Lootifer wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote: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).