ADVERTISEMENT

US economic policy - a wrong turn?

04Watu

I.T.S. Redshirt Freshman
Jan 15, 2021
67
29
18
As long time posters here may recall, for years I posted that US economic policy had moved away from what worked in the 50's and 60's, and that some emerging economies were using that same policy to catch up. In the 50s and 60's, the US was a leader in R&D, infrastructure, and education. Those productive investments paid off big time in the following decades. Yes, taxes were higher, but they went into productive investments.

Counties that have been growing faster than the US such as China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are just using the US's discarded playbook. Go to those countries and it's like going to the set of the Jetsons. Super fast trains, cheap high speed internet, elevated highways, incredible airports. The same difference can be seen in R&D, patent production, and the numbers of STEM graduates being produced.

While successful developing economies thrived by copying the US, we began implementing tax and economic policies to transfer the country's accumulated wealth into fewer and fewer hands instead of continuing to make productive investments. R&D investments declined, infrastructure deteriorated, college became incredibly expensive, wages stagnated, and massive wealth moved into a few hands along with control of our political system. Hello, Citizen’s United.

As this process has been happening over decades, like frogs in warm water, we could ignore it, and there was plenty of cheap debt to use as a palliative. But now the water seems to have gotten hot enough for even the WSJ to notice that we are becoming less competitive. Massive student debt, broken bridges, slow trains, bad roads, low wages are other clues.

If we really want America First, we should stop blaming other countries, and take a look at systemic changes closer to home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/steppi...t=amg1hxhej1jan33&reflink=article_email_share
 
  • Like
Reactions: shon46
So the US government should embark on a vast effort to steal intellectual property from China and transfer the same to our private companies in order to boost our R&D efforts?
 
As long time posters here may recall, for years I posted that US economic policy had moved away from what worked in the 50's and 60's, and that some emerging economies were using that same policy to catch up. In the 50s and 60's, the US was a leader in R&D, infrastructure, and education. Those productive investments paid off big time in the following decades. Yes, taxes were higher, but they went into productive investments.

Counties that have been growing faster than the US such as China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are just using the US's discarded playbook. Go to those countries and it's like going to the set of the Jetsons. Super fast trains, cheap high speed internet, elevated highways, incredible airports. The same difference can be seen in R&D, patent production, and the numbers of STEM graduates being produced.

While successful developing economies thrived by copying the US, we began implementing tax and economic policies to transfer the country's accumulated wealth into fewer and fewer hands instead of continuing to make productive investments. R&D investments declined, infrastructure deteriorated, college became incredibly expensive, wages stagnated, and massive wealth moved into a few hands along with control of our political system. Hello, Citizen’s United.

As this process has been happening over decades, like frogs in warm water, we could ignore it, and there was plenty of cheap debt to use as a palliative. But now the water seems to have gotten hot enough for even the WSJ to notice that we are becoming less competitive. Massive student debt, broken bridges, slow trains, bad roads, low wages are other clues.

If we really want America First, we should stop blaming other countries, and take a look at systemic changes closer to home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/steppi...t=amg1hxhej1jan33&reflink=article_email_share
 
We have lost creativity, innovation, and a recognition of excellence to an acceptance and tolerance of mediocrity.
 
So the US government should embark on a vast effort to steal intellectual property from China and transfer the same to our private companies in order to boost our R&D efforts?

Blaming Russia and China is just an excuse. We have decreased investing in R&D, made higher education and acquiring skills a financial burden, and our infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate and become outdated. That’s on us, and if allowed to continue those countries won’t want what we have to offer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
So the US government should embark on a vast effort to steal intellectual property from China and transfer the same to our private companies in order to boost our R&D efforts?
We should certainly have a more robust cyber warfare branch. It’s funny that trump made the space force. It should have been the Cyber Corps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a and 04Watu
We should certainly have a more robust cyber warfare branch. It’s funny that trump made the space force. It should have been the Cyber Corps.

Agree. Annoys me when our resident China cheerleader comes on and brags about Chinese R&D and fails to mention that a significant part of that R&D was stolen from American corporations and military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
We should certainly have a more robust cyber warfare branch. It’s funny that trump made the space force. It should have been the Cyber Corps.
Very few people actually know what Space Force does. That is very intentional and will probably stay that way for the next 5 yrs. We already have a very effective Cyber Command.
 
Last edited:
Agree. Annoys me when our resident China cheerleader comes on and brags about Chinese R&D and fails to mention that a significant part of that R&D was stolen from American corporations and military.

Being annoyed about China is not going to help. Multiple countries have become competitors and grown faster than the US by investing in three key areas that the US has increasingly ignored. Any suggestions?
 
Being annoyed about China is not going to help. Multiple countries have become competitors and grown faster than the US by investing in three key areas that the US has increasingly ignored. Any suggestions?

I’m not sure why I must point this out but apparently it’s necessary. You can’t compare economic growth of mature economies (US, Europe, etc) to those still emerging economies. Untapped demand (1 billion people) will almost always result in faster growth than mature economies. I do support education, R&D, reasonable tax rates on at risk capital investments, etc.. and other business friendly economic measures. However, let’s keep this an apples to apples comparison (the EU).

....and let’s also acknowledge the source of a significant portion of Chinese R&D you’re speaking of comes from theft
 
Last edited:
We should certainly have a more robust cyber warfare branch. It’s funny that trump made the space force. It should have been the Cyber Corps.
True for both IP and selfdefense (Include Russia, Iran for example). Building more effective walls only works if we start investing more into what is inside our walls. Shutting the barn door is one thing, we still have to increase our investments in new stock.
 
Last edited:
US R&D investment. At an all time low.

That is a false statement. Total R&D spending (private and public) are near all time highs. Even total public R&D (if you want to go there) is nowhere near an all time low in terms of dollars. You do understand any current comparison of R&D as a percentage of total expenditures is a red herring due to the trillions of covid spending over the last year plus.

Curious...why didn’t you point this important fact out?
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about the Space Force. It already existed under another name. Trump changed the name and added more people. They don't wear camo. Right now it is a small part of the Air Force.

At one point there was an Army Air Force, small in the pre-war years. By about 1946 or so it became The Air Force. I ran into an older gentleman the other day who was wearing an AAF hat and he was 16 when he went into the Army Air Force. In any event the Space Force name was for Trump's resume and pub. The are many groups out there that gain and lose as things evolve. I think SF might really a cyber force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
That is a false statement. Total R&D spending (private and public) are near all time highs. Even total public R&D (if you want to go there) is nowhere near an all time low in terms of dollars. You do understand any current comparison of R&D as a percentage of total expenditures is a red herring due to the trillions of covid spending over the last year plus.

Curious...why didn’t you point this important fact out?
Regardless of theft, the chinese are making better use of stolen materials in their system than we are. They rule by force. We rule by antagonistic factions keeping anything from getting done.

I hope a mature founding democracy is not stuck in this place as a general habit. Cuz that leaves humanity in a bad state.
 
Let's talk about the Space Force. It already existed under another name. Trump changed the name and added more people. They don't wear camo. Right now it is a small part of the Air Force.

At one point there was an Army Air Force, small in the pre-war years. By about 1946 or so it became The Air Force. I ran into an older gentleman the other day who was wearing an AAF hat and he was 16 when he went into the Army Air Force. In any event the Space Force name was for Trump's resume and pub. The are many groups out there that gain and lose as things evolve. I think SF might really a cyber force.
My dad was an AAF officer in WW2, although he always just said he was in the Army. Probably because he was not a pilot?
 
That is a false statement. Total R&D spending (private and public) are near all time highs. Even total public R&D (if you want to go there) is nowhere near an all time low in terms of dollars. You do understand any current comparison of R&D as a percentage of total expenditures is a red herring due to the trillions of covid spending over the last year plus.

Curious...why didn’t you point this important fact out?
If your point is that everything is just fine, perhaps you should debate the issue with the WSJ’s reporting.

US investment hasn’t stopped, but it also hasn’t have kept pace with economic and population growth and the decline has been going on for decades.. This a problem discussed for years in the research communities as funding gets harder to come by. We still fill in pot holes and build new roads, but both parties in Congress are well aware that our investments in infrastructure have not kept pace either. It seems to be one thing both Biden and Trump agreed on.

There have been some efforts to improve research funding such as the now old Bayh-Dole Act which gave universities commercialization rights to the results of federally funded research. OTOH I also know several leading nano tech researchers who moved overseas for better funding and sole control over any commercialization rights.

Corporate funding has increased but tends to be focused on shorter term economic results instead of basic research which relies on federal funding. VC’s only fund commercialization of research results.
 
Last edited:
I will just chime in and say that even at places like my employer, a world class crown jewel US research lab, every year a smaller percent of our budget goes to R and D and pure scientific research. It isn’t like it has hit a cliff, but it’s been a long gradual decline. I do not believe that our equivalent counterparts in other countries have any real concerns about scientific budgets. That much is not based on any inside knowledge, and is my own opinion, otherwise I wouldn’t post it. Take that for what you will, but I do believe we can do better on many of the issues Watu brings up.

Yeah, China stole a lot of stuff from us. They were mostly playing catch-up. They aren‘t stupid and are capable of doing more than mimicry. They’ve also invested in their own research facilities and are in a position to become leaders in many areas if we aren’t careful. We should try and prevent IP theft, yes, but we should primarily focus on maintaining our leadership position and producing ideas worth stealing. Otherwise we will be left in the dust in the coming decades wondering what the hell happened.
 
Let's talk about the Space Force. It already existed under another name. Trump changed the name and added more people. They don't wear camo. Right now it is a small part of the Air Force.

At one point there was an Army Air Force, small in the pre-war years. By about 1946 or so it became The Air Force. I ran into an older gentleman the other day who was wearing an AAF hat and he was 16 when he went into the Army Air Force. In any event the Space Force name was for Trump's resume and pub. The are many groups out there that gain and lose as things evolve. I think SF might really a cyber force.
Are you talking about SPAWAR? Just curious. I haven’t looked into how Space Force was created or what it absorbed, but that would seem a likely thing to structure it around. The acronym stands for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, and it is in San Diego. It’s been around for a long time existing as a sub branch of the Navy.
 
If your point is that everything is just fine, perhaps you should debate the issue with the WSJ’s reporting.

US investment hasn’t stopped, but it also hasn’t have kept pace with economic and population growth and the decline has been going on for decades.. This a problem discussed for years in the research communities as funding gets harder to come by. We still fill in pot holes and build new roads, but both parties in Congress are well aware that our investments in infrastructure have not kept pace either. It seems to be one thing both Biden and Trump agreed on.

There have been some efforts to improve research funding such as the now old Bayh-Dole Act which gave universities commercialization rights to the results of federally funded research. OTOH I also know several leading nano tech researchers who moved overseas for better funding and sole control over any commercialization rights.

Corporate funding has increased but tends to be focused on shorter term economic results instead of basic research which relies on federal funding. VC’s only fund commercialization of research results.

My point was to ask why you would make a false statement at worse or a very misleading statement at best? As I stated above comparing current R&D expenditures as a percentage of current expenditures is disingenuous at best due to the current covid spending. I don’t disagree with the need for R&D but I do believe it’s important to stick to the facts and keep things in perspective. I would add asking for increased R&D when we’re running yearly deficits approaching $4T is a non starter.
 
My dad was an AAF officer in WW2, although he always just said he was in the Army. Probably because he was not a pilot?
Your dad was may have been correct technically. It was still the Army Air Force until shortly after WW2 ended. Sept. 1947. There was a lot of people pushing for the change and against it. If he was discharged sooner rather than later he might not have made the switch. Lots of the younger ones had to stay for Armies of occupation, especially in Japan. My favorite picture from that time was MacArthur going to meet Hirohito. H was dressed to the nines and the general towered over him in neat Khakis.
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about the Space Force. It already existed under another name. Trump changed the name and added more people. They don't wear camo. Right now it is a small part of the Air Force.

At one point there was an Army Air Force, small in the pre-war years. By about 1946 or so it became The Air Force. I ran into an older gentleman the other day who was wearing an AAF hat and he was 16 when he went into the Army Air Force. In any event the Space Force name was for Trump's resume and pub. The are many groups out there that gain and lose as things evolve. I think SF might really a cyber force.
I work right next to a couple of soldiers and civilians who are assigned to Space Force. I can confirm that the soldiers do wear Camo. Space Command was no where near as robust as Space Force by any stretch of the imagination. Give it time, it will all make sense in a couple of yrs when they make their mission public.
 
I work right next to a couple of soldiers and civilians who are assigned to Space Force. I can confirm that the soldiers do wear Camo. Space Command was no where near as robust as Space Force by any stretch of the imagination. Give it time, it will all make sense in a couple of yrs when they make their mission public.
Are they going to go all "independence day" on those UFO's you've been so enthralled with?
 
Are they going to go all "independence day" on those UFO's you've been so enthralled with?
Is this legit or fake?
 
I work right next to a couple of soldiers and civilians who are assigned to Space Force. I can confirm that the soldiers do wear Camo. Space Command was no where near as robust as Space Force by any stretch of the imagination. Give it time, it will all make sense in a couple of yrs when they make their mission public.
After I wrote that, I wondered if they didn't wear Camo. Put another way, they don't need Camo but it is more comfortable than a Class A uniform. As far as giving it time, that's pretty much what I said. No one in the 1930s would have thought there was a need for a separate Air Force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shon46
Are you talking about SPAWAR? Just curious. I haven’t looked into how Space Force was created or what it absorbed, but that would seem a likely thing to structure it around. The acronym stands for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, and it is in San Diego. It’s been around for a long time existing as a sub branch of the Navy.
Sorry, I missed this post. I'm sure you know the details better than I do. My point was simply that not much changed when Trump made it sound like he had just made a major move in the military by adding a new branch. In fact, it was an incremental change in something that already existed and a bigger sounding name. Time will tell if it is a big thing or not. We do know that there are a lot of missions to Mars, but really that is because of the two year window.

Tellingly, the members of the Space force still wear Air Force rank insignia. Time will tell whether it turns out to be more like the a branch of the AF or free standing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
Sorry, I missed this post. I'm sure you know the details better than I do. My point was simply that not much changed when Trump made it sound like he had just made a major move in the military by adding a new branch. In fact, it was an incremental change in something that already existed and a bigger sounding name. Time will tell if it is a big thing or not. We do know that there are a lot of missions to Mars, but really that is because of the two year window.

Tellingly, the members of the Space force still wear Air Force rank insignia. Time will tell whether it turns out to be more like the a branch of the AF or free standing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT