50% income tax for earners of £150k and above

[billvon 3,006]

>Specifically, what value do you see?

The scientific value in better understanding the creation of life.

The cultural value in the lesson that we are not unique in the universe.

The eventual value in spreading beyond our planet to other planets, which will likely only happen if we have somewhere we really want to go.

Ask yourself what the value proposition was in the discovery of the Americas. It really caused nothing but trouble initially; heck, this entire continent was in the way of somewhere they really wanted to go. Its eventual value was not seen at the time of its discovery, but it was a good thing overall that we did discover it. (Or more accurately that a government was willing to finance the effort to find something else in about the same place.)

>Yes, and we often disagree about the people and their experts, and even\
> the decisions the experts make.

Of course. And in our system of government, if those people are that unpopular, they are replaced.

> Wouldn't it be more in keeping with human dignity if we allowed each
>person to make those value decisions for themselves?

It might be more in keeping with "human dignity" but that's not the same as a good decision for society as a whole.

Take the VRE issue. A mother of a child might insist that her sick child be immediately given the most potent antibiotic we know of, even if the chances of the child having an infection requiring such treatment are very low. And she may feel like her dignity is diminished, and her power to self-determination undermined, if the doctor says "no, that's not indicated at this time." But overall that is a better decision for society.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Take the VRE issue. A mother of a child might insist that her sick child be immediately given the most potent antibiotic we know of, even if the chances of the child having an infection requiring such treatment are very low. And she may feel like her dignity is diminished, and her power to self-determination undermined, if the doctor says "no, that's not indicated at this time." But overall that is a better decision for society.

In one case (public sector space exploration) you are taking something (the funding) from the general public, to chase something that you value above what you think the market will spend on it. In the other (the mother wanting the drugs), you are withholding something that the purchaser would value at above the market rate. In both cases "you" (the 3rd party observer) are making a normative value judgment about what is "best" for the rest of society that differs from the judgment that society is making for itself, one person at a time. Are you really so confident in your rightness that you think you should override the obvious, stated (and paid for) wishes of other people and substitute your own values?


I think what it boils down to is that some folks (you probably among them) feel that some things will be valued by market mechanisms at a lower rate than you personally would value them, and therefore feel that taking from others to fund those things is justified. Others (me among them) are not so sure that my worldview is superior to that of everyone else, or that I ought to be making decisions for them on how to spend their money, so I generally oppose taking money from private citizens to spend on anything--even the things I personally would like to see more of.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,006]

>In one case (public sector space exploration) you are taking something
>(the funding) from the general public, to chase something that you value
>above what you think the market will spend on it.

Well, what I value isn't too important - but what physicists value is, at least when it comes to physics research.

To put it another way, I do not think the market can accurately assess value on all things. It does quite well with consumer goods and real estate, but does not do well when most people do not understand the issues involved in funding one approach or another.

> In the other (the mother wanting the drugs), you are withholding
> something that the purchaser would value at above the market rate. In
> both cases "you" (the 3rd party observer) are making a normative value
> judgment about what is "best" for the rest of society that differs from the
> judgment that society is making for itself, one person at a time.

Yes, if by "you" you mean the medical community. The societal value of not breeding VRE is high, and many doctors (specifically those who set hospital policy) understand that. By not forcing the evolution of VRE, many lives will be saved in the long run, even if the cost is the mother not able to get unnecessary (but desired) treatment for her child.

We do this in many cases. Medical quarantines are essentially ignoring one person's wishes to benefit many in society. In 2007 this was implemented to prevent Andrew Speaker from spreading tuberculosis within the US, and is codified under the Public Health Service Act. We often reserve "big hammer" antibiotics for severe cases so that bacteria do not develop immunities to the antibiotic.

> Are you really so confident in your rightness that you think you should
> override the obvious, stated (and paid for) wishes of other people and
> substitute your own values?

?? To be clear, I do not plan to deny anyone antibiotics (indeed, I am not even in a position to prescribe them.) However, I do believe that doctors are generally more medically knowledgeable than the general public, and are in a better position to make decisions concerning public health than the mother of a sick child.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Specifically, what value do you see? I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but can you see that knowledge feeding the starving, curing diseases, bringing world peace?

For one, knowledge has its own value. For another, we often don't know what potential benefits a certain piece of knowledge might bring until we know it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

In one case (public sector space exploration) you are taking something (the funding) from the general public, to chase something that you value above what you think the market will spend on it.

When we're talking about these vast scales of investment the market only values what it can turn a profit from. No person or entity has the resources to replace what the government has invested in these areas. Subjecting everything to the forces of the free market only works if you think that money is the only thing of value.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Subjecting everything to the forces of the free market only works if you think that money is the only thing of value.

I think you are misunderstanding what money is.

Money is a store of value, and a way of measuring value. It has no inherent value of it's one. It's a yardstick, not a yard.

"Money is the only thing of value" is like saying "miles are the only thing that have length."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I think you are misunderstanding what money is.

Money is a store of value, and a way of measuring value. It has no inherent value of it's one. It's a yardstick, not a yard.

You are misunderstanding what value is. You made that perfectly clear in your first reply to me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>In one case (public sector space exploration) you are taking something
>(the funding) from the general public, to chase something that you value
>above what you think the market will spend on it.

Well, what I value isn't too important - but what physicists value is, at least when it comes to physics research.

Since they are physicists, aren't they likely to overvalue physics research, at least relative to the general public?

People tend to value the things they are involved in above the average level--that's why they are involved in them. I'd expect that physicists would be in favor of more government dollars for physics, soldiers would want more government dollars for the military, truck drivers would want more government dollars for roads, and so on. Making arbitrary decisions about which of these people's needs to prioritize above the others is necessarily going to leave some of them feeling left out.

Why not let each person pay for the things they value, and leave every one else's resources (money, for example) alone, so that each decides for themselves?

Quote

To put it another way, I do not think the market can accurately assess value on all things.

It sounds to me more like you do not think the market values things the same as you do, and would like your personal preferences to govern the spending of all other people. How's that fair?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,006]

>Since they are physicists, aren't they likely to overvalue physics research,
>at least relative to the general public?

Compared to other fields of study, yes.

But ask a grocery store clerk if it's more valuable in the long run to work on inertial confinement fusion or muon-catalyzed fusion for power production, and you are not likely to get a good answer. If you ask a physicist who specializes in fusion, you are much more likely to get a good answer.

> Making arbitrary decisions about which of these people's needs to
>prioritize above the others is necessarily going to leave some of them
>feeling left out.

Yes. And in our system of government, the remedy is to vote the person who makes bad arbitrary decisions out and elect a wiser leader.

>It sounds to me more like you do not think the market values things the
>same as you do, and would like your personal preferences to govern the
>spending of all other people. How's that fair?

?? I do not claim to know the best way to spend military funding. Military leaders are better at that than I am. Is that fair? Yes, because I'm not omnipotent, and accept that they better understand what needs funding. I do not claim to know what the best use of CDC research funding is, because I'm not an infectious-disease specialist. Is that fair? Yes, because smarter people than me will (likely) use that money to prevent diseases throughout society.

The market (including myself) is not always competent to decide what to spend money on for the general betterment of society, through the CDC, or the space program, or the military. Which is why we do not vote on every expenditure.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You guys are so desparate to find something to pose about and make yourself feel superior to 'anyone' else, you don't even read the topics anymore. Just trite and shallow comment after trite and shallow comment. I suppose next you're going to go find someone to call a bigot or something over a comment about eating meat or testing makeup or something....

what a total waste of time, absolutely valueless

Well, done. I value your opinion. However I didn't want to cut them off until they discussed "family values". I've got a family and I'd like to see what it's going for in today's market.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

You guys are so desparate to find something to pose about and make yourself feel superior to 'anyone' else, you don't even read the topics anymore. Just trite and shallow comment after trite and shallow comment. I suppose next you're going to go find someone to call a bigot or something over a comment about eating meat or testing makeup or something....

what a total waste of time, absolutely valueless

So says the man who feels compelled to spend his time calling other people desperate, trite and shallow (among many other things) simply because he's not interested in the philosophical position they're discussing.

How's that high horse working out for you Rehmie? I can fetch you a step ladder if you need help getting down...

nonsense, you're making up a "philosophical" position to distract from the real conversations. I'm glad you get off belittling Tom when he has a legitimate discussion that you won't acknowledge just to pick at him personally on a contrived nit. It's SOP, I'm not surprised.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

nonsense, you're making up a "philosophical" Crazy position to distract from the real conversations. I'm glad you get off belittling Tom when he has a legitimate discussion that you won't acknowledge just to pick at him personally on a contrived nit.

Not so fast my suddenly defensive friend! I was discussing the isue with Tom - is monetary worth the only indicator of value. There was no belittling going on, simply carrying on an a pathway of analogies that Tom started.

Then what should happen but Rehmie, self-declared protector of civility and reasonable debate, coming in blazing away with ad-homs and insults while contributing exactly nil to the topic being discussed.

If that's the way you get your kicks, thats fine with me - who doesn't enjoy a good dig every now and then? Just realise that everyone can see just how much of a hypocrite it makes you look.

Quote

It's SOP,

Yep, you're certainly sticking to yours. Like I said, I can help you down off that high horse, but first you've got to want to come down.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

All right, then let's join the discussion.

How would you quantify 'value' then?

Since dollars gets people up in arms because they are too pure to let the almighty dollar drive their debates, then let's make up some other arbitrary unit of morality to pass judgement on others with.

Let's call it "Dallors" you can trade them like carbon credits and thus establish personal 'value' on fuzzy wuzzy things like family, growth, and the environment.

If you can't quantify it and just stick to the cop out of "things are of infinite value because I say so and if you don't agree you are morally bankrupt" - then the whole conversation is just a bunch of weak personal gratification without any chance of a decision or even understanding.

Frankly, I still just see it as a bunch of self back patting from putting others down. And since you think I'm the expert at it, then I must be correct. (although while you guys jump trumped up the charge and then dog piled on one guy, I only posted as a response - the classic "they did it first" gambit. So you really only have one response, and that's to add me to the mix)

(real post - actually, you guys did come across as "belittling Tom's values based on purposely reading him wrong just for sake of doing it", but there's 3 or 4 of you at least and each person may or may not actually fit in that fold - but if I read it wrong then my bad to the 1 or 2 of the 4 that really feel they are just debating a hypothetical for fun and are just clumsy in their delivery)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

How would you quantify 'value' then?

In many different ways. I would not, however, limit the 'value' of a thing to its monetary worth on the free market.

Quote

If you can't quantify it and just stick to the cop out of "things are of infinite value because I say so and if you don't agree you are morally bankrupt" -

No one has even said that, let alone stuck to it. Try again.

Quote

Frankly, I still just see it as a bunch of self back patting from putting others down. And since you think I'm the expert at it, then I must be correct.

No, I simply said that you do it a lot. That does not imply any degree of competence.

Quote

(although while you guys jump trumped up the charge and then dog piled on one guy, I only posted as a response - the classic "they did it first" gambit. So you really only have one response, and that's to add me to the mix)

Are there some words missing from that paragraph?

Quote

real post - actually, you guys did come across as "belittling Tom's values based on purposely reading him wrong just for sake of doing it",

I don't think anyone read him wrong, we just disagree with him. But, since you seem to think that Tom's position was correct, I can see why you'd accuse anyone who disagrees with it of random dirty tactics.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If you can't quantify it and just stick to the cop out of "things are of infinite value because I say so and if you don't agree you are morally bankrupt" - then the whole conversation is just a bunch of weak personal gratification without any chance of a decision or even understanding.

Right. I attempted to acquire the necessary data to test Tom's claims for mathematical consistency. If money is a useful measure of value, value should be quantifiable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No, I simply said that you do it a lot.

And you guys do it even more. It's your SOP, so Don't be surprised when it's used on you as an example.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Right. I attempted to acquire the necessary data to test Tom's claims for mathematical consistency. If money is a useful measure of value, value should be quantifiable.

can't argue with that, but you'd have better success defining the tradeoff more rigorously instead of leaving it open ended

but it does remind me about the rich guy propositioning the lady

rich guy - Would you go home with me for sex for $5M dollars?

lady (hesitantly) - I will

rich guy - How about for $50?

lady (indignant) - I'm not a prostitute

rich guy - we've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over price


proposing no win scenarios don't really seem (IMO) designed to get you a good debate, rather to just entrap or mess about with Tom.

And I'm fully aboard with mucking with others here - but he seems to be trying to work with what your giving him, and you guys just keep redefining it to be obnoxious.

I'm torn - applaud the nonsense, or wish you'd work with him seriously.

I guess I'll sit on my horse and hope the light is good.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

can't argue with that, but you'd have better success defining the tradeoff more rigorously instead of leaving it open ended

Agreed. I'm still waiting on relevant information to make that possible.

Quote

proposing no win scenarios don't really seem (IMO) designed to get you a good debate, rather to just entrap or mess about with Tom.

Why debate when mathematical methods can be used instead? If Tom's assertion is correct, the maths will show it.

Quote

And I'm fully aboard with mucking with others here - but he seems to be trying to work with what your giving him, and you guys just keep redefining it to be obnoxious.

That's a wholly different impression than what I'm getting. I've only seen evasion of questions.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

proposing no win scenarios don't really seem (IMO) designed to get you a good debate, rather to just entrap or mess about with Tom.

And I'm fully aboard with mucking with others here - but he seems to be trying to work with what your giving him, and you guys just keep redefining it to be obnoxious.

That only highlights your inability to accept that people with a different point of view to yours might have legitimate arguments.

Which is pretty funny, all things considered.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

1) If the government simply put out contracts for the data, that would create a demand that could be filled by private industry.

In complete seriousness, do you think that State and federal governments don’t do that?


SAIC (see right-hand scroll for list of government contracts doing what you described; SAIC is also #232 on Fortune 500, iirc; and I did for $15k what they estimated would cost $150k+, i.e., the danger of not knowing ‘better’ ), ANSER, RAND, Noblis are four different private industrial models.


Otoh the second part of the scenario you propose is what the DoD did in 2006 for a program to develop medical countermeasures against genetically engineered biological weapons and to develop broad spectrum therapeutics, i.e., a single drug that treats multiple bugs.
In 2007, Congress ‘whacked’ (the technical term ) $200M from budget for that program because industry wasn’t responding. Willingness to award large contracts in the tens to hundreds of millions was not seen as enough of incentive to private industry. (And the DoD was even willing to bend contracting rules for those companies.) That's not an anomolous example.


And to be explicit that is not in anyway to indicate a lack of support for extramural RDT&E programs to support and acquire. It’s illustrative of the need for smart people in the federal government - ‘cause when a fantastic private solution is offered, I want it to be recognized, supported, and used. And when a dumb one is put forward, I don't want limited federal funding wasted on it. Like most of the real world, it’s complicated.


There are lots (thousands+) of instances in which private companies do perform more efficiently, they are not _all_ instances and, perhaps, more importantly, there may be instances in which other factors are more important than lowest cost, e.g., civilian nuclear safety, air traffic control, nuclear submarine operations. Sometimes cheapest isn’t most efficient in the long run, e.g., the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal India – cost-cutting measures and disabling/not installing safety standards required in the US resulted in somewhere between 14,000 and 60,000 deaths (how do we monetize a life?). In 1989 Union Carbide agreed to pay a $470 million settlement for liability claims. Bhopal is still discussed as a model case for the need for process safety and vulnerability reduction where short-term perceptions of value lead to bad things: dead people and lawsuits for liability. There are still ongoing lawsuits.


Too much government stifles innovation and competition; too little results in a variety of ills, ranging from “thalidomide” babies to failed states. The ‘trick’ is finding the right mix, figuring out which ones are better to be more conservative on (e.g., intelligence - on the side of federal), and creating flexible programs that can respond as situations and needs change.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

(real post - actually, you guys did come across as "belittling Tom's values based on purposely reading him wrong just for sake of doing it", but there's 3 or 4 of you at least and each person may or may not actually fit in that fold - but if I read it wrong then my bad to the 1 or 2 of the 4 that really feel they are just debating a hypothetical for fun and are just clumsy in their delivery)

Hmmm … I suspect Tom’s values are going to withstand internet debate.

In reading through most of the exchange in question in mass rather than piecemeal as it was posted, what I noticed was quite a few assertions presented as fact or true with no data (perhaps no surprise to anyone that I would notice. ) An argument was presented based on a mix of ideological, economic, and hypothetical reasoning. That's part of dicussion. In response, some folks asked questions and challenged the argument. Since my pyschic powers still aren't working, I ask questions. (Sometimes folks don't like those questions ... c'est la vie virtuelle.)

If one can’t ask questions or challenge assertions, how is that different than what you’ve noted -- & unless I've misunderstood, pejoratively -- as attributes of religion? Or perhaps, cynicism is the last refuge of the idealist, eh?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

2) If the information isn't worth that much money, why are we buying it, again?

Have we shown that "the information isn't worth that much money"?

If the question is not based on a solid foundation or based on a presumption, the answer may be pre-supposed in the question and may not get any answer other than the one wanted, i.e., "begging the question.")

That the information doesn't have value seems to be a presumption put forth as a given that is doubtful, like these assertions on less government corresponding to less corruption, which were shown to be incorrect.

To reply to the underlying questions: why invest in something that may not have immediate market monetization?

Lots of reasons: from risk reduction to enabling technology.

In order to enable the monitoring and response currently being executed in response on the swine flu outbreak, State, local, county, and the federal government have invested money to understand preventative, containment, and treatment measures; to enact and to coordinate policies; and to exercise those policies. By many of the arguments presented here, that information might have been assessed to have very little value absolute monetary value two months ago. Two months from now, it may prevent the death of you, members of your family, or such a large percentage of the population that the economic stability of the nation would be imperiled. (Unlikely, imo, with this strain but a not outside the realm of possibility of nature.)

Another example of information that the private sector passed because they did not consider it to have much value (at the time) is the underlying science that led to the development of lasers. Charles Townes left Bell Labs, which was much more oriented toward basic research back then even before became Lucent, to go to Columbia University and did the research that led to the laser using DoD funding. For-profit companies have made more money off of that initial DoD funding than Townes and the DoD program manager could ever have imagined. One can build lists, hundreds of technologies long, like that: Doppler radar, integrated circuits, the internet (nee ARPA net).

If you’ve never read or heard of Vannevar Bush’s Science: The Endless Frontier you might find it interesting. Or maybe not. Nonetheless, there are more examples of information that initially was not perceived as having value that later did.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

A couple more examples of information that is not easily monetized by the market with tremendous longterm value.

How about standards? Standards are information, at a fundamental level, that are very hard to monetize. Do we really want Beta vs VHS playing out w/r/t all things that depend on measurements and standards? From clocks to nuclear security? Those are derived from or dependent on NIST &/or NIST laboratories. ANSI, which provides ISO accreditation, is a private, not-for-profit company that works closely with and receives government support ($). I would site that as an example of a very successful privatized function that promotes the ‘general welfare.’

It's not the video or the DVD standards that are of concern but the process that underlies how those standards came about. For an example of the inverse, see the history of rail gauges and impact on national defense particularly in Russia.

A recent example of how a lack of standards has resulted in inefficiencies and where the market has failed to self-regulate: On Randall’s Island (“the Rock”), the FDNY has a closet full of gadgets that don’t work/don’t serve useful purpose for CBRN-detection & protection. The DoD, DHS, and local first responders really don’t need another 150lb ‘anthrax’ detector that has to be plugged in (220V), requires refrigerated consumables, requires a PhD to interpret the results, & btw has only been demonstrated to detect vegetative B. cereus & Bacillus subtilis (i.e., related non-select agent Bacillus species that are found in the dirt, cause food poisoning, not sporulated, and would result in an overabundance of false positives.)

Companies are going to try to sell their ideas, their products, and their services; that’s what they are supposed to do. Yeah! But that’s also an illustration of where the market has failed and how a lack of robust standards (industry resisted them) did not benefit the public, the consumer, or business – those that were trying to make good, useful products were tainted by those just looking to make a quick dollar.

Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[JackC 0]

Good posts Marg.

Fundamental research is often percieved as having little monetary worth since the results often cannot be immediately commercially exploited. A good example of this would be Quantum Mechanics. In 1927, in the early days of QM research, physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld patented the first field-effect transitor. It took another 22 years before anyone even observed the effect experimentally and it was the 1970's before transistors could be produced commercially. But who could doubt the value of the transistor now? Now go back 100 years and ask "If the information [Quantum Mechanics] isn't worth that much money, why are we buying it, again?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That only highlights your inability to accept that people with a different point of view to yours might have legitimate arguments.

Which is pretty funny, all things considered.

are you getting bored yet with us calling each other the same names over and over? again, you make a constant habit of it, I only call it when I see it. Then you just divert by saying "no I'm not, YOU are". Pretty effective in grade school I guess.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants