[woopwoop]

I do not, and have never, understood why absolute R&D investment is compared to relative growth rate in this literature. It would make sense to compare R&D spending as a percentage of GDP to relative growth, or to compare absolute R&D spending to absolute per-year growth, but I remain mystified by the comparison of absolute R&D spending with relative growth.

[ethan_smith]

The comparison makes sense in endogenous growth theory where knowledge production has a Cobb-Douglas form - doubling researchers should double the absolute ideas produced, which translates to a constant growth rate under standard assumptions about how ideas affect production.

[imtringued]

That sounds absolutely nonsensical.

So you're telling me if I have 10 researchers and an economy of 1 billion people, the growth rate should be constant? If I have 20 researchers the growth rate should double? Remember, growth is measured as a percentage increase, not a linear increase

Even if the concepts of what you're talking about make sense when they are being properly elaborated, the way you have elaborated them is extremely poor.

[johnnyanmac]

Is this another moore's law where we try to suggest that trends will not hit some ceiling and start to taper off in growth?