[rainsford]

The problem with relying exclusively on private investors to fund research is that the incentives steer investment towards research that seems likely to deliver a return on investment. This is fine for driving incremental development on presumably marketable ideas with short time horizons, but it's absolutely terrible for supporting the kind of foundational work that lacks obvious application on day 1 but is nevertheless essential to real innovation.

Private companies used to understand and value this and fund relatively open-ended research arms without the requirement to deliver immediate investor value. As investors have become more and more myopic, government funding has been essential to keep foundational research alive.

As just one example, think about the Large Hadron Collider. It's pretty expensive with no immediate commercial application, no ROI focused private investor in the world would support it. But it's an essential tool for conducting research into the very foundations of physical existence with who knows what implications for human progress. I'm good with the "European mindset" approach to those kinds of problems since private investors would certain drop the ball if left up to them.