Yes, but these are all separate decisions with their own (opportunity) costs, aren't they?
Think of it this way:
Why would the government invest in Facebook or Twitter when there are plenty of people who already have their wallets open? That goes for many tech startups -- YCombinator alone is very beneficial for the government in an indirect way because the government no longer needs to think about funding tech startups -- someone else is already doing it really well for them.
So the real necessity for government intervention is for extremely risky and potentially extremely unprofitable ventures that allow for amazing possibilities (think NASA when the US was afraid of the Soviets). Pure scientific research is often this way as well.
And even NASA is a small fraction of the federal budget (I remember Neil DeGrasse Tyson repeating "half a penny to a dollar" a lot.
So my point is this: startups, research, or pretty much any economy-advancing investments aren't going to exceed the cost of trying to keep people happy. The War in Iraq is an example: we wouldn't be there if we weren't scared 10 years ago. We wouldn't have been eager to go to war unless it made us feel happier or safer or more content. In contrast, how content do people feel when they hear about a space shuttle explosion? Or money "wasted" on research that could be used to feed the poor?
Why did we even fund NASA again? Oh yeah, we were afraid. The United States collectively didn't give a crap about space until we imagined the Soviets creating the Death Star before us.
I'm not saying any of this is rational. Actually, I really agree with you, but the fact that money is going to startups is a good sign. The quantity is low because nothing will cost more than making people feel happy, safe, and secure right now.
No, he is simply an ignorant conservative hack. The boom and bust happened in the subprime loan market. Subprime loans are by definition those which are "sub-prime" (i.e. don't qualify for backing from Federal Agencies). This is why they were aggregated, sliced into parcels and sold on the market as CDOs rather than simply transferred to Fannie Mae.
Think of it this way:
Why would the government invest in Facebook or Twitter when there are plenty of people who already have their wallets open? That goes for many tech startups -- YCombinator alone is very beneficial for the government in an indirect way because the government no longer needs to think about funding tech startups -- someone else is already doing it really well for them.
So the real necessity for government intervention is for extremely risky and potentially extremely unprofitable ventures that allow for amazing possibilities (think NASA when the US was afraid of the Soviets). Pure scientific research is often this way as well.
And even NASA is a small fraction of the federal budget (I remember Neil DeGrasse Tyson repeating "half a penny to a dollar" a lot.
So my point is this: startups, research, or pretty much any economy-advancing investments aren't going to exceed the cost of trying to keep people happy. The War in Iraq is an example: we wouldn't be there if we weren't scared 10 years ago. We wouldn't have been eager to go to war unless it made us feel happier or safer or more content. In contrast, how content do people feel when they hear about a space shuttle explosion? Or money "wasted" on research that could be used to feed the poor?
Why did we even fund NASA again? Oh yeah, we were afraid. The United States collectively didn't give a crap about space until we imagined the Soviets creating the Death Star before us.
I'm not saying any of this is rational. Actually, I really agree with you, but the fact that money is going to startups is a good sign. The quantity is low because nothing will cost more than making people feel happy, safe, and secure right now.