PLAYER57832 wrote:But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.
You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.
Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.
AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.
Putting on my BBS shaped mask for a second...
We can really say that (underlined) with a stright face; knowing what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario is impossible (much like predicting the future is).
My personal opinion is that neither (government funding of unprofitable research or free market advancments) would make a great deal of difference. Research comes down to ideas and people; who pays for it (and their apparent "strategy") is rather meaningless in the long run.
OHH!! I disagree because of the incentive problem. The impact of profit and loss incentives differs from bureaucratic/political incentives.
In Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, Tim Hartford expounds on the incentive problems faced by government R&D and private sector R&D by examining a case study which was written by.... (I forgot! If you really are interested, I could find the proper citation).
Basically, government R&D is more risk-averse and requires more codified/stringent conditions that outline the research project, thus that bureaucracy yields less influential works; whereas, the private sector R&D--of this particular company--is less stringent and takes on more risk, thus yielding greater influential works. (Influence was measured by citations by others, IIRC).
PLAYER57832 wrote:But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.
You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.
Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.
AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.
Putting on my BBS shaped mask for a second...
We can really say that (underlined) with a stright face; knowing what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario is impossible (much like predicting the future is).
My personal opinion is that neither (government funding of unprofitable research or free market advancments) would make a great deal of difference. Research comes down to ideas and people; who pays for it (and their apparent "strategy") is rather meaningless in the long run.
OHH!! I disagree because of the incentive problem. The impact of profit and loss incentives differs from bureaucratic/political incentives.
In Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, Tim Hartford expounds on the incentive problems faced by government R&D and private sector R&D by examining a case study which was written by.... (I forgot! If you really are interested, I could find the proper citation).
Basically, government R&D is more risk-averse and requires more codified/stringent conditions that outline the research project, thus that bureaucracy yields less influential works; whereas, the private sector R&D--of this particular company--is less stringent and takes on more risk, thus yielding greater influential works. (Influence was measured by citations by others, IIRC).
Yeah but what was the order of magnitude of the differences? Sure free market might be "better" but who cares? The debate just leads into the usual political bullshit; id rather bypass that and move into debating the merits of various research areas (not here ovbiously, but just a general comment).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Good question, and I'm not sure. Besides, government-funded R&D is also a complementary good, so if their products become Creative Commons which allocates a portion of royalties to the inventors, then I wouldn't be vehemently against government R&D.
If the government can tap into the creative and productive 'forces' of the market, then we should care more about a shift to freer markets. Economic Freedom FTW, Lootifer.
Somewhat-related-but-not-really tangent: My main concern is that some people don't appreciate the awesome capabilities of the market and instead opt for central planning without understanding the constraints and consequences of it. Instead, I'm generally confined to arguing only in favor of free markets and about public choice because most people have yet to get over that hurdle of basic economics.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Somewhat-related-but-not-really tangent: My main concern is that some people don't appreciate the awesome capabilities of the market and instead opt for central planning without understanding the constraints and consequences of it. Instead, I'm generally confined to arguing only in favor of free markets and about public choice because most people have yet to get over that hurdle of basic economics.
Thats a perfectly reasonable position, and one which I whole heartedly support - even though I idealistically differ slightly.
My ideals dictate that I inherently dont have to try as hard, just take cheap shots at both ends of the spectrum from my comfy centrist chair.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.
Again, that is total bullshit. That is not to say that advancements were made with government research, but to say that most would never have happened is nonsense.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Somewhat-related-but-not-really tangent: My main concern is that some people don't appreciate the awesome capabilities of the market and instead opt for central planning without understanding the constraints and consequences of it. Instead, I'm generally confined to arguing only in favor of free markets and about public choice because most people have yet to get over that hurdle of basic economics.
Thats a perfectly reasonable position, and one which I whole heartedly support - even though I idealistically differ slightly.
My ideals dictate that I inherently dont have to try as hard, just take cheap shots at both ends of the spectrum from my comfy centrist chair.
PLAYER57832 wrote:But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.
You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.
Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.
AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.
Putting on my BBS shaped mask for a second...
We can really say that (underlined) with a stright face; knowing what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario is impossible (much like predicting the future is).
My personal opinion is that neither (government funding of unprofitable research or free market advancments) would make a great deal of difference. Research comes down to ideas and people; who pays for it (and their apparent "strategy") is rather meaningless in the long run.
OHH!! I disagree because of the incentive problem. The impact of profit and loss incentives differs from bureaucratic/political incentives.
In Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, Tim Hartford expounds on the incentive problems faced by government R&D and private sector R&D by examining a case study which was written by.... (I forgot! If you really are interested, I could find the proper citation).
Basically, government R&D is more risk-averse and requires more codified/stringent conditions that outline the research project, thus that bureaucracy yields less influential works; whereas, the private sector R&D--of this particular company--is less stringent and takes on more risk, thus yielding greater influential works. (Influence was measured by citations by others, IIRC).
Actually, historically, the last is not at all true. What makes you think it is true is that there have been a lot of relatively easy builds upon prior research in the last few decades... A lot of relatively low hanging fruit with relatively short turnarounds.
The last paragraph is the conclusion of that case study--not of all of history--, so it's true. The low-hanging fruit problem (The Great Stagnation) is a concern though.
