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

501–510 of 529 posts

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

#501

Post by dbdr »

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…

> Markets aren't expected to account for externalities. Externalities are the things you're supposed to tax.

> You're describing regulatory capture. This is why governments are supposed to have limited powers. To keep them from passing rules that enrich cronies and entrench incumbents.

The problem is that those two principles are at odds with each other. You need the government to have enough power to fix externalities, but also limited power to avoid corruption.

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

#502

Post by dahauns »

WalterBright wrote: post #469
mbesto wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The historical reality is the more free a free market is, the better it performs. Performs for whom ? The central idea of a free market is that is provides better goods and services and thus better outcomes for civilization. We have countless examples of innovations that have come through government intervention (internet, space grade goods and services, GPS, etc. just to name a few), so you simply cannot say in a…

> Performs for whom? In the 19th century, the free market resulted in bootstrapping scores of millions of people up out of poverty into the middle class and beyond. The government was not involved in this. > We have countless examples of innovations that have come through government intervention We have far more from the free market. Have you ever looked at the number of patents? As for the internet, that was simply…

>Did you know that jet engines were developed thanks to funds from the free market, as the military saw no use for jet engines? The government did not get involved until they saw flying jet aircraft?

sigh At least try to look for examples that aren't so completely, utterly wrong. Which "flying jet aircraft" would that even be? The only one where you could even start to make that argument would be Heinkel's He178 prototype. Apart from the fact that it was explicitly designed to be monetized militarily...where do you think those funds came from in late 30s Germany, at one of the leading military plane manufacturers? (and please don't say Lufthansa...they didn't operate on a "free market" even since their inception in 26, and certainly not after 33).

You can't spell jet aircraft without military-industrial complex. Hell, even the first 707 family variant in service was a military one (KC-135).

Edit - almost overlooked that nugget:

>Externalities, such as pollution, are not free market, and are in the purview of government.

Ah yes, privatize profits, socialize costs. That kind of free market. I shouldn't have bothered.

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

#503

Post by robertlagrant »

SecretDreams wrote: post #484
robertlagrant wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have. This isn't a problem.

The fact that people hold this opinion is part of the problem. Nobody can see beyond how a problem effects them, especially when it comes to wealth.

Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.

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

#504

Post by SecretDreams »

robertlagrant wrote: post #503
SecretDreams wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that people hold this opinion is part of the problem. Nobody can see beyond how a problem effects them, especially when it comes to wealth.

Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.

Yes, in this theoretical world where stocks trend down over extended periods of time, I could see this being an issue.

In the fairy farts world of the US stock markets, we don't often see mega corps trend down. That's why every American pension is piled into SP500... Which is really driven by the growth of like 10 companies, tops.

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

#505

Post by SecretDreams »

aceazzameen wrote: post #485
anonfordays wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have computers in our pockets that can perform trillions of calculations per second; we have social media sites capturing terabytes or petabytes of data per second; we have LLMs with trillions of parameters. So it boggles my mind to see someone say "we can't tax wealth, that'd be too complicated! We'd have to do dozens of calculations per year!" No one is saying that it's "too complicated" to calculate someone's…

Why don't you help brainstorm ideas instead of being dismissive? There is no right answer right now. Clearly in order for society to move forward in a healthy way, single individuals cannot amass wealth/power that is a millennia ahead of everyone else. The goal isn't to say you can't be wealthy. The goal is wealth/power cannot be obscenely beyond everyone else. These few individuals have more power than governments.…

The OP just wants your hands off their money. They know it's a problem. It's not one they want solved. They probably also think they genuinely accumulated their wealth strictly from their own skillset with no external factors contributing to it.

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

#506

Post by idiotsecant »

robertlagrant wrote: post #479
SecretDreams wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have. This isn't a problem.

It's frustrating that people honestly think this isn't a problem. What's the point of the system of economic value? It's supposed to make our exchange of good and services more efficient. What's more efficient about a handful of dudes hoarding effectively the entire supply? It works better when value is evenly distributed throughout the system. It's the whole point, in fact. If we allow it turn into a high score game where the winners are the ones with the best cheats we make a system that increases overall suffering, inefficiency, and rent-seeking.

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

#507

Post by idiotsecant »

robertlagrant wrote: post #503
SecretDreams wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that people hold this opinion is part of the problem. Nobody can see beyond how a problem effects them, especially when it comes to wealth.

Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.

Once capital grows large enough it starts being able to bend the fabric of economic space around it. It begins to change rules and accumulate more capital merely because it's so big. This is a natural feature of capitalism. Properly attended to, fire makes steam and runs an engine. Left unchecked, it's a forest fire. Capitalism is like that. It needs moderating influences to keep it controlled and useful and not consuming everything it touches.

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

#508

Post by robertlagrant »

idiotsecant wrote: post #506
robertlagrant wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have. This isn't a problem.

It's frustrating that people honestly think this isn't a problem. What's the point of the system of economic value? It's supposed to make our exchange of good and services more efficient. What's more efficient about a handful of dudes hoarding effectively the entire supply? It works better when value is evenly distributed throughout the system. It's the whole point, in fact. If we allow it turn into a high score game…

They aren't hoarding supply. The value is tied to that business continuing to be useful.

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

#509

Post by mbesto »

WalterBright wrote: post #469
mbesto wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The historical reality is the more free a free market is, the better it performs. Performs for whom ? The central idea of a free market is that is provides better goods and services and thus better outcomes for civilization. We have countless examples of innovations that have come through government intervention (internet, space grade goods and services, GPS, etc. just to name a few), so you simply cannot say in a…

> Performs for whom? In the 19th century, the free market resulted in bootstrapping scores of millions of people up out of poverty into the middle class and beyond. The government was not involved in this. > We have countless examples of innovations that have come through government intervention We have far more from the free market. Have you ever looked at the number of patents? As for the internet, that was simply…

> In the 19th century, the free market resulted in bootstrapping scores of millions of people up out of poverty into the middle class and beyond. The government was not involved in this.

Did you know that the US railroad system was largely propped up by the US government during the 19th century, thus leading to the greatest exchange of goods and services across the whole of the US?

> Have you ever looked at the number of patents?

Did you even read the article?

Today, U.S. universities license 3,000 patents, 3,200 copyrights and 1,600 other licenses to technology startups and existing companies. Collectively, they spin out over 1,100 science-based startups each year, which lead to countless products and tens of thousands of new jobs. This university/government ecosystem became the blueprint for modern innovation ecosystems for other countries.

> Externalities, such as pollution, are not free market, and are in the purview of government.

You're proving my point yet again. If externalities are regulated ("purview of the government") then the good or service that is provided IS NOT REALLY A FREE MARKET. A truly free market would presume that any externality incurred would cause a subsequent good or service to be created to solve that externality.

You keep providing examples of the free market creating goods and services that are meaningful and beneficial as counter examples as to why they are better than government innovations. Yet, I am saying BOTH ARE IMPORTANT and one cannot unilaterally be true because we have cases on both side. In other words, it's not mutually exclusive, both can be true. Yet you continue to beat this drum that free market solves everything. Odd.

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

#510

Post by mbesto »

WalterBright wrote: post #471
Swenrekcah wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be interesting to note how you define a free market in this context and what makes it “more free”. Because a market can not be free unless there are rules and they are enforced. Without rules and government intervention when necessary, what you get is the law of the jungle, which is precisely the thing the last 12000 years of human history has been about escaping.

A free market is not anarchy. It requires a government to protect rights, enforce contracts, and deal with externalities.

This is precisely my argument. A free market isn't really free if the government has to intervene in any form or manner. Per wikipedia:

   Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Post reply on HN