There's been a lot of talk about tax payers funding our economy, which it's fairly well documented is quite effective at distributing wealth disproportionately to the richest of us. I read the following quote on a newspaper website which puts another spin on the issue of taxpayer supported welfare for the rich:
Universities, especially those that maintain cauldrons of original research, are incredible engines of economic development. That is why so many pharmaceutical companies start up, for example, within an hour's drive of major research universities, like California's Berkeley and Stanford.
The person who wrote this was advocating more development of research universities to spur economic development.
My interpretation of this is that our tax dollars fund universities, which leads to research that benefits the marketplace. Sure these companies employ people and put out some truly useful goods and services, but are the taxpayers getting our full return on that investment? When that company lays people off, do they have a safety net? Are they being paid fairly even when they are employed? Are those goods and services beneficial, or are they actually harmful? Are historically under-supported people (aka, people targeted for destruction) being lifted up by this "economic development," or is their subjugation being reinforced?
Questions, questions. I haz no answerz.
1 comment:
I guess since I'm just commenting on this now, that I'm four months behind on your blog.
I'm struck by the contrast between the cost-benefit ratio we, the taxpayers, get from investments like a failed car company on the one hand, and medical research on the other hand. So much good has come from the American University system, in terms of pure science, and also applied science in fields like medicine, computing, engineering, and business, that it seems like Universities are one of the more beneficial things the government does with our money.
Post a Comment