Re: what is economics for anyways????????

On 7/30/26 7:12 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 7/29/2026 6:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:56:29 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2026 5:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:06:38 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2026 2:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 13:50:07 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/28/2026 1:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So exactly how important is it for rich people to get richer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Killing innovation will make everyone poorer than they would have 
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generating more billionaires will make everyone else poorer than they
>>>>>> would have been otherwise.  What makes you think curious thinkers 
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> stop thinking if people get smarter about commercialism?
>>>>>
>>>>> Billionaires don't make anyone poorer, that's reductionist thinking.
>>>>
>>>> It is mysterious where all that money comes from, right?
>>>>
>>>>> Curious thinkers can be curious all day but communally owned solutions
>>>>> won't automatically provide the financing necessary to do anything 
>>>>> new.
>>>>
>>>> See this is your fantasy.  Support for new ideas comes from business
>>>> financing.  R&D is too expensive and risky for business.  If you have
>>>> a good idea, put your own company together and make it profitable.  If
>>>> it works business will buy you out.  Of course there will always be a
>>>> few who resist the deal they can't refuse.
>>>>
>>>> But govt is not required to make a profit, can afford risks, which is
>>>> why govt grants are so important to university research.
>>>>
>>>>> History shows communal mostly restricts innovation and new ideas from
>>>>> ever coming into fruition.
>>>>
>>>> Your history.  So let's do something new.  Something you at least have
>>>> not imagined, even if others do.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that your ideas are not a priori as so certain sure as you
>>>> are of them.  Other people can other ideas and that does not make them
>>>> reductionist thinkers or anything else.  Unless you have an interest
>>>> in do nothing, do nothing, do nothing.
>>>
>>> The assets billionaires have are almost all stock in their companies,
>>> which come from investors.
>>
>> Which ultimately had to come from consumers, unions, pension funds,
>> etc. in one way or the other.  In other words from people who no
>> longer have it.
>>
>>> The military funds a lot of R&D, yes. And academia does as well. But
>>> most "hard" R&D is done by businesses.
>>>
>>> Data from National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
>>
>> Do you suppose you have found a source without a business bias? 
> 
> Do you suppose that the National Center for Science and Engineering 
> Statistics is biased towards business?

that's just a raw tally of dollars spent wilson, this does not measure 
the quality, impact, or novelty of said r&d

heck my entire career consisted of what would be counted at r&d for the 
private market, yet nothing which i had developed upon was something 
that hadn't been implemented dozens of times over by that point, if not 
100s, as competitive software development is an ungodly retarded 
anti-pattern if one's goal is labor efficiency

> 
> They
>> call it R&D.  How much of that is foundational research, research for
>> its own sake?  And how much is for adapting useful foundational
>> research to commercial and military purposes?
>>
>> Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.
>>
>>> "Adjusting for inflation (in constant 2017 dollars), U.S. total R&D
>>> expenditures are estimated to be $792 billion in 2024. The business
>>> sector funded $592 billion of this amount and the federal government
>>> funded an additional $148 billion."
>>>
>>> https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf26314
>>>
>>> So much of you think you know is simply wrong.
>>
>> Simply not wrong...
> 

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃