Comments on: Putting those construction workers back to work

By: PortableStorage

PortableStorage — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:38:00 +0000

Thanks for the article.Your article was pretty informative and i hope that in future also i get these kind of article.

Thanks,
Portable Storage,
http://www.moveablecubicle.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:29:00 +0000

Re: “Trouble is, you’re naive enough to believe that taxpayer funded programs can be free of political influence.”

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I believe that. I don’t. Is this “let’s have a real discussion” time or is this “johndewey gets to accuse you of whatever makes you seem stupid” time? It’s really easy to win those sorts of arguments, johndewey – challenge yourself a little. Since the rest of your post is predicated on this one point I’m not even going to both continuing.

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:29:00 +0000

“I don’t like political influence playing a role in these decisions either.”

Sure you don’t. Trouble is, you’re naive enough to believe that taxpayer funded programs can be free of political influence. Because you don’t like it, I presume.

” there’s nothing inherently wrong with making funds available that scientists who have promising work on synthetic fuels could draw on to fund their research. “

Right. Just make the funds available. So where do these available funds come from, daniel? If scientists are doing “promising work”, why do the taxpayers need to fund it? Who decides that scientist A gets funding rather than scientists B, C, D, E, F, G, ….? Or do you propose that funds be “made available” to all scientists?

“I hardly see how it’s an example of the problem with a well-run research program”

That’s right. Taxpayer-funded programs which fail miserably were just not well-run. But your generation will be different, won’t it? You’ll ensure that funds are allocated efficiently.

Foolish dreamer! Pay for your dreams with your money. Keep your damned hands off mine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:56:00 +0000

RE: “Political influence, daniel. That’s what is not to like. Massive failure and disruption of legitimate private R&D efforts, daniel. That’s what is not to like.”

Ah yes, the old “advocacy of a policy implies that you love poor implementation of a policy” fallacy. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way johndewey. If it did then I could blame libertarians for any country that tries limited government unsuccessfully and descends into violent anarchy. But I can’t blame libertarians for that because that’s not what they advocate – the moment it degenerates they would withdraw their support.

I don’t like political influence playing a role in these decisions either. I know it pains you, but we’re in agreement on that one. Our private biotech industry is what it is today because of government funded research.

And yes, the SFC – a good old Glenn Beck favorite. First, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making funds available that scientists who have promising work on synthetic fuels could draw on to fund their research. That’s worlds different from creating a corporation to work on the project on a larger scale. But even if SFC wasn’t as politically driven in its allocation of funding, the fact is some R&D fails. So? Is this surprising to you? That’s part of the argument for government being involved in the first place – the extreme uncertainty of what kind of renumeration will come from the research, and in the case of more basic research, whether you’ll be able to capture any of the gains in the first place. So the SFC was an example of bad industrial policy and bad research policy. I hardly see how it’s an example of the problem with a well-run research program, like the money going out of the NIH that the article references.

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:32:00 +0000

Remember the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, Daniel? Oh, wait that was before you were born. Here's a little education for you, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:What was it?"a government entity intended to drive research into synthetic fuels and establish a synthetic fuels program that would lead to energy independence."What's not to to like about that, daniel? It would put people to work, it would invest in the future, and it would help us achieve energy independence.Did it work?"Given that we still fill our tanks at the petrol pump and that almost no one under 25 has even heard of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, the answer should be obvious: it was a colossal failure."As explained in the National Academies Press:"Political influence on funding allocation decisions, selection of R&D projects, or the direction and conduct of scientific research is counterproductive and damaging to the success of federal technology efforts."Political influence, daniel. That's what is not to like. Massive failure and disruption of legitimate private R&D efforts, daniel. That's what is not to like.