Excellent short article on the economic payoffs of NASA.
This is why (to my ears at least) when you argue that big externality-ridden, public goods like space exploration shouldn't be done because "if they were worth doing some private actor would have put his money on the line" you sound really, really dumb. This article deals mainly with the technology spin-off benefits which are hard enough to measure for the same reason that the benefits of information and research have always been hard to measure. It doesn't even begin to incorporate the economic benefits of making the human race an inter-planetary species.
And when you don't have costs and benefits markets don't function in the efficient way we apprecaite them functioning.
"'There are many things we just do better thanks to space investment, big things,' such as telecommunications, Hertzfeld said in an interview. But separating out NASA's contributions to a particular industry such as telecom, much less to the entire economy during the past 60 years from all other contributions and influences is difficult and costly, he said."
ReplyDeleteAgain, how can any intellectually honest person make such a claim and then admit that there's no evidence for the claim? And again, opportunity costs. And the assumption that the private sector could not have developed these technologies on its own or that different, more useful technologies would not have arisen in place of NASA technologies.
"NASA spending has caused 'technological advancement to occur at an earlier time than it would have occurred otherwise' if it would have indeed occurred at all, an early Denver Research Institute study concluded."
I like how he's so confident concerning counterfactuals. First of all, economically speaking, technological advancement in and of itself is not a good thing, is not an end in itself, especially if that technology proves useless or unprofitable. I can invent some stupid trinket, call it technological advancement, say that I've accelerated economic growth, and what not, but that doesn't mean it's true. Getting back to counterfactuals, I would claim--and of course you would dispute me--that had the money been left in private hands, we would actually be much better off today than we are now. I can't know that with 100% metaphysical certitude--and you would certainly point that out--but neither can this guy! In that event, we resort to what is likely to be the case, we resort to economic theory, which would be squarely in favor of my position.
"But placing a monetary value on those benefits proved more difficult, even for one of NASA's greatest achievements."
If we're talking about economic benefits, if you can't place a monetary value on it, then there's no point in claiming it as a benefit.
"And as a result, researchers over the years have come up with a wide array of returns on investment for NASA spending. Estimated ratios of revenue generated compared to spending have been as high as 14-to-1."
ReplyDeleteI would like to see how they define such terms as "revenue generated" and "spending" and "return on investment." Such definitions are crucial. More to the point, a 14-to-1, albeit the high end of these guesses, is pretty absurdly high, and I wonder if even the private sector could achieve such results (meaning I find such an estimate to be dubious).
"Some early academic and other studies 'made very 'generous' assumptions about the spinoffs, goods and services produced as a result of NASA's investments,' G. Scott Hubbard, a consulting professor at Stanford University, said in an e-mail. A study commissioned by Hubbard in the mid-2000s when he was director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California on the center's local economic impact found a 'more conservative' 2- to 3-to-1 ratio."
There you go. What's the point of this article again? It's not surprising that the government would make "generous assumptions."
"He said that for a mission-focused organization like NASA, which isn't making a play for profits, any ratio of economic benefits versus spending that exceeds 1-1 'is a success.'"
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. First, the fact that they're not "making a play for profits" means that they're going to be economically inefficient. This is just so obvious. Not only do they not care about making money, they have less incentive to care about LOSING money or squandering resources. And it's false to state that any spending that exceeds 1-1 is a success. If that spending could have been used by a private enterprise to generate an even greater return, then it's not a success by comparison, it's a loss. And of course this is based on the assumption that our Keynesian multiplier in this instance is greater than 1.
"This is why (to my ears at least) when you argue that big externality-ridden, public goods like space exploration shouldn't be done because "if they were worth doing some private actor would have put his money on the line" you sound really, really dumb."
Funny. I had a similar thought, but in reverse. I think that the burden is on you to explain why that line of reasoning is dumb, instead of simply asserting it. Explain to me why such things then SHOULD BE DONE, and don't cite some article that can't even make its own case, let alone yours, for that matter. If you're going call people who disagree with your unsupported assertions dumb, then don't link to an article that makes you look like a pot.
Yes... the idea that efforts to produce cutting edge technology just might produce cutting edge technology that just might be more broadly beneficial is clearly propaganda and bullshit.
ReplyDelete"In that event, we resort to what is likely to be the case, we resort to economic theory, which would be squarely in favor of my position."
ReplyDeleteCould you explain what economic theory you suppose to be squarely in your position?
I think throughout all of this you're deeply confused about the difference between profit maximization and welfare maximization, and between economic optimality and business or accounting optimality.
"Such definitions are crucial. More to the point, a 14-to-1, albeit the high end of these guesses, is pretty absurdly high, and I wonder if even the private sector could achieve such results (meaning I find such an estimate to be dubious)."
ReplyDeleteAgain here you're demonstrating your confusion about the economics of the question (and you've committed this fallacy on Cafe Hayek too, if I remember). You're comparing private returns to social returns. They're simply not comparable, and that's the whole point.
My comments were out of order because I had to cut and paste. Why did you disable comments on your "inconvenient classical liberals" articles? I wanted to rip those to shreds too. Won't you let me have my fun, Daniel?
ReplyDelete"Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. First, the fact that they're not "making a play for profits" means that they're going to be economically inefficient. This is just so obvious. Not only do they not care about making money, they have less incentive to care about LOSING money or squandering resources."
ReplyDeleteNo, this is wrong. Profit maximization only coincides with welfare maximization in a situation of complete property rights. That's the whole point I'm trying to raise here - in this sort of situation, profit maximization is absolutely not going to provide you with an efficient outcome.
"And it's false to state that any spending that exceeds 1-1 is a success. If that spending could have been used by a private enterprise to generate an even greater return, then it's not a success by comparison, it's a loss."
This I would definitely agree with you on.
"And of course this is based on the assumption that our Keynesian multiplier in this instance is greater than 1."
This is something of a confusion of terms, I think. I'll have to think about that one a little more.
"If you're going call people who disagree with your unsupported assertions dumb, then don't link to an article that makes you look like a pot."
ReplyDeleteGet off your soap-box. I'm not calling anyone dumb - I'm saying smart people can say dumb things.
I understand what is (supposedly) meant by social returns, but what do you mean by private returns? Please, explain what you mean by "social returns." I mean, we're either talking about economics here, or we're not, and I'm definitely talking about economics? What are the social returns? And why aren't social returns and "private returns" (I honestly don't know what you mean by that, if you could clarify)open to comparison? I'm flattered that you remember when I used to comment on Cafe Hayek, Daniel.
ReplyDelete"Why did you disable comments on your "inconvenient classical liberals" articles? I wanted to rip those to shreds too. Won't you let me have my fun, Daniel?"
ReplyDeleteThe authors can't defend themselves, I'm not an expert in any of their lives or though, and it was just food for thought.
A little while back there was a discussion in the comment section that attempted to erase any distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism - as I come across pieces the demonstrate the breadth of classical liberal thought I'm just going to continue to share them - again, as food for thought.
The "Keynesian multiplier" was actually a joke and was not to be taken literally (though I probably did a poor job of making it clear it was a joke). And you called people dumb, pure and simple, Daniel. It's ok, but at least admit it, and own up to it when you're being a pot.
ReplyDelete"I understand what is (supposedly) meant by social returns, but what do you mean by private returns? Please, explain what you mean by "social returns." I mean, we're either talking about economics here, or we're not, and I'm definitely talking about economics? What are the social returns? And why aren't social returns and "private returns" (I honestly don't know what you mean by that, if you could clarify)open to comparison? I'm flattered that you remember when I used to comment on Cafe Hayek, Daniel."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know the difference between social welfare/social returns and private welfare/private returns then you're not talking economics - you're talking business or accounting or finance (which is my point).
As a rough cut definition (better to read up on it yourself) social returns are the net welfare gains to society from an activity, regardless of whether members of the society are parties to the transaction in question or not. Private returns, return on investment, etc., is the net welfare accruing to a private party from a transaction, excluding any costs or benefits to anyone else. Often if you're talking about something like ROI it's even narrower than that - it's only net pecuniary benefits. So it's very, very misleading to compare social returns to, say, an ROI figure and conclude that the estimate of social returns is too high.
"Yes... the idea that efforts to produce cutting edge technology just might produce cutting edge technology that just might be more broadly beneficial is clearly propaganda and bullshit."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I was saying and you know it, Daniel. I'm saying that the implication that government spending benefits the economy, as if the government creates its own wealth or as if that money would not have been spent otherwise, is preposterous, and that's what the article implied.
"No, this is wrong. Profit maximization only coincides with welfare maximization in a situation of complete property rights. That's the whole point I'm trying to raise here - in this sort of situation, profit maximization is absolutely not going to provide you with an efficient outcome."
I would actually tend to agree with the first part of your statement, that the more complete the property rights the greater the coincidence of profit and welfare maximization. However, you come to the wrong conclusion. Just because our property-rights system isn't perfect doesn't mean you get ZERO welfare; it's proportional. And I have not the faith that you do that the government can correct this misalignment or would even know how to.
As to the "classical liberals" articles, I was not aware of the background, and that's fair and your choice.
Pot as in "the pot calling the kettle black." Could have been a clever joke. Didn't turn out to be, lol.
ReplyDelete"I'm saying that the implication that government spending benefits the economy, as if the government creates its own wealth or as if that money would not have been spent otherwise, is preposterous, and that's what the article implied."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what the article implied at all which was why it sounded like you were saying what I suggested you were saying.
Where the hell did you pull this interpretation of the article out of?
"However, you come to the wrong conclusion. Just because our property-rights system isn't perfect doesn't mean you get ZERO welfare; it's proportional."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? I never said it meant that!
If an externality makes profit maximization sub-optimal and if we know what direction the externality is likely to be (positive or negative), then there's nothing outlandish about thinking we can improve upon profit maximization - nothing at all. Basic research, exploration, colonization, the development of technology etc. - are all quite clear positive externalities. It doesn't mean there are no public choice problems. It doesn't mean governments are any more perfect than firms are. What it means is you don't have to just dismiss this out of hand or pretend that its unclear what the result will be.
"If you don't know the difference between social welfare/social returns and private welfare/private returns then you're not talking economics - you're talking business or accounting or finance (which is my point).
ReplyDeleteAs a rough cut definition (better to read up on it yourself) social returns are the net welfare gains to society from an activity, regardless of whether members of the society are parties to the transaction in question or not. Private returns, return on investment, etc., is the net welfare accruing to a private party from a transaction, excluding any costs or benefits to anyone else. Often if you're talking about something like ROI it's even narrower than that - it's only net pecuniary benefits. So it's very, very misleading to compare social returns to, say, an ROI figure and conclude that the estimate of social returns is too high."
Ok, that's what I thought you meant by "private returns" but wasn't sure. I get the difference between economic and financial profits and all that, and I understand social welfare but wanted to see your definition (which was well articulated). The fact of the matter is that the two are hard to separate. Financial profit motivates and creates economic profit. As a purchaser of a businessman who reaps from me financial profits, I also reap economic profit. If I create a life-saving medical device in response to my desire for profit, I profit, those who purchase it profit, and arguably those who are not party to such a transaction profit, since my device saved their loved one or a future inventor or a great novelist or made some medical treatment cheaper, thereby freeing up capital to be used to create new products, new industries, new jobs, etc., that can be enjoyed by people completely unaware of me, my device, or my customers.
"The fact of the matter is that the two are hard to separate. Financial profit motivates and creates economic profit."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! That's why we like markets so much! But that doesn't mean we pretend that profit maximization is always consistent with welfare maximization. I think we're all smart enough and mature enough to move past econ 101.
Let's take your medical device example though. The lives you save in the future from that aren't going to compensate you for it. Medical tech corporations are going to discount the value of those future lives saved based on the discount rates of their shareholders. That means the profits you get from that medical device are going to considerably underestimate the actual benefits of the device.
Fine, you say - but it still gives you some profit, so the profit motive still motivates you to make the device. Sure, that's true. But it ignores tradeoffs and opportunity cost. Let's say you could make two medical devices - one that improves human welfare by a certain amount for the next 10 years, after which it is useless. The other device improves human welfare by 100 times the amount of the first, but its benefits are spread out more thinly over the next 200 years. The profit motive is going to lead you to invent the first device, leaving behind the prospect of the second device.
So yes, when you look at one medical device in isolation these externalities aren't that bad as long as you still get some profit. But if you compare multiple possibilities with each other, the externalities mess up the tradeoffs you face. Distant benefits accruing to future generations that aren't even born yet aren't considered. Benefits that you won't be compensated for (like insights that arise from basic research) won't be considered.
The price mechanism won't work. Your incentives are distorted.
Humans have evolved institutions to deal with that. Families. States. Law. Norms that privelege the social good (that's why Ayn Rand is so f%^&*ed up and confused).
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, these sorts of libertarian faux-economics critiques of government ignore all that and completely miss the point of the market and property rights in the process.
The market is an institutional tool, and you have to use the right tool for the right job.
Markets aren't good at maintaining a clean environment, producing research, producing information, exploration, providing benefits for future generations, etc.
"This is why (to my ears at least) when you argue that big externality-ridden, public goods like space exploration shouldn't be done because "if they were worth doing some private actor would have put his money on the line" you sound really, really dumb."
ReplyDeleteYou only sound really dumb if you think that there is some inherent reason to do space exploration. If you don't share that assumption - and I don't - then it isn't really dumb.
Anyway, most of what NASA does is rent seeking; rent seeking is generally speaking economically wasteful.
"Get off your soap-box."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
""Get off your soap-box."
ReplyDeleteTalk about the pot calling the kettle black."
Says the biggest soap-box-sob-story of them all :)
I'm not now nor have I ever demanded that anyone get off their soap box, right? Fucking have your opinion. That's fine by me.
ReplyDelete(a) I'm not the person who has blog. (b) Check out the statistics on DISQUS - you have four times the number of comments that I have.
Hahaha - aren't you supposed to be relaxed on vacation? Where are you, btw?
ReplyDelete"There's no doubt that NASA spending -- as with the spending of any government agency -- can benefit the economy directly through the purchase of goods and services, and indirectly by inspiring industries that spin off from its technologies."
ReplyDeleteI think you're being willfully naive here, Daniel. Perhaps I have a more finely tuned bullshit/propaganda detector because I am naturally more skeptical of the government and have probably spent more time on the subject, but it's all about reading between the lines, or at least understanding what your average reader is likely to take away from certain things.
"There's no doubt." An obvious rhetorical tool. Never trust someone who tells you "there's no doubt"; moreover, immediately suspect that they're trying to feed you bullshit or sell you something. This does not apply only to government. Your average reader takes journalists and government as ultimate authority, or at least harbors little skepticism toward either.
"As with the spending of any government agency." Come on, Daniel. This one is so obvious. Why include it? You can't tell me that government officials don't love it when journalists say such things, to give their pork-barrel spending the air of legitimacy, economic or otherwise. Why emphasize this point in the article? Why throw it in as an aside, when it's completely irrelevant?
It's a completely one-sided take on spending, technology, and economic benefits. It's propaganda by omission. You can't tell me that tactic doesn't exist. You're a very smart man, Daniel, and when you can't admit something so obvious, with all due respect it does make me question your intentions sometimes.
Aha - "reading between the lines". I've found that more often than no that means "making shit up".
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer to assume that "can benefit" does not mean "always benefits" otherwise he would have written "always benefits".
""There's no doubt." An obvious rhetorical tool. Never trust someone who tells you "there's no doubt"; moreover, immediately suspect that they're trying to feed you bullshit or sell you something."
When "there's no doubt" is followed by a phrase as equivocating as "can benefit" I really don't see how it's much to worry about.
"You're a very smart man, Daniel, and when you can't admit something so obvious, with all due respect it does make me question your intentions sometimes."
Well it certainly would be in keeping with all the intention-questioning you've engaged in so far.
At an undisclosed locale. ;)
ReplyDeleteI'll soon be in Yellowstone though. Can't wait.
My point is that your willingness to argue is a good personality feature; and other people also have this feature.
You and Barbarossa have at it.
I wouldn't think that if Nasa went under, that some private actor might take it up. It's possible, but I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, what does it mean? It means that it requires government to have Nasa. It means that it requires an organization to tax everyone to provide a service that no man or enterprise would willingly provide.
Mattheus -
ReplyDelete1. I think private actors would take up some of the effort. There is definitely a role for the private sector in space exploration that has been underemphasized for too long - but I don't think it makes sense for them to pursue it alone, for the same externalities I cited above.
2. It does mean all those things - the question is, is that bad or not? Why wouldn't any man or enterprise willingly provide it? You leave all these things unstated, but they're essential for determining what we think of these conclusions which you have (accurately) drawn.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI think you need to stop putting the government on a pedestal and consider it for what it is: a collection of people with nametags doing violence in the name of good.
Suppose you live in a protected community with hundreds of families. Let's also suppose, for whatever reason, a band of a few dozen people picked up guns and have gone to each house demanding protection money. Let's further assume that you and I are neighbors and we enter into a debate on the merits of space travel. While we agree on many technological benefits that derive from space exploration, I can't endorse "government action," which is to say, I can't endorse these dozen highwaymen spending our money on something that we, as private individuals, largely would have no business in. I can't imagine that it's "economically beneficial" to have these pirates and brigands spending our money in ways inconsistent of our desires. But that's exactly what you're arguing. That just because a government spends the money, all of a sudden the expenditure becomes worthwhile despite no individual ever wanting to put his money forward. That's just ludicrous.
Is any spending worthwhile because someone steals your money and decides to blow it on something?
ReplyDeleteIs that the criteria for what should be bought/invested into??
Since when do I put government on a pedestal? I think your own views on government are coloring how you read mine. I'm fairly skeptical of government. I'm fairly skeptical in general. My skepticism of other things - the market, your school of thought, etc. - leads you to think I embrace the government in some special way.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you assume you're in a community of families with no means of protection. Let's assume the families get together and decide they want to create an institution to protect themselves from violent outsiders. Let's say that guns and fortifications cost money and the families decide that everyone living in the community has to support the effort financially since they're all benefiting from it.
That's exactly what I'm arguing.
What's the truth? A mixture of these stories. It's unsettling that so many people who ostensibly claim Hayek and emergent institutions and spontaneous order can so quickly discard it when it doesn't suit their ends.
The reality is a mixed picture. There are gangsters demanding protection money that form governments. There are also families protecting themselves from those gangsters that form governments. Nature's action is complex, and nothing is gained in the wrong run by pretending it is simple and reducing it to a series of elementary propositions.
I'm not saying government is always a pretty picture - I never have. You can't say it's never an evolved, emergent, efficient, liberty-enhancing institution.
My skepticism of other things - the market, your school of thought, etc. - leads you to think I embrace the government in some special way.
ReplyDeleteYour skepticism that people can lead their own lives without gangsters demanding protection money is what makes you embrace government. Your economic theories that say it's better in the long run to take from everyone and spend it immediately by a central organization - that's what makes you embrace government. You have all sorts of excuses and justifications for it (and maybe you don't proclaim the virtue of it - but you're far from the "necessary evil" axis either).
That's exactly what I'm arguing.
And that's force. That's coercion. Whose to say that every family agrees with the picture? What if one doesn't? What if I don't feel the need to contribute (because I can defend myself)? Then you say it's legitimate to use deadly force so that everyone forks over money to pay for this collective entity. But it's NOT. It's not any more legitimate to force people to pay for security than it is to force them to pay for space travel (which was the point you were supposed to get before).
You're getting mired and bogged down in these prioritarian concerns that 1) are essentially immoral no matter how you look at it, and 2) are not at all unanimous. It would be a different story if it were unanimous that we all agreed on protection, but people wouldn't even agree to that. How can you legitimately steal from them to provide this (or space travel?!?!?!?)?
It's unsettling that so many people who ostensibly claim Hayek and emergent institutions and spontaneous order can so quickly discard it when it doesn't suit their ends.
In the first place, I'm not a huge Hayek fan. I like the spontaneous order and emergent institutions fine - and his work on capital theory - but there's a limit. I would barely consider Hayek a libertarian were he alive today. He endorsed all sorts of wacko interventionism (which is why there are so many Rothbardians who want nothing to do with him).
In the second place, citing "emergent institutions" doesn't legitimize anything. It gives an EXPLANATION but it doesn't give it LEGITIMACY. I can explain how it is that people grow up to be assholes (emergent child abuse, or whatever), but that doesn't make it okay for them to be that way. An explanation is not legitimacy.
You can't say it's never an evolved, emergent, efficient, liberty-enhancing institution.
Yes I can. Because governments are always liberty-destroying. By necessity, they use the threat of guns and cages to take money, which they then use to finance employees who restrict your liberty. I cannot think of a single instance in history where a government grows (or a government is established where none was prior) that ENHANCED liberty because it's impossible. Government is a vehicle of force.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteIf you're curious about this subject, you should check out a book called The Economic Laws of Scientific Research by Terence Kealey. The weight of the evidence he presents against the supposed benefits of government-funded scientific research is staggering.
I'll check out Kealey, thanks. I'm a little curious why the conventional wisdom/consensus among economists seems to go against Kealey if the evidence is really "staggering".
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about how Kealey makes his argument, since the theoretical understanding of these issues suggests that empirical estimates based on market data are expected to severely underestimate the benefits.
How, in other words, does Kealey overcome empirical problems (outlined in this article and in my comments) that have stumped other economists for decades. Kealey must be a very smart guy, or perhaps he's missed something.
Either way - I probably won't get to the book any time soon, but I'll track down Kealey, his arguments, and perhaps some papers he's written.
btw - I like the Keynes quote in your profile - I wish more people read the letter to Roosevelt when we were passing health reform.
ReplyDeleteI see you're 17 - got any college plans yet?
Kealey explains that the issue was more or less settled by Francis Bacon and everyone just took his word for it, kind of like how Adam Smith kept the labor theory of value going for another century, even though it's plainly ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteKealey doesn't try to examine the economic benefits of certain privately funded technologies versus certain publicly funded ones. Instead he shows that whenever the government is significantly involved in funding science, the rate of technological growth that produces economic benefits is much lower than when the government is not involved to a significant extent. He measures the economic benefits of various technologies by examining economic growth across various countries during various times (he explains why he can get away with that in the book). As such, there's no one graph or chart that will blow your mind, but when you put it all together it's a very impressive argument. It's far from perfect--I had some questions unanswered, and sometimes he doesn't prove his claims as strongly as he seems to think he has, but all in all it's quite excellent and very interesting. If I hadn't lent my book out I'd offer some examples.
As for college, I'm looking for a classical education. St. John's College and Shimer College seem like decent choices.
I had no idea that Bacon even got into these issues, then again I've never read much Bacon directly.
ReplyDelete"Instead he shows that whenever the government is significantly involved in funding science, the rate of technological growth that produces economic benefits is much lower than when the government is not involved to a significant extent."
Well isn't that what you'd expect from what I'm saying? If benefits are able to be captured by private actors private funding of research should suffice and it will be reflected in recorded private transactions. I'm not surprised at all that privately funded research leads to higher economic growth rates. You also have to keep in mind the time horizon we're talking about - the very research and exploration that resists market efficiency is the kind of basic research that we'd expect to have a much longer time horizon.
Hmm... just googled him. He seems to be a biochemist. That's not reason not to read his stuff, of course, but it makes me wonder what I'll get. I'll check it out and perhaps post on him in the future.
Thanks for commenting - please keep reading.
Daniel, I need to correct the Teenage economist a bit. Keeley's logic is a bit different. His most important point is to deny that science is a public good.
ReplyDeleteHe claims that it is a highly private good that is paid for mostly not by money but by people's/firms' own scientific contributions. In other words, in order to capitalise on the scientific knowledge you have to become a memeber of the scientific community. At a minimum you need to muster the language of the science the achievements of which you want to use, but in order to fully capitalise on the cutting edge science you need to practice science at the professional level.
Moreover, the logic of science creates incentives to share scientific discoveries, because it doesn't pay to reinvent the wheel.