Coburn report documents waste, improper behavior at National Science Foundation
WASHINGTON — The federal agency in charge of funding scientific research spent $80,000 on a study about why the same teams dominate the college basketball tournament, while staff members spent taxpayer money on romantic trips and held a Jell-O wrestling event at the South Pole, according to a report released Thursday by Sen. Tom Coburn.
The report also accuses the National Science Foundation of sitting on $1.7 billion in expired grant money and of not properly policing grants recipients.
"There is no question (the National Science Foundation) serves an important — and legitimate — purpose in our society and has contributed to scientific discovery,'' Coburn said, noting that foundation funding had contributed to many recent technological advances.
"Unfortunately, in some ways, NSF has undermined its core mission through mismanagement and misplaced priorities."
Your tax dollars Our insane national debt at work:
...._ An $80,000 study at Duke University on why the same teams always dominate March Madness.
_ A $315,000 study at Michigan State University about how playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.
_ A $1 million study on trendy baby names at Indiana University and New York University.
_ Grant money totaling $1.4 million for a Carnegie Mellon University study of regional slang on Twitter.
_ A $581,000 at the University of California at Berkeley on racial preferences in online dating.
Read more: http://newsok.com/coburn-report-documents-waste-improper-behavior-at-national-science-foundation/article/3571534#ixzz1NTaABlxb
Given the opportunity to hold a jell-o wrestling tournament at the South pole, would I?
Yes, yes I would.
pancakes? Is Coburn claiming that when we send people to the south pole for several months they get zero leisure time? By his Jello wrestling standard, should I be upset that people are having sexy time at the south pole (whether with themselves or others) I really don't have a problem with people taking advantage of money that's already being spent. (if, for example, the government is spending some money sending someone to Paris and that person pays to bring along their spouse and stays a few extra days on their own dime)
And the regional slang thing is actually a relatively big part of the field of linguistics. I'm not quite sure why they needed $1.4 million for a study on that, though.
The headline I get here is: "Coburn says 'Government owns its employees' -- Also wastes government time and money on small problems"
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2011, 11:42:45 AM
Given the opportunity to hold a jell-o wrestling tournament at the South pole, would I?
Yes, yes I would.
Hmm...I think of South Pole and Jell-o I think of that movie "Whiteout" with Kate Beckinsale.
That is all...
I'm mainly pissed off I have absolutely no idea how to game the government into paying me hundreds of thousands for studies on March Madness and Farmville.
I'm not getting mine, damnit!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2011, 01:50:43 PM
I'm mainly pissed off I have absolutely no idea how to game the government into paying me hundreds of thousands for studies on March Madness and Farmville.
I'm not getting mine, damnit!
It's easy! You can actually take a grant writing class online.
The best way is to get a copy of an existing grant for something stupid and then use search/replace to insert your absurd cause/study/initiative. Add a little funny math that supports your need for funds and you're almost done!
Be sure to read your grant closely. You can improve your chances of blind funding by making sure certain words are present. For example. . . if your grant is educational in nature, you have to use the term "Enrichment" several times when explaining how your program will impact the children. If your grant deals with energy, make sure to insert the term "Alternative" several hundred times. Doesn't really matter where. If you are dealing with healthcare in your grab for cash use the term "Compassionate" as often as possible.
Make sure to structure the explanation of how your organization (you and FMC) will spend the money in a detailed technical manner that avoids any real questions, and tie any denial of the grant to a reduction in employment in your state (for you and FMC of course).
Now this is very important. Peruse your state representative or congressperson's website and find an initiative they are partial to and make sure to tie your grant somehow to the success of that initiative. This will buy you a warrior for your cause. For instance, you could visit Tom Coburn's website and structure your grant around a study to develop methods to root out and eliminate government waste. When you get your grant check your first duty will be to identify the very government waste you pledge to "root out." The best way to do this, of course, is by engaging in that very activitiy (it's the only way to really gain an understanding). You will then need to purchase some gelatin on a grand scale. . .well you get my point!
I hit on "Alternative". I figured I could do a study on alternative fuels use amongst those living an alternative lifestyle. Got to be enough alternatives in there to get some money, except Coburn couldn't lend support to it since he's a C-Streeter 'n stuff.
I think my favorite is $1.5 billion for a Carbon Capturing Contest from the last stimulus.
I am sure we could work up something like this. . .
We could host the contest at the BOK and offer $1 million in prize money. Everyone could bring their boxes of carbon and whoever had captured the most would walk away with the cash. We would then use the rest to pay off the expenses of the contest and purchase Jello.
BTW, did they ever find the radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 03:48:51 PM
I think my favorite is $1.5 billion for a Carbon Capturing Contest from the last stimulus.
I am sure we could work up something like this. . .
We could host the contest at the BOK and offer $1 million in prize money. Everyone could bring their boxes of carbon and whoever had captured the most would walk away with the cash. We would then use the rest to pay off the expenses of the contest and purchase Jello.
I hope you're joking, because if not that is FOTD-level stupid.
You heard of the X-Prize? Are you aware that one of the promising technologies that will allow us to stop acidifying our oceans without serious infrastructure changes involves sequestering the carbon dioxide leaving the smokestacks of power plants, similar to how we got acid rain under control with sulfur dioxide scrubbers? Since we apparently can't trust the free market to do its thing by assigning a cost to pollution (in the form of carbon credits), we've gotta go for the "here's a prize for coming up with the best way to do this."
Funny how you are against free market solutions whenever it suits your whim, but are constantly OMGSOCIALIZZZM!!!@#$@#$ when the winds blow the other way.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 04:16:54 PM
I hope you're joking, because if not that is FOTD-level stupid.
Well that's not very nice!
. . .and I am joking. I find most government attempts at achieving free market solutions funny. Don't you?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 04:41:42 PM
. . .and I am joking. I find most government attempts at achieving free market solutions funny. Don't you?
Somebody has to make the price of a good or service take into account things like pollution. If it can't be done without government forcing the issue, so be it. Think of government as a market maker, like some broker-dealers have to be with "their" securities on Wall Street.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 04:45:53 PM
Think of government as a market maker, like some broker-dealers have to be with "their" securities on Wall Street.
Always presented that way, never works that way.
When private enterprise bands together to spur technology, efficiency and new market solutions it works (as in your example of the X-Prize). When government does it, it always degrades into bloodbath of waste, bureaucracy, and undeserved handouts.
NOW TELL TEATOWN YOU'RE SORRY!
This stuff can be expected from Gassious, but our posts, Nate, generally are all in the same vein.
No apology needed. I understand the dynamics of wanting to be "accepted."
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2011, 04:51:31 PM
Always presented that way, never works that way.
When private enterprise bands together to spur technology, efficiency and new market solutions it works (as in your example of the X-Prize). When government does it, it always degrades into bloodbath of waste, bureaucracy, and undeserved handouts.
That's ideology talking. There are plenty of examples of government spurring private enterprise to good things. Increased CAFE standards did the trick for a long time, until automakers figured out how to game the system. NASA's various challenges have resulted in the development of several useful new technologies. The sulfur dioxide cap and trade scheme all but eliminated acid rain, without a mandate of a specific technology to reduce those particular emissions.
Many countries around the world have been subsidizing renewable energy quite heavily for the past decade or so and we've seen an explosion in new solar cell and wind turbine technologies as a result.
If you believe government can do no right, you will only see it do wrong. Similarly, if you believe government can do no right and you're in charge of government, it will only work poorly. Private companies with shitty leadership have the same fate befall them all the time.
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2011, 07:20:10 PM
That's ideology talking. There are plenty of examples of government spurring private enterprise to good things. Increased CAFE standards did the trick for a long time, until automakers figured out how to game the system. NASA's various challenges have resulted in the development of several useful new technologies. The sulfur dioxide cap and trade scheme all but eliminated acid rain, without a mandate of a specific technology to reduce those particular emissions.
Many countries around the world have been subsidizing renewable energy quite heavily for the past decade or so and we've seen an explosion in new solar cell and wind turbine technologies as a result.
If you believe government can do no right, you will only see it do wrong. Similarly, if you believe government can do no right and you're in charge of government, it will only work poorly. Private companies with shitty leadership have the same fate befall them all the time.
When government steps out of the realm of government, it almost always does wrong.
Nate, you have a difficult job my friend. As one of the staunch defenders of expanding government, it is your job provide examples of how programs, new and old, produce results above waste. You then have to show how such programs exceed the product of private enterprise.
As each program and initiative crumbles over time under the weight of it's own expansion landing squarely on the back of the people, you then have to issue blame outside of government.
An exhausting job. I applaud your efforts, but don't envy the increasing workload you are willing to take on. Take comfort in the fact that, in the long run, your efforts and the efforts of those like you will be successful. Liberalism/Progressivism always triumphs in popularity over Conservative philosophy.
Eventually the wants of the people always exceed the production of the people, as the importance of personal responsibility crumbles. The young set their sights on the wealth of others as a means to their own personal comfort without first considering the great potential within themselves.
We are slouching closer to the progressivism of Europe and many other countries without realizing that we are the only furnace that keeps those countries alive. When we too turn into a country of people who's wants exceed our willingness to produce and innovate the fires die, and with it our freedom. The cascade will not simply be felt nationally. All of those great countries we admire for their massive social justice programs and public entitlements will vanish without the economic fuel required to sustain them.
You simply see the noose as a necktie.
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)Pugsley's First Law of Government: All government programs eventually accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
When government steps out of the realm of government, it almost always does wrong.
Nate, you have a difficult job my friend. As one of the staunch defenders of expanding government, it is your job provide examples of how programs, new and old, produce results above waste. You then have to show how such programs exceed the product of private enterprise.
As each program and initiative crumbles over time under the weight of it's own expansion landing squarely on the back of the people, you then have to issue blame outside of government.
An exhausting job. I applaud your efforts, but don't envy the increasing workload you are willing to take on. Take comfort in the fact that, in the long run, your efforts and the efforts of those like you will be successful. Liberalism/Progressivism always triumphs in popularity over Conservative philosophy.
Eventually the wants of the people always exceed the production of the people, as the importance of personal responsibility crumbles. The young set their sights on the wealth of others as a means to their own personal comfort without first considering the great potential within themselves.
We are slouching closer to the progressivism of Europe and many other countries without realizing that we are the only furnace that keeps those countries alive. When we too turn into a country of people who's wants exceed our willingness to produce and innovate the fires die, and with it our freedom. The cascade will not simply be felt nationally. All of those great countries we admire for their massive social justice programs and public entitlements will vanish without the economic fuel required to sustain them.
You simply see the noose as a necktie.
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
Pugsley's First Law of Government: All government programs eventually accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve.
The funniest part about your rant is that it's the progressives that want to get the most wasteful parts of government under control: the security apparatus. Also, I did supply examples. That you ignore them makes me less likely to bother in the future.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
When government steps out of the realm of government, it almost always does wrong.
Nate, you have a difficult job my friend. As one of the staunch defenders of expanding government, it is your job provide examples of how programs, new and old, produce results above waste. You then have to show how such programs exceed the product of private enterprise.
As each program and initiative crumbles over time under the weight of it's own expansion landing squarely on the back of the people, you then have to issue blame outside of government.
An exhausting job. I applaud your efforts, but don't envy the increasing workload you are willing to take on. Take comfort in the fact that, in the long run, your efforts and the efforts of those like you will be successful. Liberalism/Progressivism always triumphs in popularity over Conservative philosophy.
Eventually the wants of the people always exceed the production of the people, as the importance of personal responsibility crumbles. The young set their sights on the wealth of others as a means to their own personal comfort without first considering the great potential within themselves.
We are slouching closer to the progressivism of Europe and many other countries without realizing that we are the only furnace that keeps those countries alive. When we too turn into a country of people who's wants exceed our willingness to produce and innovate the fires die, and with it our freedom. The cascade will not simply be felt nationally. All of those great countries we admire for their massive social justice programs and public entitlements will vanish without the economic fuel required to sustain them.
You simply see the noose as a necktie.
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
Pugsley's First Law of Government: All government programs eventually accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve.
Interesting where you place the burden of proof. As the guy who wants to radically reshape the existing order, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. It's actually NOT self evident that government is an unmitigated evil, and should be drowned in that mythical bathtub. It's actually NOT self evident that government destroys the functioning of markets whereever it participates. You talk as if that's a given but, looking in a clear-eyed way at the nation's history proves without a shadow of a doubt that government and markets have existed together -- sometimes excellently, sometimes destructively -- for the last 250-odd years.
If government destroyed everything it had a hand in, we'd be long gone by now. The era of modern "activist" government began with Roosevelt -- 80 years ago -- and look what's happened since. We didn't crumple, or lose our precious bodily fluids, or turn into simpering commies. We became the indispensable nation, economically and politically and militarily. I'm not really sure how you square all of your assertions when decades of our political history indicate precisely the opposite.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2011, 09:48:41 AM..snip... I'm not really sure how you square all of your assertions when decades of our political history indicate precisely the opposite.
Puts fingers in ears and screams 'lalalalalalala!' ??
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
Pugsley's First Law of Government: All government programs eventually accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve.
I didn't know he was a philosopher
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/peter_norris_dupas/Pugsley-Addams200.jpg)
Nathan does make one good point, that government can spur free-market solutions with new regulations, such as emissions. They simply dictate a limit for various pollutants and it's up to industry to figure out how to do that in the best and most efficient, and hopefully profitable manner.
This happens some of the time. I can relate from a combustion engineering stand-point. It's helped create jobs in the combustion industry for engineers, manufacturing jobs, marketing jobs, as well as jobs at the contractors who ultimately sell and install such equipment (i.e. thermal oxidizers, boiler burners, incinerators, flare towers, etc). However, the regulations have also trickled down to the point that it has cost even small dry cleaners many thousands more in compliance costs which gets passed on to the consumer. California, Texas, New Jersey, Oregon, and a few other states have adopted very strict NOx regs. I recently sold a project to a customer in L.A. There was only one manufacturer who could meet the NOx regulations for this particular project and it raised the cost of it by about 35% more than what the same unit would have cost if it were coming to Oklahoma.
Nice for everyone on the sales chain end of it, but for every consumer who buys food from this manufacturer, they pay a higher price to compensate for the additional compliance costs of that manufacturer.
I can't disagree that clean air is a good thing, but simply pointing out that there is a yin and yang to every government regulation which comes down the pike.
I also wouldn't have such a problem with government trying to stick it's foot in to solve problems if they could do it without needing to create a 2000 person bureaucracy each time.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
I also wouldn't have such a problem with government trying to stick it's foot in to solve problems if they could do it without needing to create a 2000 person bureaucracy each time.
What? That's job creation dude. Good for the economy.
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2011, 09:48:41 AM
Bla bla bla. . . I'm not really sure how you square all of your assertions when decades of our political history indicate precisely the opposite.
Beyond programs that fall within the scope of federal government (protection of constitutionally established rights of the individual ,national defense, public safety, and basic infrastructure). Where has government produced these huge successes you speak of?
Once you have compiled this list, put it in your pocket and carry it around with you.
Now the real question is, are these programs growing in size or scope, and do they show any signs of producing an outcome that exceeds the value of their financial demand on the people?
Apologies to Mr. Krugman:
Quote
The GOPGaspar stopped thinking a long time ago; all it knows how to do is parrot Reaganite rhetoric over and over.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 10:49:05 AM
Beyond programs that fall within the scope of federal government (protection of constitutionally established rights of the individual ,national defense, public safety, and basic infrastructure). Where has government produced these huge successes you speak of?
Once you have compiled this list, put it in your pocket and carry it around with you.
Now the real question is, are these programs growing in size or scope, and do they show any signs of producing an outcome that exceeds the value of their financial demand on the people?
What's the point Gas? You are arguing this to people who keep on justifying large and complex government. One of whom insisted government necessarily had to be complex in these complex times. They further justify it by insisting the wealthiest job creators don't do near enough for the economy.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 12:44:22 PM
What's the point Gas? You are arguing this to people who keep on justifying large and complex government. One of whom insisted government necessarily had to be complex in these complex times. They further justify it by insisting the wealthiest job creators don't do near enough for the economy.
The more people stop reflecting on failure, the more frequent failure will occur.
When my dog chaises a squirrel up a tree, she sits at the bottom of the tree and keeps barking, presumably to let the squirrel know that she is still there. It's just part of being a dog.
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 07:22:41 AM
When government steps out of the realm of government, it almost always does wrong.
NASA
Polio vaccine
Manhattan Project
Super collider
Hubble space telescope
Interstate highways
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2011, 03:20:16 PM
NASA
Polio vaccine
Manhattan Project
Super collider
Hubble space telescope
Interstate highways
Stop trying Ed, the blinders have been on for him for a while. He always appears to me to be in full Beck mode...
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 12:44:22 PM
They further justify it by insisting the wealthiest job creators don't do near enough for the economy.
I wish the wealthiest were always job creators. Most of them (that make lists, anyway) that I've had the "pleasure" of acquainting myself personally are living off someone else's success. Poster children for a stronger inheritance tax. That may have more to do with my former geographical location than anything else, though.
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2011, 03:20:16 PM
NASA
Polio vaccine
Manhattan Project
Super collider
Hubble space telescope
Interstate highways
I'd actually like to see Gas's response to these things. How are these failures of government?
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
I wish the wealthiest were always job creators. Most of them (that make lists, anyway) that I've had the "pleasure" of acquainting myself personally are living off someone else's success. Poster children for a stronger inheritance tax. That may have more to do with my former geographical location than anything else, though.
The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects – his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity. – Henry Hazlitt
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2011, 03:39:27 PM
I'd actually like to see Gas's response to these things. How are these failures of government?
He's too busy calling me a communist because most of the Walton "kids" are (trying not to get sued) less than stellar examples of fine human beings. He has to meet his class warfare quota to get Heritage's check, after all.
Or maybe he just doesn't get that rich people run the gamut just like poor people do. Too busy licking boots?
Quote from: we vs us on May 27, 2011, 03:39:27 PM
I'd actually like to see Gas's response to these things. How are these failures of government?
Sure, Lets go back to my origional question:
QuoteBeyond programs that fall within the scope of federal government (protection of constitutionally established rights of the individual ,national defense, public safety, and basic infrastructure).
NASA-Thrived on competition with the Russians, still however at what cost? Over 700 Billion Dollars.
Polio vaccine-Public Safety
Manhattan Project-Defence
Super collider-Why is this a government project? How is it providing any of the above. 12 Billion Dollars to crush some atoms and learn wonderful things. Does this knowledge have value to the people at this time? If so, why don't we let private industry build supercolliders? Oh wait. . .
Hubble space telescope-Again, great educational opportunity to take some awesome pictures and learn about deep space. At a total of over 10 Billion to build and maintain over the years, and an additional 1 Billion to upgrade, is it something vital to us?
Interstate highways-basic infrastructure
We simply have some differences in priority.
Someone explain to me how the fallout from the Manhattan Project was a success? Pun intended. Aside from forcing the Japanese into surrender, it's left a near 70 year legacy of global unrest.
Super collider and Hubbell? Necessary? How exactly has that benefitted us in the way of the greater good of society?
Government didn't create the polio vaccine, researchers at private universities with a lot of private and public funding discovered it.
Interstate highway system is a great example of the expected function of government.
I'll even grant many useful industrial and consumer goods have come from NASA and their programs. It's also been good for many private sector jobs.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 27, 2011, 04:01:14 PM
Someone explain to me how the fallout from the Manhattan Project was a success? Pun intended. Aside from forcing the Japanese into surrender, it's left a near 70 year legacy of global unrest.
Super collider and Hubbell? Necessary? How exactly has that benefitted us in the way of the greater good of society?
Government didn't create the polio vaccine, researchers at private universities with a lot of private and public funding discovered it.
Interstate highway system is a great example of the expected function of government.
I'll even grant many useful industrial and consumer goods have come from NASA and their programs. It's also been good for many private sector jobs.
His original list had to be edited down :D:
Post Office
Medicare
NSA
NEA
Conservation Reserve Program
Prohibition
Social Security
Fanny May/Freddy Mac
Medicade
Amtrak
TARP
HUD
Stimulus 1 & 2
Cash for ClunkersIt is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. – Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2011, 03:55:01 PM
Sure, Lets go back to my origional question:
NASA-Thrived on competition with the Russians, still however at what cost? Over 700 Billion Dollars.
Polio vaccine-Public Safety
Manhattan Project-Defence
Super collider-Why is this a government project? How is it providing any of the above. 12 Billion Dollars to crush some atoms and learn wonderful things. Does this knowledge have value to the people at this time? If so, why don't we let private industry build supercolliders? Oh wait. . .
Hubble space telescope-Again, great educational opportunity to take some awesome pictures and learn about deep space. At a total of over 10 Billion to build and maintain over the years, and an additional 1 Billion to upgrade, is it something vital to us?
Interstate highways-basic infrastructure
We simply have some differences in priority.
Pure research is usually funded by the government because for-profit companies will not make the investment in something that may not have tangible results. The Manhattan Project was an outgrowth of Fermi's research in Chicago that produced the first fission event, a controlled reaction that lead both to the atom bomb and our nuclear power industry. His research was federally funded.
NASA brought tangible benefits for American consumers. Our rockets were not as powerful as the Soviet's, so in order to keep weight down, we learned to miniaturize our electronics. You and I type on the ancestors of those early developments in micro-miniaturization. Can you imagine the satellite communications system or GPS if it were entirely in the hands of business interests?
The Super Collider is an experiment in pure physics, and so expensive that businesses won't consider underwriting it. But the outcomes of such pure research are entirely unknown, just as Fermi's experimental atomic pile had an uncertain future. It's inevitable that such research goes down some blind alleys, but without it, progress in physics is impossible.
I have to wonder if Queen Isabella of Spain thought that spending money on a speculative venture to explore westward across the Atlantic was a worthwhile endeavor. Yet she gambled and won an empire.
President Eisenhower met some resistance to the idea of interstate highways, but he'd seen the utility of them in Germany. They offered a fast means of moving troops and material without the expense of the rail system. Still, why were they funded with public money? It would be better if all such roads were private turnpikes, since government inevitably screws them up.
Quote from: Ed W on May 27, 2011, 05:45:04 PM
. . . for-profit companies will not make the investment in something that may not have tangible results.
And there you have it.
My work here is done. ;D
Without government involvement, we wouldn't have rockets. Without government involvement, we wouldn't have nuclear energy. Without government involvement, we wouldn't have the Internet.
All of these things, private industry has taken and run with, but would never have made the investment in the first place. Our government's expenditures on these things have created whole new industries that didn't previously exist.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 28, 2011, 02:29:25 PM
And there you have it.
My work here is done. ;D
Just to clarify: if the market won't support it, then it shouldn't be done?