I am greatly disturbed by the fact that the vast majority of research funding comes from the government. In art the artist caters to his patron...
Take things like railroads which pay back the investment in them in 100+ years.
Usually the cost of borrowing is a function of how much risk there is.
Here's where things get interesting, how many private companies can you name that have been around for over 100 years?
Yes, I now there are dozen of companies older then that, but all those dozens world wide are still just exceptions.
In general almost no companies last that long.
So the risk for private borrowing over 100 years would make the interest way too high for anything.
But governments can borrow at very reduced rates, and that's why they can build railroads profitably.
The same argument can be made with basic science. We know most of the research will not yield anything, while a small part of it will in the long term create thing we can't even imagine.
But those things my not necessarily be profitable, think airlines which are a terrible business to be in.
So the government is like a basic science VC that knows 999999999999 out of 999999999999+2 investments will fail, but 1 will change the world.
And private VCs can't do the same because the risk is too high and the payback takes too long.
I think bridges and roads should be privatized, just look at France.
But I'm not so sure about rails and basics science.
A company doesn't have to last 100 years to profitably make 100 year investments because investments can be sold.
Note that companies think that they will be around in 100 years so, the fact that most won't doesn't enter into their thinking.
However, that illusion/delusion isn't necessary.
Old folks plant trees that won't bear fruit until after said old folks will probably be dead.
Note: I'm not expressing an opinion on whether basic science qualifies, I'm too biased (my salary comes from an NSF grant). I'm just questioning the assumptions.
...I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does.
I don't know if I'd describe the grant approval process as a-political, especially after hearing my professors describe how it operates on a nuts and bolts level.
There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity.
That's one of the best lines I've ever read. Your real name is PJ O'Rourke, isn't it? :)