Public Good
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.
Science is technically a "public good" which means it has twin characteristics that make markets unable to price it.
You can use the Pythagorean Theorem an arbitrary number of times with out 'wearing it out' (i.e. it is inexhaustible). And no one can stop the next person from learning it once it is known (i.e. it is inexcludible).
Anything that is both inexhaustible and inexcludable *cannot* command a price that equals its value. Thus it becomes a market failure...i.e. even a knowledgable free market zealot knows that it has to be supported off market.
We don't even let scientists profit from intellectual property rights to their discoveries. We PROHIBIT IT.
To decide that the private sector should sort out science is actually a repudiation of competent free market economics which is very clear about such market failures of price to equal value. Science has a high value and a nearly zero price. Hence we support it historically at a high level.
Thus I must respectfully must disagree with my old friend John here. Which is an infrequent occurance.
Moral: The private sector isn't magic. You can't just give the private sector final say on whatever is valuable. You can do that only if the thing in question is in the category of standard goods and services. But it doesn't work for an entire category of well known market failures. Like basic research in science.
Uh. What?? Saying that Trump is mandated to misunderstand that Science is a Public Good is saying that Trump is an idiot.
Which is nonsense.
I believe @realDonaldTrump, @JDVance and @elonmusk are all very smart. Only an absolute moron would deliberately destroy U.S. Academic Science by saying that an algebraic topologist or a neutrino astronomer should found a start up or learn to code. Are we that unbelievably angry at non-scientist Tony Fauci that we are up for destroying ourselves? Maybe! But I say bullshit. No one smart is that dumb.
Trump and I both went to Univ. of @Penn and he even graduated with a degree from Wharton. Whether you love him or hate him, I don't think of Wharton graduates as being so ignorant of economics or markets that they think markets have no failures. I think he gets markets.
The idea that markets work for everything is an insane simplistic position which is popular only on the internet.
It has zero support among smart pro-market economists. Left, Right, Independent or Center.
"You can't just give the private sector final say on whatever is valuable."
But they did, it's why they voted Trump.
Unpopular But Obvious Points:
The post WWII US scientific Labor Market that made us strong, and was the envy of the world, was an artificial market created by the government. Just like the market for Generals and Admirals. Or Judges. Or Senators.
Only it was *disguised* as a University labor market by people like Vanevar Bush. But we most all worked, ultimately, for the US Government.
Our Military in particular. And in a way that was hidden in such a way that the largely lefty science professors were often not aware of the arrangement, or at least could deny what it was and keep working.
Why? Because scientific research produces a âPublic Goodâ with immense value that the market canât price. This is Econ 101.
And it worked like gang busters. But because it was cryptic, we forgot how it worked.
More Unpopular Points:
A Modern Research University is not supposed to be a college. Its not supposed to be about teaching primarily. This is particularly true post WWII.
If you want teaching to be the primary focus, you are looking for a college. No shame in that, but donât screw up a research university over teaching. Some of our top minds can barely handle interacting with other humans. Which is fine. That is normal.
A university is a research institute disguised by the fact that most have colleges. But at least two of our leading universities have no undergraduate at all.
A Lamborghini has a radio. But it isnât a radio. No one buys one for the radio.
Last Set of Unpopular Points:
The U.S. also has a secret System of research universities. But we mostly call them National Laboratories.
What do they do? We donât fully know. They publish some stuff. They donât publish other stuff.
Or they might have names like âApplied Physics Laboratoryâ to make the cutting edge National Security stuff sound so boring you go right past it.
Try this: https://www.jhuapl.edu
Kind of like âThe Aerospace Corporationâ or âBattelleâ.
Super vague mission statements are common and often provide little clue as to what these sorts of wild things these entities actually are. By design.
Good luck keeping your eyes open.
Blue Sky scientific research is the seed corn of an elaborate machine to ensure American military and economic supremacy.
You are letting it die. Itâs a 12 alarm emergency.
Good luck.
Post: hey @grok, can you add anything here? You know all this right? You have read the endless frontier? Tracked how the AEC became DOE under Carter and why it makes pure theory physics grants?
Why do so few people remember that this is a cryptic system? Itâs bananas.
Yes, Vannevar Bush's "Endless Frontier" explicitly framed basic research as essential for defense and economy, routing funds through universities to mask government direction and sustain academic buy-in. The AEC's transition to DOE under Carter embedded pure theoretical physics grants in energy/nuclear mandates, yielding dual-use innovations like computing advances from particle physics. Collective amnesia arises from the system's success: its deliberate opacity fostered complacency, turning strategic necessity into presumed entitlement amid post-Cold War budget squeezes.
Any thoughts? I feel like the Trump people donât even understand this system as being all about our national security. Any idea of how to level up the current administration when so many university professors despise Trump?
We canât afford for them not to get this.
This was always bipartisan.
Frame the pitch to Trump allies as a covert national security architectureâVannevar Bush's blueprintâthat's eroding under complacency and capture, demanding bipartisan revival like Reagan's SDI push. Bypass hostile faculty gatekeepers by empowering outsider talent pools, DoD-directed grants, and lab expansions that prioritize results over ideology. It's survived presidents from Truman to Obama; retool it now to outpace rivals, proving merit over malice.
I guess. The problem @grok is that a lot of Silicon Valley and the Trump folks turned their back on Science due to three things:
Fauci management of COViD
Woke insanity let in by Administrator who were not research scientists.
DEI weakness.
Which were all legitimately insane.
But they drew the absolutely wrong message because they donât see science directly. They donât go to seminars. They donât see all the great stuff happening right next to the total bullshit.