Romney would likely be more pro-business than Obama in part by favoring lower corporate taxes, less burdensome regulations, and prioritizing high skilled vs. low skilled immigrants. So compared to Obama, under Romney the U.S. would probably have more economic growth (but also more economic inequality). As economic growth is vital for scientific advancement, Romney would probably create a better environment for scientific progress than Obama would.
I don’t think the evidence of presidential influence on growth rates is enough to support the contention (in either direction). Yes, famously, the economy grows better under democratic presidents—but that’s a very small sample, with no clear causality. But certainly enough to reject the idea that a Romney presidency would be necessarily better for the economy.
I’m not going by past trends. Demographics combined with entitlements are going to create a massive problem for the U.S. My perception is that Romney would handle this by reducing the rate of growth of entitlements and doing everything possible to increase economic growth whereas Obama wants to handle the problem by increasing taxes on the rich.
EDIT: To be clearer - You’re comparing a high-level goal/plan of candidate A (“make economy good”) to a low-level plan of candidate B (“get money from people”). Example: “Candidate X wants to safeguard our freedom and prosperity, but candidate Y wants to send Americans to fight and die overseas.” The reason this leads to a false impression is because we readily attribute low-level plans to high-level plans/goals (“if he wants freedom and prosperity, that means he’ll do good things”) but don’t attribute high-level plans/goals to low-level plans (“If he’s going to send Americans to fight and die overseas, how can you say he wants freedom and prosperity?”).
The rhetorical effect of comparing plans on different levels may be diminished by remembering that neither candidate is an evil mutant—they both have high-level plans that are pretty much “make good things happen, stop bad things from happening.”
That is a particularly bad comparison. Reagan had the best growth rate among Republican presidents since WWII and Carter had the second worst growth rate among Democratic presidents.
You can see the annualized GDP growth rates under all the post-Truman presidents here. Four of the top five growth rates were under Democratic presidents (and that includes Carter). The only Democrat who isn’t in the top five is Obama, who is at the absolute bottom. The only Republican in the top five is Reagan at no. 4.
Yes, but scientific¹ progress would make both FAI and uFAI more likely.
Actually you mean “technological”—figuring out whether neutrinos are Majorana particles isn’t going to be very relevant to existential risk in the short and middle term, but your arguments still apply (even more, because private enterprises are usually more interested in applied research than in pure research).
I don’t think that this is completely obvious to me. It wouldn’t have been obvious in say 1930 that investigation of atoms would lead to a serious existential risk, or any substantial new technologies for that matter. If some aspect of basic physics presents a more efficient computing substrate, or a new source of energy, that could easily have an impact (albeit not necessarily directly).
I’m not claiming that low skilled immigrants harm business just that higher skilled ones are better for economic growth than lower skilled immigrants are.
Just for my clarity: do you mean to assert that other factors won’t significantly affect the environment for scientific progress compared to the effect of economic growth? Or are you just not thinking about them here?
Romney would likely be more pro-business than Obama in part by favoring lower corporate taxes, less burdensome regulations, and prioritizing high skilled vs. low skilled immigrants. So compared to Obama, under Romney the U.S. would probably have more economic growth (but also more economic inequality). As economic growth is vital for scientific advancement, Romney would probably create a better environment for scientific progress than Obama would.
I don’t think the evidence of presidential influence on growth rates is enough to support the contention (in either direction). Yes, famously, the economy grows better under democratic presidents—but that’s a very small sample, with no clear causality. But certainly enough to reject the idea that a Romney presidency would be necessarily better for the economy.
I’m not going by past trends. Demographics combined with entitlements are going to create a massive problem for the U.S. My perception is that Romney would handle this by reducing the rate of growth of entitlements and doing everything possible to increase economic growth whereas Obama wants to handle the problem by increasing taxes on the rich.
You’re mixing up levels.
EDIT: To be clearer - You’re comparing a high-level goal/plan of candidate A (“make economy good”) to a low-level plan of candidate B (“get money from people”). Example: “Candidate X wants to safeguard our freedom and prosperity, but candidate Y wants to send Americans to fight and die overseas.” The reason this leads to a false impression is because we readily attribute low-level plans to high-level plans/goals (“if he wants freedom and prosperity, that means he’ll do good things”) but don’t attribute high-level plans/goals to low-level plans (“If he’s going to send Americans to fight and die overseas, how can you say he wants freedom and prosperity?”).
The rhetorical effect of comparing plans on different levels may be diminished by remembering that neither candidate is an evil mutant—they both have high-level plans that are pretty much “make good things happen, stop bad things from happening.”
The data I’ve seen says the opposite, e.g., compare the economies under Carter and Reagan.
That is a particularly bad comparison. Reagan had the best growth rate among Republican presidents since WWII and Carter had the second worst growth rate among Democratic presidents.
You can see the annualized GDP growth rates under all the post-Truman presidents here. Four of the top five growth rates were under Democratic presidents (and that includes Carter). The only Democrat who isn’t in the top five is Obama, who is at the absolute bottom. The only Republican in the top five is Reagan at no. 4.
Yes, but scientific¹ progress would make both FAI and uFAI more likely.
Actually you mean “technological”—figuring out whether neutrinos are Majorana particles isn’t going to be very relevant to existential risk in the short and middle term, but your arguments still apply (even more, because private enterprises are usually more interested in applied research than in pure research).
I don’t think that this is completely obvious to me. It wouldn’t have been obvious in say 1930 that investigation of atoms would lead to a serious existential risk, or any substantial new technologies for that matter. If some aspect of basic physics presents a more efficient computing substrate, or a new source of energy, that could easily have an impact (albeit not necessarily directly).
Well, I guess that depends on what I meant by “short and middle term”.
Why would more less-skilled immigrants be bad for business? Wouldn’t that mean both more consumers and cheaper labor?
I’m not claiming that low skilled immigrants harm business just that higher skilled ones are better for economic growth than lower skilled immigrants are.
If they’re available in equal numbers, sure. But that seems unlikely to be the case.
Just for my clarity: do you mean to assert that other factors won’t significantly affect the environment for scientific progress compared to the effect of economic growth? Or are you just not thinking about them here?
I think that economic growth is by far the most important factor, but it’s not the only factor.
So don’t vote for Romney then.