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

On 7/30/2026 10:07 AM, dart200 wrote:
> 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
>
That's why companies always locate the IT department in the basement - 
labor efficiency. No windows to gaze out of fantasizing how great it 
would be to have a desk and a cubicle with a view. YMMV.
 >

>>
>> 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...
>>
>