Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I can see the merit of your position with respect to conventional brute-force charity: feeding, clothing, housing, and healing people who can't do this for themselves. What your position seems to neglect is the value of competition and diversity in doing what is new. Scientific research is an obvious example (and far from the brute-force end of the spectrum) but "social entrepreneurs" have also found innovative ways to help the disadvantaged.

I would be much happier with your approach if it included broad reforms in research funding agencies -- reforms that would pour a modest fraction of their funds into channels with different performance criteria. Today, most agencies act under incentives that punish surprising failures, with no effective way to offset these by surprising successes. The result is extreme risk aversion precisely where risk can best be tolerated -- by agencies kept afloat by a sea of tax money, and managing a vast, diversified portfolio of research investments.

What I'd like to see is the use of metrics that try to measure the difference between research that produces one unit of benefit and research that produces a million units. I'd then want policies that judge agencies not by their (ideally, many) failures but by the sum of these and their (potentially enormous) successes.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 04:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What your position seems to neglect is the value of competition and diversity in doing what is new.

This is the only upside of wealth inequality, that sometimes a part of the immense wealth accumulated at the top is used for patronage of the arts, of science, or for building something lasting.

So, actually, philantropists like the Gatess foundation could pour money into vaccine research, or into orphan diseases, as we know Big Pharma is only interested in treatment, not prevention.

The sad part is that, in more "socialist" times, a worldwide push to eradicate smallpox was successful, and the likelyhood of anything like that being initiated in our neoliberal international climate is next to zero.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 07:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the only upside of wealth inequality

But if not for the wealthy, who would buy expensive new high-tech junk that doesn't work well -- thereby creating a market that drives design improvement and cost reduction until the masses can buy low-cost working tech-junk?

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 12:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
1 comment

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
25 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
24 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments

Occasional Series