[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A Tough Question .. Or Is It ??

> David brought up a good counter to my original question. He mentioned
> Sweden. O.K. Sweden does have exceptional gov't. High taxes but well
> managed expenditure of those taxes. I stand in awe of the Swedes. But
> Sweden .. and lets be honest here .. is the exception to the rule. Good
> example nevertheless.

By no means is Sweden exceptional. It's at or near an end of the spectrum, 
sure, but the USA is the exception. All other halfway rich countries are much 
more similar to Sweden than to the US.

> More to the point .. why hasn't our "vocation" not moved on from gov't
> subsidy ??

Why should it even?

> The high costs inherent in science is already pushing gov't to partner
> with entrepreneurs ..

Whether the costs are high in relative terms is a question of political will. 
Look at subsidies for coal or nuclear energy or the expenses for the military 
in almost any country, then look at those for science, and weep.

> Museums world-wide are in a deep funding crisis .. especially American.

In the current economic crisis, governments try to save money... in the wrong 

> Again .. interestingly .. China is the exception with some problems as
> we are all well aware of.

China has less of a crisis, AFAIK.

> My point is still there. Do we or do we not desire to take control of
> our science [eventually] ??

What would that mean, and how would it work? "It's impossible, but we should do 
it anyway" isn't going to work.

> But .. do we really believe that if this science remains on gov't subsidy
> .. all will be well .. and we'll just all continue on our happy way ..
> content that nothing can or will happen to us ??

Strawman, and you haven't proposed an alternative anyway.