Dat inequality

[Renton]

Yeah, as I said, I think funding research is one of the least wasteful things states do. But whatever small gains they stimulate pales next to the all the other opportunity costs they incur. All taxation is by definition a slow on economic growth and entrepreneurship within an economy, because it takes money from the most-valued use (where people want to spend or invest it) and puts it into less-valued uses (where the government wants to spend it + interest on government debt). Even if you accept the notion that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society (and this is an acceptable position), the "price" is a massive opportunity cost.

So I could take one of two positions. I could say that yes, you're right that government research grants do a lot of good, but all of the other ways that governments stifle innovation have negative 20 times the magnitude of effect as the government research money's positive effect. But I would even go so far as to say that the state money to research itself is worse than if it weren't taken out of individuals' and businesses' coffers to begin with.

It seems like you can divide government efforts at research development into two categories, big state agencies and projects like NASA or individual handouts like genius grants and the like. NASA did lead to some innovation, but I think its pretty safe to say it was a massive failure from a cost-benefit standpoint. The space shuttle program cost 200 billion dollars over just 30 years, and led to a couple of dozen deaths. Were microwave ovens and remote controls emerging a few years before their time worth these costs? Maybe and maybe not. Would an extra 200 billion dollars in the pockets of individuals have stimulated some innovation and entrepreneurship in its own right? Definitely.

As far as government grants to individuals for research, these are possibly less wasteful and more beneficial than big projects like NASA, but the big problem with these is rent-seeking. I'll just leave this short video to explain how costly it is to give away money to people.

[jackvance]

NASA did lead to some innovation, but I think its pretty safe to say it was a massive failure from a cost-benefit standpoint. The space shuttle program cost 200 billion dollars over just 30 years, and led to a couple of dozen deaths. Were microwave ovens and remote controls emerging a few years before their time worth these costs? Maybe and maybe not. Would an extra 200 billion dollars in the pockets of individuals have stimulated some innovation and entrepreneurship in its own right? Definitely.

I understand your position but you go on the premise that this money would have gone towards the exact same kind of research which is highly doubtable. The money could have just been "squandered" because there are no immediate applications - the word squandered is too strong but meaning it would have been applied to optimization rather than real innovation. This 200 billion went into a lot more ethereal research such as how to make death rays. A lot of it didn't pan out but this kind of the-sky-is-the-limit research will find very novel things which you can't get through the market. (perhaps this is the crux of where we differ of opinion)

There are also other issues and 3D printers can be used as a nice example. With some friends I have looked into the possibilities to invest in 3D printers but to get from what exists now to a convenient mass-marketable product means sailing through some 20+ patents and the companies that have them are just sitting on them and waiting for something to develop so they can try and get their piece. So we aren't limited by technological capability in this regard but rather by artificial constraints on innovation (patents). The technology for 3D printing already existed in the 70s but it has only started booming after some crucial patents fell through a couple of years ago.

However the medical industry and aviation and to be relevant to grants, NASA uses it for their own purposes. That means the technology gets developed and refined in some place and otherwise it simply wouldn't.

The issue to me is a lot more complex than calling the money wasted..

As far as government grants to individuals for research, these are possibly less wasteful and more beneficial than big projects like NASA, but the big problem with these is rent-seeking. I'll just leave this short video to explain how costly it is to give away money to people.

I'll watch this after work.