So apparently Trump's tax plan that was just passed cans the waiver deduction for gradschool

>House has an okay bill
>Trump wants the House bill
>Senate has a dogshit bill
>they still have to pass it because the Senate are a bunch of neocuck traitors, so it's either the Senate bill with some minor House additions, or nothing
>everyone on r/pol/ starts screaming "Yass, Trump, we did it, based!"

>Tax reform that mainly benefits the rich
The world is laughing at the US

>The tax plan is fantastic
why?

B-because Trump... MAGA... Shillary's emails...

Can't you read? He said because it triggers Redditors.

dude, senators were literally HANDWRITING IN riders they wanted right before the passed it. Regardless of your political leanings this bill is dumb as shit.

You’re literally retarded. I expect no better from /pol/.

The economy will negatively impacted eventually, but this is simply part of Trump's plan to cripple American science.

First, he crippled the budgets of the funding agencies like the NSF. This is not just anti-climate science. Every field is getting less money. The computation budget at LLNL was halved in the most recent budget.

Now, he want to cut off the supply of scientists. Scientists are already picking a less profitable career than one in industry. But now if they want to pursue it they'll have to go into massive debt. This gamble works for doctors because their careers are pretty lucrative afterwards. Scientists are never going to make enough money to pay back a decade of student loans.

So people won't become scientists. Personally, I'll have to do the money to see if I can keep going forward in my PhD. If I don't get a really good fellowship or internship it may not be sustainable for my wife and I.

So with no money and no science, Trump will have succeeded in crippling American science. But what his tiny, decaying brain doesn't realize is how much industry depends on science. People in industry don't operate in a bubble. In computing, their is a huge industry presence. They read the papers, they recruit the graduates, etc. If they can't get this from America, they'll go to Europe or China, along with the scientists.

Can't wait to Make China Great Again.

Can someone explain me how do you spend your "waiver" and what the hell is it?

Also as we know all academia is basically leftypol, so why arent you happy to pay more taxes?

>China
When will this meme die?

Yeah, publicly funded research has generated so many great, useful scientific discoveries in the past decade such as...such as....gimme a minute...uh...

Schools charge tuition to attend the school. Most PhDs recieve a "package" akin to a hiring package. This typically includes a stipend for ~18k a year and free tuition in the form of a tuition waiver. The wavier is worth a lot more than the stipend, usually.

You cannot spend it. You never see it. You just don't have to pay tuition.

>happy to pay more taxes
perhaps the picture will make it clearer for you

Can schools just take you for phd for free then?

Maybe this will clear things up for you.
top500.org/lists/2017/11/

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence lmao
A decade is a tricky timeline. It's hard to tell how important discoveries will become in the first decade after someone publishes papers about them. We know that public research has funded many important discoveries historically though. Why are you singling out the last 10 years? Do you think something changed?

People will be happy that their taxes are lower today and wonder why we don't have a publicly available cure for some superbug tomorrow.

On the bright side though, private sector research is about to blow up, and people who managed to get through their programs before the reform going to get filthy rich due to less future competition entering the workforce, and from corporations tending to focus on finding 50 different kinds of chemo for various problems instead of outright trying to deliver a cure.

>top500.org/lists/2017/11/
Arent supercomputers the thing of the past, as now scientists use distributed clusters?
Generally speaking, totalitarian corrupt shithole can't produce anything creative, including scientific researchers.

It's retarded to tax Allergan or Intel so that instead of buying lottery tickets like new clinical trials or CPU manufacturing processes, we can instead buy lottery tickets that, I don't know, sets can be theorized more efficiently or we can finally get to the bottom of the mystery of finch gender identities.

"Public research" has been a meme since the 80's.

If you're asking if schools can simply make tuition $0, I'm pretty sure they won't do that.

Right now, money still moves when a student has a waiver. The student's PhD advisor brings in research money in the form of grants, and some of this money goes to the school to pay the student's tuition.

Another solution, of course, is to lower tuition to a reasonable number. But then schools won't have money to create a new fucking Office of Diversity.

>scientists use distributed clusters?
Sounds like a supercomputer to me.
Considering that the Supercomputing conference attracted 15k people this year, I would say that supercomputing is not dead.

If China continues to pour money into computing while we continue to decrease it, no amount of creativity will make up for the gap. We won't even have researchers, let alone creative ones.

the senate version doesn't
the house version does

it still has to go through reconciliation

It's illegal to give away high value items for free in an attempt to avoid paying taxes. They'd have to actually turn around and value PhDs/programs at $0 to justify the school/student not needing to pay taxes for the exchange of services. Kind of like how a business can't just give you a house or car and you or they pay no taxes on the exchange, your parents can't just give you all of their stuff before they die and leave an empty will to avoid paying an estate tax, or how lottery winners can't just take 100% of the money they've won. None of that flies. Well, unless you're making the exchanges behind closed doors, that is.

Also most schools are already saying they'll just make tuition cost 0 for grad students instead of doing waivers if the bill goes through with the change

It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it!!

Unfortunately Republicans also hate it but we can ignore that. See guys! We measure our winning by how much the other side hates us!
We're winning! So much winning!!

>It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it!!
sadly, this is how many people think now. and they actually call themselves patriots

Do you have some strange auto-correct that changes some words to "lottery tickets?" I'm having a tough time reading this.

Proof?

Then perhaps PhDs should be treated as employees. We already are, in some regards.

So basically they need to pretend to spend more money to receive more funding?
Well, it is technically free now, are you saying that giving something for free to selected people is illegal in the us?

All research is a gamble (otherwise it wouldn't be research). Private sector research is focused on useful things, while public sector research is focused on whatever people want to write grants about. Tax dollars come from somewhere. Therefore when you tax, you move money from the former bet to the latter.

>Proof?
Well you caught me. Half of that's an assumption. My uni says they're talking about it and my friend at Oregon State said they're going to make tuition $0 if that's what happens.

But I doubt it will be in the final bill so it's not exactly something that needs to be worried about.

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence lmao
Not even your own people would buy that excuse. Try writing a grant paper with that line of reasoning you fuckhead.

>Private sector research is focused on useful things
Such as, how to make the absolute most possible money for whoever is paying for the research

> It's a good bill cause Democrats hate it
It is a good heuristic tho.

>giving away something for free to selected people is illegal in the us
Depends on the value of the thing being given away. That established value of the thing you're giving away plays a part in determining if it's a taxable item and parties involved in the exchange of that item are responsible for paying taxes on the exchange.

This is just another way to say that private researchers are focused on how to create the best product for consumers.

Yes, people pay money for useful things that make their lives better. That's why we have money. And why corporations generally sell things for money.

I see. You are one terrible writer, my man.

But yes, research is a gamble. Private sector research is focused on questions that will have some market value for the company funding it. And it also needs to be something that will pay off quickly.

Publicly funded research can answer bigger questions, with perhaps less profitable answers. Things like origin of the universe type questions.
Don't you see value in understanding how our world works?

Do sports people also receive a "waiver" to pay for the participation in tournaments?

it's not though. think for yourself mang

Pick a (hard) science and we can discuss how publicly funded research impacted it, and how that field eventually lead to some discovery that benefitted you.

If you start thinking for yourself about every government decision you just won't have enough time for anything else.

Wrong. They wanted to make the most profitable product.

No, they pay for things that they *think* will make their lives better.

if you don't have enough time to think about something, then you should refrain from drawing a conclusion about it

Easy. Liberal arts lead to the discovery of the fact that white males are evil, and it benefits me because I am not white.

You don't have to think about every government decision, but it doesn't make sense to voice an opinion you didn't think about.

>they think shareholders care more about them than they do lining their own pockets
youtu.be/sW_7i6T_H78
Just one example out of many showing how wrong you are.

>Americans have to PAY for their PhD and live from crumbles left from their stipend
Never fails to make me laugh

The pollution problem is only overpopulation problem. What do you want, to halt design of new gadgets?

Btw it only proves that companies make better and better stuff, thats why people throw old phones away and by new ones.

>No, they pay for things that they *think* will make their lives better.

So why do you think you know their lives better than them?

1900's America and 2000's China were gross and polluted. 1950's America and 2050's China were/will no longer be starving and rich enough to start bitching about pollution. Priorities shift, for corporations and customers, but only after industrial and tech advancement address people's top ones first.

>a river catches fire
>entire lakes become anoxic
>birds die out in droves
>bitching about pollution

People never cared about the environment, there just were much fewer people in the past.

>So why do you think you know their lives better than them?

That's not what I said. I said that they don't know what will make their lives better. Rather, advertisers pretend to know what will make their lives better and many people fall for it.

The point is that public demand is never going to lead to a company wanting to research basic science. But basic science research often benefits people. So the government should fund it.

If it benefits people, can you ask them to voluntarily donate to your researches?

In the 50s people started caring. Idk if it's because of kuznet's or if it's because they started actually noticing the damage they were doing.

>First child starves to death due to bad harvest
>Second child gets trampled by cows
>Get infection due to shitty clothing and harsh winter
>Can't afford antibiotics because they aren't even discovered, much less mass produced
>Die

Pre-industrialization was shit too. That's why people put up with the pollution and messy production that let us get to a better life. If you were minimizing your carbon footprint from the start, above all else, civilization would've never gone anywhere.

>The point is that public demand is never going to lead to a company wanting to research basic science. But basic science research often benefits people. So the government should fund it.

And unresponsive government bureaucracies will fritter away money on pointless grants to whoever's got the best connections, taking money from people who would invest or donate more responsibly.

>Copypasta?

That sounds incredibly volatile. How is a lab supposed to secure funding for a 50 year project from individual donors? Especially for something that's never going to turn a profit.

Yes! And let us unionize!

They compete in the tournaments for free because they're "student athletes" and sign contracts where they agree that their labor is valued at $0 and that they are not employees. The schools are taxed for giving them scholarships, though, and as a result when student athletes receive allotment checks for housing, food, etc. they may notice the total amount they receive doesn't add up to the value of a full scholarship less the costs of tuition.

So I guess if you really wanted, you could rearrange grad student scholarships and funding to be more akin to student athlete set ups, but it still doesn't change the fact that Uncle Sam is coming for those tax dollars. They'll just tax the school up front instead of collecting it from the students' stipends after. That way you can be blind to the tax hit like the athletes are.

Most of those things don't really have a lot to do with carbon.
We just should've used the precautionary principle a little more. For example, when plastics were first invented people started making everything out of plastic.
Obviously you have to start somewhere, but spraying carcinogenic chemicals everywhere, dumping chemical waste directly into water systems (etc) and just generally being careless is a bad idea.

You probably should, but that opens up a can of worms that most Universities would aim to squash quickly because they value the free labor.

It's true that money get's wasted sometimes, but the point is that the basic science research is not going to be done by private companies. Even if you gave the companies all that tax money back, there is just research that they would never perform.

Names on buildings seem to have a pretty good track record.

all that gets you is the building

Now that I think about it, charities already fund research which is what you are describing. So yes, that's a good idea as well.

I'll have to think a bit more about what sorts of research a government may be able to do that a private organization wouldn't.

> HHMI spends about $1 million per HHMI Investigator per year, which amounts to annual investment in biomedical research of about $825 million.
>The institute has an endowment of $18.2 billion, making it the second-wealthiest philanthropic organization in the United States and the second-best endowed medical research foundation in the world.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute

Gates or Bezos could singlehandedly endow 5 of those, in whatever fields they want. And that's not even counting the world's 2000 other billionaires.

So you're proposing our billionaires pay for basic research?
Hey, I'm kind of liking that idea.
We could call it a "tax" or something...
They could fund committees of scientists that choose which research to fund, call it the National Science Foundation or something...
Now we just need to convince the billionaires.

keep thinking smart guy

and yet they don't

lol

Yeah, I see the benefits of such an organization. Just read a bit about the Science Philanthropy Alliance as well.

What about defense spending. Surely the government should fund that sort of research, right?

You know two important differences? Consent and responsibility.

and yet you can't propose a viable alternative

I think you should consider the philanthropy model. Like really consider it.

If you think it is so unviable, I'd be curious as to why you think so. A bit of research shows that research is being funded this way. So why shouldn't we rely on it more heavily, and reduce government spending?

That is my viable alternative. If basic research is so desperately underfunded, billionaires will vainly steer their money to get buildings or particles or theorems or whatever named after themselves. Some currently do that.

Meanwhile, in this world of unlimited wants and limited resources, they will also steer money towards practical things like fighting malaria or teaching Indians to poo in loo.

Governments do the same thing when trading off between basic research funding or paying for a 90 year old's hip replacement. It's just that that system produces worse results overall due to weaker accountability.

because richfags don't just give all their money away for science, because if they did they would not do a better job distributing it than NSF, because it still wouldn't be nearly enough money, and because its not a good idea to just wait and hope that they fund things

they won't though, and most of them don't care about naming shit after themselves. look if you can convince them to give more money to research, thats great, but its not a viable alternative to govt funding. it would just be supplementary

>man Trump sure is doing great for the economy reddit btfo
>btw what's a Keynesian
You couldn't build a better bait if you tried

>We should give money to people and things based on their marketability and not their deservedness
The philanthropy model is terrible and should only be used on things you want to sabotage.

>fund that sort of research
I work in medical supply distribution, and we have a huge account with the DOD (Bases have hospitals) so I can tell you from first hand experience that the Department of Defense is one of the most ass-backwards organizations bureaucratic wrong-headedness in human history.
They will never do anything the easy way if a much more convoluted and pain in the ass alternative exists.
So yes, a government SHOULD invest in R&D in the interest of national security. The problem is when you get things like the military industrial complex that is less interested in R&D and more interested in financial and political aspects.

i have worked in DOD research and most of the bureaucratic things that get in the way are the result of very strict security policies, not financial and political reasons

Its ok. While America becomes great again, the rest of the world can work towards the progress of humanity. By the time your dark ages are over, there should be plenty of jobs for you scrubbing toilets in China.

because democrats don't want the country to burn to the ground so it makes them mad

>Generally speaking, totalitarian corrupt shithole can't produce anything creative, including scientific researchers.
luckily china doesn't need to produce them now. send all the rich kids to america because they're the only ones who can afford phds, then bring them home once they're done.

>not financial and political reasons
I was referring more towards the actually industries themselves, and how many people are employed by the military industrial complex. Think about how much money has been dumped into the F-35, and what they got for it. There are a lot of people who have jobs because of those projects, and there are a lot of people who get rich because of those projects. There's a vested interest in maintaining that, or inflating it wherever possible by the people who benefit from it. I'm thinking that bureaucracy pops up because there is money and politics. Maybe I'm conflating it a bit.

Military is a third rail. You can't make a rational argument about the worth of a military project without being branded a pacifist libtard who supports radical Islam and worships every night to the alter of satan and Clinton.
The lobbyist's work is 90% done, all that remains is depositing the cheque.

the solution to keynesians are always print money.

keynesian would plant crops to invest in future dinners

>erhm I forgot to plant more crops after I printed more spgahetti
>but I need da spaghetti now!
>I couldn't find the spaghetti crop so I just printed more

so you think a billionaire REALLY needs every cent he makes?

This is the direction we're going, where scientific enterprises are directed and funded by VC bloated techbros instead of informed experts. They get excited about some far future idea, do some inexpert math, and then offer millions in funding to whomever takes up the project. The people working on it surely know that this is an obvious dead end, but if dumb billionaires want to give them funding, they aren't going to say no.

No, but government doesnt need it either.

>erhm i decided not to plant crops last season cause seeds are a waste of money
>but i need to eat now!
>i guess we'll just borrow more food from china