A Modest $500 Billion Proposal

[giblets]

Duh. Obviously the money isn't the only reason people become congressmen. That has absolutely jack**** to do with whether paying them more would encourage better people to run for office.

There are probably thousands of qualified people out there who would be willing to do the job as it is. The problem is the way the hiring is done.

[Hauldren Collider]

At least gribbler recognizes that democracy doesn't result in the best possible leaders. I hope you can then apply that same logic to research funding.

Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others. But democracy is a terrible way of deciding economic investment, and we happen to have a better system (markets), which is not the case for political leadership.

[giblets]

Cap and trade would have been a great way to develop green technology, but guess what the R stands for.

[Hauldren Collider]

Cap and trade would have been a great way for rent seekers to develop a particular branch of technology that most of America has very little interest in while increasing the cost of just about everything.

[giblets]

Why would most of America have very little interest in reducing carbon dioxide emissions?

[Jon Miller]

You defund R&D and people like me go to other countries to work and get an education. These education systems than attract people who just want to gain skills and get an income. Additionally, the large number of students who don't continue in basic research (after their degrees) will be there... these will then start companies/etc with their skills. It will be in the new countries, not their home country, just like students from China/etc do in the US now.

Finally, intel and other businesses will move to where the human capital is. Probably after the 'new silicon valley starts up' somewhere else.

The US already doesn't have a future as a manufacturing country. At least, not and keep the standard of living that people are use to.

Without government subsidies of R&D, it lose out on an innovative populace too. Then nothing will bring money in, to employ the (extremely large) service sector (such a large service economy couldn't exist if the rest was just manufacturing).

It is heavily in the nations interest to subsidize R&D (which R&D is another question), just like it is in the nation's interest to setup a climate that allows business to flourish.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Paying representatives more is a bad idea if you believe that congressmen are better judges of desirable legislation than the voters they represent. Otherwise, motivating them with bigger amounts of money is perfectly sensible.

[Elok]

Slashing their pay would have a negligible effect on the deficit anyway, even if we had them all working for free. They make substantially less than half a million each. Unfortunately, even if we raised the salary for an incentive, they'd still be selected on the basis of their ability to tell people what they want to hear.

[Docfeelgood]

Slashing their pay would have a negligible effect on the deficit anyway, even if we had them all working for free. They make substantially less than half a million each. Unfortunately, even if we raised the salary for an incentive, they'd still be selected on the basis of their ability to tell people what they want to hear.

[Patroklos]

and with that sort of budget, it better be!

Question is, who's making the most economical system - and in terms of technical specifications we, and pretty much most of the world makes killing machines much better than Americans. You are the new Nazis: you make fancy flashy stuff which is expensive and not very reliable.

How about this:

I will go back in time and take back all of the F-4s/F-15s/F-16s/etc. we sold you and then Israel can lose every war it ever participated in.

Deal?

[Patroklos]

The US already doesn't have a future as a manufacturing country. At least, not and keep the standard of living that people are use to.

This myth gets more annoying every time it is perpetuated. Not only does the US have a future in manufacturing, it is the largest manufacturer in the world and its share of manufacturing output has remained relatively stable over the last decade (as of 2007).

Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007
USA 1,041 1,289 1,543 1,663 1,700 1,831
China 143 299 484 734 891 1,106
Japan 804 1,209 1.034 954 934 926
Germany 438 517 392 566 595 670
Russian Federation 211 104 73 222 281 362
Italy 240 226 206 289 299 345
United Kingdom 207 219 228 269 303 342
France 224 259 190 249 248 296
Korea 65 129 134 200 220 241
Canada 92 100 129 177 195 218
Spain 101 103 98 164 176 208
Brazil 120 125 96 137 170 206

India 50 59 67 118 135 167
Mexico 50 55 107 122 136 144
Indonesia 29 60 46 80 102 121
Turkey 33 38 38 75 85 101

The USA’s share of the manufacturing output of the countries that manufactured over $200 billion in 2007 (the 12 countries on the top of the chart above) in 1990 was 28%, 1995 28%, 2000 33%, 2005 30%, 2006 28%, 2007 27%. China’s share has grown from 4% in 1990, 1995 7%, 2000 11%, 2005 13%, 2006 15%, 2007 16%.

Total manufacturing output in the USA was up 76% in 2007 from the 1990 level. Japan, the second largest manufacturer in 1990, and third today, has increased output 15% (the lowest of the top 12, France is next lowest at 32%) while China is up an amazing 673% (Korea is next at an increase of 271%).

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/...tries-in-2007/

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp

You are getting wrapped up in the trade deficit numbers and assuming that because we import a lot we are not producing anything. This is not the case, we simply consume our own manufacturing output ourselves and then some.

[MOBIUS]

How about this:

I will go back in time and take back all of the F-4s/F-15s/F-15s/etc. we sold you and then Israel can lose every war it ever participated in.

Deal?

Exactly. Not only do the Israelis get a **** ton of money, no strings attached, but they then want to avoid spending as much of it as possible in the US, so the US doesn't even get the money returned into its economy and keeping people employed in making the weapons Israel wants. Lose - Lose. Ungrateful bastards.

Also, another reason why the US should cut the purse strings IMO.

[Jon Miller]

This myth gets more annoying every time it is perpetuated. Not only does the US have a future in manufacturing, it is the largest manufacturer in the world and its share of manufacturing output has remained relatively stable over the last decade (as of 2007).



http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/...tries-in-2007/

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp

You are getting wrapped up in the trade deficit numbers and assuming that because we import a lot we are not producing anything. This is not the case, we simply consume our own manufacturing output ourselves and then some.

How much of US manufacturing is only in the US because of subsidies.

Military, Aircraft, Shipping, Cars, other such equipment....

JM

[MOBIUS]

Still keeps the money in the economy, re my previous post.

[Jon Miller]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110209/full/470154a.html?WT.mc_id=FBK_NPG

Without government involvement, there would be little R&D at all...

JM