Post

It is sad that Scott Atlas doesn’t understand basic economics. Paul Samuelson wrote about public goods—why NIH has been such a stunning success—more than 75 yrs ago. Also, to see why Atlas urges ending US success, just look at who elevates him: pro-privatization billionaires. 1/

It’s ironic that Atlas begins by quoting Milton Friedman when the whole article fails to grapple with the market failures created by fundamental research—which is both a Samuelson public good and an information good (eg Arrow). papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The reason the US has such a powerful science and innovation ecosystem is simple: decades of public investment (via largely independent agencies, including NIH and NSF). Basic science builds future cures over a timeline too long for the private sector. /3 www.infotimes.us/basic-scienc...

There is no way for the private sector to replace public investment in science. youtu.be/A47gXLNc7vQ?...

Sorry I meant to make this the first image

Now, why is Atlas writing this? I’m not saying he doesn’t believe it, he probably does. I’m just saying he wouldn’t have his recent career if he didn’t say things that benefit rightwing billionaires. Hoover, AIER, Trump 1 …

now he’s writing an anti-society pro-privatization article in the conservative Bezos Post. This book describes how far-right billionaires have pushed to harm democracy using “stealth politics” - lifting up junk ideas via thinktanks and rightwing media. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...

Stealth politics and oligarch ownership of media is why this article exists. Take what Atlas says with that bias in mind. He’s been selected and elevated by billionaires because what he says helps billionaires.

As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, we can do better: we can support the public interest, freedom-including good health, equality for everyone, curbing the tyranny created by billionaires, and a free and fair marketplace of ideas. The opposite of what this is.

Don’t read the Bezos Post (except for pieces by the few great reporters that remain from the past). In DC, @51st.news is much better local news. For national politics check out indep outlets like TPM, @newrepublic.com , @washingtonmonthly.bsky.social

Last, abolishing the NIH and NSF would in fact create “a funding vacuum”. I hesitate to even engage with this utterly naive view of economics and science, but I’ll note CZI and HHMI’s dramatic course changes, Bell Labs support by govt contracts, and the much smaller Wellcome/CZI/HHMI budgets.

I’m not going to link the Bezos Post piece and give them clicks. It’s really not worth your time. I’m on vacation today with the family but I’ll put this thread together into a post soon.

This is a very impt point I’ve also discussed with @josephestiglitz.bsky.social. We granted Bell Labs support by allowing them monopoly power. A *very* similar thing supported journalism for decades— natural monopolies over classified ads that we allowed. Also see @deanbaker13.bsky.social

Yes and after the monopoly ended (good!), research in advanced communications suffered in the following decades since there were few dedicated university or government labs to pick up the slack.

This persists to this day as current legacy providers (you know who) have scant interest in novel architectures or (god forbid) advanced spectrum sharing, a technology that has existed for 20 years.

In either case it was an extra-market subsidy — effectively these were govt subsidies for the public goods of fundamental science research and journalism.

Yes, and as it happens, unlike many companies eager for gov't contracts, Bell Labs execs had mixed feelings, as things like Safeguard took away people from work on comunications system. (Of course, during WW II priorities clear, and since it was *A* T&T, patriotism + having supporters in govt.)