> Actually I asked you for that info to support your idea that others freeload on US bought R&D. Now you are asking for the data that would show your supposition is incorrect, instead of having some to indicate that it may be valid.
It was an attempt to employ the Socratic Method. A rhetorical question. The US spends more on medical R&D than most other countries.
> But a true assessment of the situation wouldnt just look at cash spent anyway. Humans are complex, cash doesn't fully account for their motivation and achievements. Many people do great work for lesser remuneration.
This is true, but then what you're really getting at is whether markets or governments generally spend money more efficiently. I would not have expected that to be a comparison you'd want to invite.
> In principal sure; like the profits from crack cocaine
"Sometimes people want dumb stuff" is not much of an indictment of a system that causes people to get what they want. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
> cutting down ancient forests
This happens when the value of the forest as a forest can't be captured by the market. This is basically always caused by poor regulation, e.g. if the forest is a carbon sink then cutting it should be priced appropriately to account for the carbon you're releasing. Markets require externalities to be priced appropriately.
And half the time the stupid consequence is directly caused by bad regulation, e.g. the government owns land and sells only the logging rights, so there is no option for the market to use the forest as a forest, the only choice is use it for logging or nothing.
> making nuclear arsenals
Compare the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal with the costs of the world wars that ended and haven't happened again since they were developed. Which one is more efficient?