The U.S. needs to increase the amount it spends on R&D.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

 

[Rikurzhen]

I just pulled up the Gathering Storm Revisited for those interested in this sort of thing.

https://www.uic.edu/home/Chancellor/risingabove.pdf

without even reading it, I bet it says we are doomed unless we give more money

I've read a bit of that report now and it's really constrained by the Overton Window of what constitutes permissible analysis. For instance, they do mention Tort Reform and High Corporate Tax Burden as being barriers to innovation, which is brave of liberal-leaning scientists, but they completely overlook immigration policy - importing poor and unschooled people by the millions and it's effect on educational outcomes. They also don't broach the subject of population group stratification, per the bar chart I posted, which puts a different spin on how education is working in society. If some important factors are unmentionable - crazy immigration policies, low human capital levels of some population groups - then trying to develop an actual coherent policy becomes an exercise in guaranteed failure. If you don't understand the problem you're facing, then you'll NEVER devise an adequate solution.

And yes, money is needed because they believe money will fix things like education and low human capital levels. Failure is guaranteed.

 

[AntiParty]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

So you know the word infrastructure but don't know Matthew was just a man telling stories in hopes for a better tomorrow before TV.

 

[AntiParty]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

Your quote attacks many but your responses are always bias and partisan. Perhaps you should learn more about the people you hate before hating them. Watch some Daily Show, I CHALLENGE YOU TO. If you graduate that, I'll let you watch some Colbert.

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

So you know the word infrastructure but don't know Matthew was just a man telling stories in hopes for a better tomorrow before TV.

Really? Do you have ANY idea who I was referring to? Likely not. Just a typical moron trying to fit in but ultimately clueless

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

Your quote attacks many but your responses are always bias and partisan. Perhaps you should learn more about the people you hate before hating them. Watch some Daily Show, I CHALLENGE YOU TO. If you graduate that, I'll let you watch some Colbert.

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

I don't watch the comedy channel. That shit is targeted at stupid kids and dumbass adults.
Fitting you find it so "informing"

 

[Rikurzhen]

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

Are you some kind of moron or something? To be a conservative one has to pass through the gauntlet of liberal controlled public education and be bathed in a worldview set by liberal media and only then develop ideas and positions which are conservative and which counter the Left.

The Left is in a safe bubble of ideas where liberals never have to see contrary thoughts nor understand the reasoning backing them. Relying on Stewart and Colbert to be your guides to conservative world view is comedy by itself.

There is NOT one argument that you can make as a liberal which will surprise me. I'm around liberals all damn day, I read the news and I see liberal positions and rationales laid out. Before I utter a peep I have to understand how my position relates to a liberal world view and how it will be countered, hence you never surprise me. I know what you're going to argue before you do. Give me a topic and I know the default liberal position before a liberal ventures forth and expresses it.

 

[AntiParty]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

So you know the word infrastructure but don't know Matthew was just a man telling stories in hopes for a better tomorrow before TV.

Really? Do you have ANY idea who I was referring to? Likely not. Just a typical moron trying to fit in but ultimately clueless

I'm a born and raised "Bigot redneck Christian" I'm fully aware of your perspective. The Bible is the breeding ground for bigotry. The adam and eve so

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

Your quote attacks many but your responses are always bias and partisan. Perhaps you should learn more about the people you hate before hating them. Watch some Daily Show, I CHALLENGE YOU TO. If you graduate that, I'll let you watch some Colbert.

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

I don't watch the comedy channel. That shit is targeted at stupid kids and dumbass adults.
Fitting you find it so "informing"

I'm fully aware you don't watch the Comedy Channel. But you unknowlingly provide so much of their script.

 

[AntiParty]

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

Are you some kind of moron or something? To be a conservative one has to pass through the gauntlet of liberal controlled public education and be bathed in a worldview set by liberal media and only then develop ideas and positions which are conservative and which counter the Left.

The Left is in a safe bubble of ideas where liberals never have to see contrary thoughts nor understand the reasoning backing them. Relying on Stewart and Colbert to be your guides to conservative world view is comedy by itself.

There is NOT one argument that you can make as a liberal which will surprise me. I'm around liberals all damn day, I read the news and I see liberal positions and rationales laid out. Before I utter a peep I have to understand how my position relates to a liberal world view and how it will be countered, hence you never surprise me. I know what you're going to argue before you do. Give me a topic and I know the default liberal position before a liberal ventures forth and expresses it.[/QUOTE

"Are you some kind of moron or something? To be a conservative one has to pass through the gauntlet of liberal controlled public education and be bathed in a worldview set by liberal media and only then develop ideas and positions which are conservative and which counter the Left."

Actually, you have no grasp of American politics and Taxation today. We voted for Schools to be paid for by taxation. Your problem is you don't know your own idea's from Rupert Murdoch's.

Yes, politicians are bought out by Corporate Media. Guess what. Obama was bought out by ABC, NBC and CBS. And Rupert Murdoch has daily morning meetings to control what Fox News and the ENTIRE Right Wing nation talks about............or perhaps you didn't notice all of Fox News anchors discuss the very same topic every day. Rupert Murdoch owns the brains of so many "freedom fighters" it's embarrassing.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I do leave you speechless quite often, don't I?

 

[tosacco]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

Well, to cite one publication, in the Gathering Storm Revisited report published in 2010 argues that the standard of living and opportunities in the U.S. will see a steady decline over the next couple of generations if we don't invest more in research, education, and recruitment into STEM. The authors call for some pretty drastic changes, including doubling total R&D funding over the next ten years

There is no coherent policy at work here and there are problems.

1.) Already mentioned above - we're deep into annual deficit funding.
2.) Not only R&D but all government functions are declining as a share of GDP due to crowding out effect from entitlements. To get a better handle on this we need to know how R&D funding is faring against the Forestry Service, against Border Patrol, against the State Department Budget, etc. If the Budget/GDP is increasing because of out of control entitlements, that doesn't tell us much about what's happening with the spending on traditional government functions.
3.) If you want to rebalance the spending priorities then which entitlement programs are you proposing be cut?
4.) We have no recruitment problem with STEM. Employers are importing immigrant talent in order to drive down wages for domestic STEM talent and there is now a surplus of STEM talent in the labor force. It's idiocy to develop plans to increase the talent pipeline when no talent will sign up for the programs because their career prospects in the US are so dim due to both low salaries and the constant threat of being replaced by an imported visa STEM worker.

Ultimately, what we invest should be higher. If you look at the figures for R&D as percentage of GDP, it has been declining. Here is some data looking at 1976-2015. Sure, we are investing more numerically, but the percentage is decreasing.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg

If you click the button to the right of the happy face, you can imbed images.

What this graph illustrates is that the decrease in R&D spending is principally coming from Defense R&D reductions. The non-Defense R&D spending is looking fairly stable. Your concern in this thread seems to be on non-Defense R&D so aren't you undercutting your own argument here? The big reduction in non-Defense R&D happened before 1982 .

As for funding social sciences, I think it is equally as important. We are seeing an increase in diversity, our urban centers have steadily growing population, we are looking at environmental factors that could potentially affect the production of adequate food to sustain our population, etc etc. We would be stupid not to invest money in the social sciences because that would lead to poorly informed policy decisions.

But that spending doesn't spin-off the benefits you highlighted for scientific R&D.

Look, there are always opportunity costs involved with spending decisions, so which programs are you going to shank in order to free up coin to go to social science R&D? What's the payback from social science versus STEM research?

Federal funding has been declining. According to an NSF report published last september, US funding for R&D dropped by 9% in 2011 alone and hasn't recovered (report is titled 'Federal Funding for Research Drops by 9% in FY 2011' by Michael Yamaner). So there is that.

This is less about how our spending is in comparison with the rest of the world and more about the decline in percentage of GDP going towards research signifies that the US government doesn't take it as seriously as it could be. Obviously there are other sources of funding. You point out there are connections between research institutions and industry. While I think these are important, we also need to be suspicious of how industry funding guides research agendas and narrows the focus of what problems are being addressed. While this concern could be raised about any funding (obviously researchers need money so stipulations by funders plays a coercive role in the research process), the federal government has in the past funded a more representative sample of all fields rather than simply funding what could have marketable returns, which is industry's strategy.

There are plenty of things that could be cut in order to increase the funding of R&D. A good way to start would be to increase taxes on coorporations making large profits off of research funded by the U.S. government. I forget the author that put it this way, but the US socializes the risk of investing money in research that may yield no return, but then when that reserach becomes profitable, the US doesn't benefit from that. A prime example is Apple, who are worth a lot (I don't know these figures). A large percentage of their technology was developed through NSF, NIH, and DOD funding. Not only does the US not implement more taxes to reflect how federal funding has contributed to the development of their technology, but the government passively sits aside and lets Apple funnel its money elsewhere and evade paying the taxes it should be paying here. It's a bad system and the government should get more heavy-handed in addressing it. Obviously, like any liberal I wouldn't mind seeing the defense budget cut some, maybe buying a few less billion-dollar planes, etc. A more serious discussion is obviosly needed to identify what could realistically be cut.

We don't have an issue recruiting into STEM. At the same time, our schools underperform, which ultimately impacts the quality of student selecting to go into STEM in the first place. Better education equals a better crop of people going into the field. While we are not necessarily hurting right now, we need to think about the future.

Social science needs to be looked at in a different light. It shouldn't be measured on its marketable return. It should be viewed in terms of providing information about our population, identifying social problems, identifying potential solutions. You will see a more marketable return on investment in "hard" sciences, but that doesn't mean the social sciences aren't equally necessary to the proper functioning of our country.

I probably missed some of your points. Sorry.

 

[Stephanie]

wow,^^ must be a paid worker for government to post all that zzz zz z
let me translate it: It says, that MONSTER that is called our Federal "government" needs more of your money so just give it up.

Myself, I think" we the people" needs to starve it and abolish half, if not more of this greedy blood sucking money eating monster

 

[tosacco]

wow,^^ must be a paid worker for government to post all that zzz zz z
let me translate it: It says, that MONSTER that is called our Federal "government" needs more of your money so just give it up.

Myself, I think" we the people" needs to starve it and abolish half, if not more of this greedy blood sucking money eating monster

I don't work for the government and don't intend to in the future.

 

[Anathema]

Tosacco, please show me any part of the US Constitution which empowers the Government to spend ANY money on R&D. I can't find any places.

 

[tosacco]

Tosacco, please show me any part of the US Constitution which empowers the Government to spend ANY money on R&D. I can't find any places.

Well, the constitution says its the federal governments' responsibility to provide national defense. It is a mandatory function of the federal government. Considering a huge portion of R&D funds come from the DOD and go to defense, that is in and of itself justified.

 

[Anathema]

Well, the constitution says its the federal governments' responsibility to provide national defense. It is a mandatory function of the federal government. Considering a huge portion of R&D funds come from the DOD and go to defense, that is in and of itself justified.

Defense Research isn't what I envisioned in your OP. Defense Research is about spending money on specific contractors to develop systems and weapons. It's not about funding schools or other things like that. It sounds like you're expanding that definition well beyond its limits. Anything not specifically related to Defense is going to likely be illegitimate.

 

[tosacco]

R&D is R&D. Public institutions get money from the DOD all the time, it funds a lot of technological and chemical research. If you want to start splitting hairs about what is justified to invest R&D dollars into, be my guest.

 

[Anathema]

R&D is R&D. Public institutions get money from the DOD all the time, it funds a lot of technological and chemical research. If you want to start splitting hairs about what is justified to invest R&D dollars into, be my guest.

R&D is not an acceptable expenditure directly. Putting out an RFP for a new weapon system or technology is one thing. Direct funding of the R&D is another entirely.

 

[tosacco]

R&D is R&D. Public institutions get money from the DOD all the time, it funds a lot of technological and chemical research. If you want to start splitting hairs about what is justified to invest R&D dollars into, be my guest.

R&D is not an acceptable expenditure directly. Putting out an REP for a new weapon system or technology is one thing. Direct funding of the R&D is another entirely.

Except to develop a new weapons system, you are most likely going to need to be building off of a foundation of basic research that is relevant but not directly tied to defense conceptually. To give an example, you can't just say "I want to build a rocket that can hit anywhere in the world in an hour" and have it done. That rocket is the manifestation of decades of developments in theoretical and applied physics, technological developments, chemistry, etc., not all of which was funded by the DOD and not all of which was conducted for the purposes of defense. In order to stay up to date, the government needs to be funding basic research so the knowledge is there when we need it.

And for the record, I do feel like I am getting a little off topic focusing solely on defense. We should be forward thinking as a country, and in order to do that we need to invest in research. We never know what applicability those investments will yield, but it has worked out for us thus far.

 

[whitehall]

The problem is that the gigantic federal bureaucracy ain't got a freaking clue and there is little accountability for the money bureaucrats spend on anything much less R&D. The best R&D is financed by the private sector.