Why do people want the federal government to be involved...

[theeedude]

It's funny how idealogues always think that they are so very smart with their small government ideas, but every advanced society where government funds basic scientific research is just so misguided. They never ask themselves why it is that advanced societies have government funded research, while the ones that don't are lagging behind. If you don't think the government should pay for scientific research, the burden is on you to prove that this would work better than the current system which has brought us great scientific advances, not the other way around. The reason the federal government should be involved in funding science is because it works.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

That's a scenario that has Profit potential. Get back to us when GM funds the mating habits of the Gnat.

As does medical research, energy research, etc...

Why do we need to study the mating habits of the Gnat? I could care less, I choose not to let my tax dollars go toward that.

Not all Medical Research has a lot of Profit potential. Alternate Energy does have Profit potential, but many types of it has a hard time getting Funding. If the Market addressed all these various Research needs there would be no role for Government to have. As it turns out though there is plenty of opportunity for Governments to fund important Research.

You might not care about Gnat Mating, but the knowledge has benefits(simply understanding how things work, potential Insect Control products, removing Habitat where they breed, etc). Without that kind of Research we would never know about Medicinal Plants, Nutritional components of Food, and many other things that have proven to be very beneficial.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

 

[Vic]

It's a form of corporate subsidy. Government funds pure research and then (if it works) sells it to corporations for pennies on the dollar. And while I don't wish to invoke a fallacy, it is true that a considerable number of the posters here tend to be of the collegiate brand of the left, and it is estimated that roughly 90% of all university research funding currently comes from the federal government.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic
Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

So what you are saying is that it's necessary because of the system we have created? Would you say that federally funded research is the best way in any situation?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Vic
Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

So what you are saying is that it's necessary because of the system we have created? Would you say that federally funded research is the best way in any situation?

Those aren't questions with simple answers. The simplest response I can think of is that the arguments in favor of these systems argue that they are for the greatest good. In other words, that all of society will profit over the long term. If that is truly the case, then that means the profit is merely dependent on scale. As such, it is obvious that other, more efficient and less coercive systems could be developed in order to produce the same results. Hell, though I don't advocate it, it seems obvious that even an anarcho-capitalist system could do it provided a group of investors had sufficient capital and were willing to accept the long-term risk/return.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

You are right, it's not a Corporation. It's called a government. :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

You are right, it's not a Corporation. It's called a government. :thumbsup:

Governments are, by nature and definition, coercive collectivisms. Even the most democratic of governments cannot be a voluntary pool of individuals because the minority in all cases has no choice but to be bound to the decisions of the majority. Kindly stop and think before you post.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

Tell them what? Corporations are just a group of Individuals working for the Share Holders.

Why don't you tell the Share Holders that they are just a bunch of Commies?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

Tell them what? Corporations are just a group of Individuals working for the Share Holders.

Why don't you tell the Share Holders that they are just a bunch of Commies?

And, once again, you go back to the fallacy of false dilemma. There is a difference between the way a system is ideally intended to work and the way that it works in current practice. Just because I state that the current system of corporations and government in bed with each other is not ideal does not mean that I think they are communists (quite the opposite, in fact, that is Mussolini-esque economic fascism, i.e. what Salvemini described as where "Profit is private and individual, (economic) loss is public and social Text).
To elaborate, if corporations operated more towards the capitalist model than the current corporatist system, you would not see shareholders allowing such massive CEO salaries for corporations that are losing money like we do now.

 

[Tab]

Curious, looking back on the history of the United States and other capitalist states. Were corporations more willing to invest in research in the past when there weren't as many rules and regulations?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab
Curious, looking back on the history of the United States and other capitalist states. Were corporations more willing to invest in research in the past when there weren't as many rules and regulations?

Good question. I kinda doubt it, but I suppose it's possible, although it might be for other reasons, like a change in Culture.

 

[BlancoNino]

Does federally funded research decrease the incentive to make progress?

How do monopolies (government included) and regulations factor in?

 

[DrPizza]

Thought: Do you speak German? Japanese? Russian? Who funded the research that allowed the creation of nuclear weapons?

Also, for the common good aside, do you realize how much such funding boosts the local economies in areas where such research is taking place (and stimulation of the economy in other areas)?

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Tab
Curious, looking back on the history of the United States and other capitalist states. Were corporations more willing to invest in research in the past when there weren't as many rules and regulations?

Well, yes and no. I am not that familiar with how things were in the US but I believe you would find that in the past many large corporations were more involved in long-term projects and that included "basic" research. However, as far as I know that research was almost always done in collaboration with governement funded entities such as universities etc. This is still the case in e.g. Japan where a lot of the basic research is done by companies. Look in any research journal and you will find papers from people working at NTT, Hitachi etc. but most of the funding for that research is actually coming from the government: the companies are only "managing" the research.

Also, I know from first hand experience that doing basic research in an organization which is run like a company is often very difficult, the normal management structure simply doesn't work very well when it comes to academic research and you will find that a lot of scientist simply do not like working under those conditions; mainly because it is almost impossible to do good research unless you have some freedom to do what you want; the last thing you want to do is to spend a lot of time writing project proposals and going the meetings.
In reality we just end up writing proposals that we think will get us the neccesary funding and then we take the money and do something complettely different that we think is more interesting; and as long as we do "produce" good research with the money the managers usually do not complain.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Sounds like something must be messed up in the markets if there isn't an incentive for anyone to fund the research for themselves.

There are two reasons to spend on research: for profit and for moral good.

The markets cover one, imperfectly.

What about research funded by charity? Wouldn't that be better since the research will reflect what the people want instead of what the government decides is best for them?

You right-wingers and your hatred of the people's elected representatives in our democracy.

Charity is generally inadequate for the expenses compared to taxes. Government *does* reflect what the people want, better than charity - everyone can vote, few are big donors.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

it will be lucrative.....but once again..the current system is actually LEADINg to inefficiency..despite how you seem to want to characterize it..

economics 101 tells you that many big companies can have their head up their you know what...they just want to please investors in the short run and arent thinking long run in terms of how much they can capitalize if they just put their efforts into it

Corporatism, with its inefficiencies due to size and structure, and its emphasis on short-term profits in order to maximize stock price capitalization, inherently relies on large government in order prop up its inefficiencies as a system. It's a collectivist system and (like any collectivism) requires the force of government in order to make sure that every individual is fully involved in the collective system.

Corporations offer many benefits that are just not possible without them. Mass production of anything, affordable Automobiles(largely due to Mass Production), complex products such as Electronic Products(especially those with microprocessors), and loads of other things would be impossible without Corporations. So if they are a Collectivism, it's just proof that Anti-Collectivists(ideologically speaking and "Anti' in all circumstances) need to abandone their Ideology.

Wow... "my way or the highway," is it? That's fallacious thinking if ever I saw it. :roll:

There are (quite obviously) other ways besides corporations (and corporatism) in which individuals can pool their resources to develop and produce long-term, complicated, and expensive technologies and products.

That's what a Corporation is.

Tell that to the shareholders.

You are right, it's not a Corporation. It's called a government. :thumbsup:

Governments are, by nature and definition, coercive collectivisms. Even the most democratic of governments cannot be a voluntary pool of individuals because the minority in all cases has no choice but to be bound to the decisions of the majority. Kindly stop and think before you post.

Don't shareholders vote on stuff?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Sounds like something must be messed up in the markets if there isn't an incentive for anyone to fund the research for themselves.

there is such a thing as a broken market, ie something that people *want* but cannot be really bought and sold on the market. This is the most basic and fundemental reason for government.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
You guys are saying that private research can't match the level of government funding or that it's simply not lucrative. What do the automobile manufacturers do? Don't they research things that may take 5-10 years to become implemented into their vehicles? Don't they have to in order to keep up with competition?

often business profits are not solely sufficient to "incentivize" a project, i.e. in no time period will a business profit from a specific idea. The benefit to society, however, might be tremendous. Such an example might be the Erie Canal. Sure it might have made a reasonable profit, but the benefits from it were overwhelming, far surpassing the profits of the canal itself. Other canals were not profitable though, however their being built resulted in an economic gain to society greater than the cost expended in its construction.

 

[Legend]

The free market focuses more on engineering. Improving existing technologies, because there's a guaranteed return. Research is a higher risk, but can lead to revolutionary technologies. Really, research isn't something to complain about with government spending as only about 0.5-2% is spent on it. If anything we need to increase it, and cut the fat in bloated programs like Social Security.