like that, with a nice story.

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

#350

Post by sinuhe69 »

blululu wrote: post #176
ecshafer wrote: post #41

There are a couple fundamental flaws here: One is that the number one Science and Engineering powerhouse prior to WWII was Germany, not Britain. Two this totally neglects that the US received the lion's share of Scientists and Mathematicians from countries like Germany, Hungary, Poland etc with the encroachment of the Soviets and persecution of the Jewish people. While the down up approach of the US and heavy funding…

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?
Post reply on HN