[beloch]

For the studies mentioned, how do you decide what leads to economic growth and what doesn't?

Take Lasers for example. The first Laser was made at Bell Labs, a commercial research lab. It would not have been possible without the maser that came before it in academia, or the work done by Einstein, also in academia. Lasers have had an immense economic impact, but do we credit them to academic or commercial research?

The answer is both.

Academic research is less frequently the final link in the long chain to profits than commercial research is. This is only natural since commercial research labs are motivated to invent products that will make money while academics can afford to take a longer view.

Why else might nations that spend a lot on fundamental science benefit? A skilled work-force. Scientists may publish how their experiments work in broad strokes, but the nitty gritty details are often something that can only be learned by working in a lab. If your country has a lot of labs, you have a workforce that commercial enterprise can draw upon to bring products to market based on research. A country can always lure immigrants, but having a home-field advantage is more cost effective.

[vacri]

The author is misrepresenting his first quoted study: 'little or no direct effect', my emphasis. He takes this to mean 'no effect', which is a lot of screaming bullshit, as you say.

Another example of government research being very beneficial in an indirect manner is in things like mental illness research. Little is done privately outside of pharmaceutics, yet improved treatment of mental illness significantly improves the economy - workers are more productive, more people participate in the workforce (and subsequently fewer crimes), and of course there are a ton of non-economic benefits.

Similarly, the US saw a massive economic growth from its early days all the way to WWII

The US is an incredibly wealthy landscape, in terms of mineral wealth, agricultural wealth, and temperate weather. Throw in a massive population increase, successful wars of conquest, and a productive temperate climate, and the author is pushing shit uphill with a pointed stick if he's trying to make the argument against publicly-funded R&D this way.