The race for quick profits is eating away our future innovations.
*The race for quick profits is eating away our future.
No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
401–410 of 528 posts
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah if you go check almost any major scientific breakthrough of the past century it usually starts with "some guy was working in a corporate lab with an unlimited budget". We're stagnating as a species a lot more, but at least the shareholders got a payout for their hard work of doing literally nothing. Rent seeking at its worst.
Umm, no. Maybe they have better PR departments than universities but this is clearly nonsense.
God, the irony in saying "All major research is done by companies" while typing your message out to post ON THE INTERNET. LOL.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I read or heard someplace that at many universities tuition paid by students in the social sciences is effectively subsidizing the STEM fields I'm very skeptical of this claim. In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollar…
> In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. We're better than this here. Don't spread misinformation. First of all overhead is listed as a percentage, such as 55% or 60% or whatever but th…
It's not misinformation. You are repeating a misleading talking point. Here's what happens.
- Professor & students get a grant application for 100K.
- University charges indirects at a ratio (0.55)
- 155K gets transferred from treasury to the university account.
That extra 55K comes from the money that congress allocated for grants, so if congress allocates 1 billion dollars -> 450 million will actually go to professors for research. (less than half).
I don't know about you but the universities I went to were rarely ever building new labs or buildings. Furthermore, those large projects always have state grant money coming out of another funding pool.
Glossing over some details, but the fact of the matter is that it's opaque.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…
> Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. This isn't right but it's adjacent. Executives don't need buybacks to get whatever compensation. Their compensation is negotiated and you can write the contract to make it whatever. However, paying divi…
> Companies often use it to acquire other companies, which is the worst.
We also used to enforce antitrust law.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#405Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#406There's something odd in this argument. If you come at it from a Canadian perspective Canada seriously spent on neural network computer science when almost no one else did (many in AI considered the entire thing discredited and impossible), now the (financial) gains from that are almost entirely in a foreign country. The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-…
Canada is also reaping outsized rewards for that investment. There are plenty of AI jobs in Canada that never would have existed. The problem is that in Canada we're willing to invest a little for a long time. But we're not willing to make big bets. You can raise far more capital in the US than in Canada. So naturally large rewards come to those who are willing to make large bets.
> The problem is that in Canada we're willing to invest a little for a long time. But we're not willing to make big bets.
Element AI.
It's not that the bets are not made, the winnings are captured by those that corrupt the existing system before it's even started, so tney go nowhere. This has been the status quo for so long everyone assumes it is what is happening with every new initiative.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#407Maybe we shouldn't have required 'kissing the ring' segments in every scientific grant proposal
Er what? This is very vague.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#408Just seems a very idealistic and almost simplistic view of how a thing should work best because it feels like it should work but the reality is academia gets completely outpaced by private companies. SpaceX, GPT4, Ozempic, list goes on.
All of those are based on basic academic science…
What you’re describing is at least partly engineering and product design, not pure science
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up points 2 and 3. Anyone can sell, but buybacks benefit mostly sellers. Borrowing against stock is mostly something for HNW people. > shareeholders benefit from reduced share count because it increases their claim on future profits So...dividends? Or when they eventually sell? What if I never want to sell?
Actually, normal people can do the borrowing thing. It's not really as necessary since you have normal employment income but you can do it and it can work. If you continually add more principle to your pile-o-stock than your monthly spending the growth will outpace your interest and you won't accumulate an unbounded amount of leverage. At least if your broker offers decent margin rates or you sell boxes. Well, also,…
> Actually, normal people can do the borrowing thing
But it's way riskier.
> At least if your broker offers decent margin rates
I guarantee you no retail broker will give you the rates Elon's broker gives him.
> you sell boxes
I have to guess you mean "box spreads". This is an advanced strategy and again more likely used by HNW people.
Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those who intend to re-invest all returns in to the stock Sell the stock then use the gains to buy the stock? I'm very confused by this. > without having to first pay tax for the dividend Long term capital gains and dividends are taxed at the same rate. The only tax-free way to benefit from a higher share price (that I know of) is to borrow against it. > get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the…
The other tax-free way to benefit is to sell while your in the (fairly generous) 0% capital gains bracket
That bracket also applies to qualified dividends.