Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m a small government conservative, but I have no problem with government funding “worthwhile” programs that the private sector is unable/unwilling to fund. But I can’t think of anything that would qualify at this point, considering the private sector has even taken on space exploration.
For small countries, government assistance is necessary. For large countries, I think massive government subsidy is a sign of poor economic fundamentals, like you find in communism and socialism.
I’m a small government conservative, but I have no problem with government funding “worthwhile” programs that the private sector is unable/unwilling to fund. But I can’t think of anything that would qualify at this point, considering the private sector has even taken on space exploration.
For small countries, government assistance is necessary. For large countries, I think massive government subsidy is a sign of poor economic fundamentals, like you find in communism and socialism.
You likely don't realize how important the majority of fundamental and basic scientific research is to the betterment of humanity.
Economical viable programs almost always work off of the back of the findings from that resaerch. Pick any field, and examples are numerous.
Not fully true. Lots of government-funded research, especially basic scientific research, would never get investor funding. At least, no where near the amount necessary to complete the work.
The military certainly isn't the key here, but private investors would not fund many of the research areas that government grants cover currently.
Tell you how basic and fundamental scientific research is necessary? I just did. The vast majority of product advancements are built on the back of government-funded resaerch.
Pick almost any product out there, and there are likely dozens, or more, scientific and technological prerequisite advancements for that product to come to be.
Just because you are unaware (as most people are) doesn't mean that this work is not worthwhile.
In fact, if you want to slow down human progress, cutting basic and fundamental scientific research would be a quick way to do so.
Very few companies and investors are going to back most basic and fundamental resaerch. For good reason - ROI on these kind of research endeavors are measured on timescales of decades...You think in an economic world where people expect gains in a few quarters or years they're going to back basic scientific research that has no do direct product behind it? Get real.
Today's basic research is the bedrock of tomorrow's world. And sure, some basic R&D comes out of industry...but most happens in the academic world, and the government funds much of it.
taxpayer vs. investor- one is a victim and the other a willing participant.
If a taxpayer benefits from the creation of a technology, its coincidental and shouldn't be confused with the actual impetus for its design.
The point is that the taxpayer IS an investor. He invests in the nation, and in the programs and activities of the nation.
He should, therefore reap rewards from those investments.
Things like have usable highways, and transportation system, fire and crime protection, safe food and medicine, Safe water, electricity, communications,...
All of that is what paying taxes is supposed to be about.
If you don't wanna pay taxes here, move to some place like Somalia, or Afghanistan, where they have a whole different method infrastructure maintenance.
Stay here and benefit from the system, but quit whining.
There is nothing to prevent the same individuals working with a pool of private investors to come up with the same or even better technologies.
Profitability. Tons of government research went absolutely nowhere, as is to be expected with fundamental research. Or was shelved for decades while another branch of technology caught up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekigurl
Exhibit A: SpaceX
A good example. I am as excited as anyone that SpaceX is kicking ULA in the shins and taking their lunch money, but let's not pretend they're not standing on NASA's shoulders in a big way. That doesn't detract from their accomplishments - it's what NASA is for. Well, supposedly.
Tell you how basic and fundamental scientific research is necessary? I just did. The vast majority of product advancements are built on the back of government-funded resaerch.
Pick almost any product out there, and there are likely dozens, or more, scientific and technological prerequisite advancements for that product to come to be.
Just because you are unaware (as most people are) doesn't mean that this work is not worthwhile.
In fact, if you want to slow down human progress, cutting basic and fundamental scientific research would be a quick way to do so.
Very few companies and investors are going to back most basic and fundamental resaerch. For good reason - ROI on these kind of research endeavors are measured on timescales of decades...You think in an economic world where people expect gains in a few quarters or years they're going to back basic scientific research that has no do direct product behind it? Get real.
Today's basic research is the bedrock of tomorrow's world. And sure, some basic R&D comes out of industry...but most happens in the academic world, and the government funds much of it.
"basic and fundamental reearch" what do you mean exactly? Are you saying absent fed guv funding, no one would have looked into gravity, the relationship of the sun, moon and stars, the internal combustion engine, AC/DC,indoor plumbing, etc. One can only marvel at such narrow mindedness.
Get real? Yes please do. If anything is slowing progress down its Washington with its political favoritism, agencies, rules, bureaucracy, cronyism, ineptness...
The transistor was invented by Bell Labs, probably long before the military saw any value in it. As a matter of fact, when I was in the Navy in the 60's as an electronic tech, most of our equipment was still tube type. We had one hybrid transmitter. Even our crypto gear did not use micro chips. Large scale integration (LSI) was only in it's infancy in 1968 when I got out. Fairchild Engineers who split off from that company formed Intel, which developed the micro processor.
We went to the moon and back with computers that were less powerful by far than today's desktop PC.
Computers developed by Rand Corporation (late 50's) were used primarily for data processing.
Back in those days, military equipment lagged in sophistication, but as devices were developed for other markets, the military began to catch up.
Again, when I was in the Navy (Vietnam) our HF, VHF, and UHF equipment was tube type. Radars were hybrid. The most up-to-date radar we had was the AN/SPS-30, and it was not fully solid state.
After I was discharged, I went to work for a short time at Union Carbide, where we were developing and making bi-polars, and just getting into I.C.'s.
So, I think you need to check your sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
