> Then how did we end up with things like nuclear fusion startups with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding?
By millions upon millions of dollars and man hours spent by governments and universities doing basic research. Markets are very poor at laying the groundwork required for scientific breakthrough, but quite good at leveraging that space to their own advantage, once it exists. This is, in fact, why the US government used to spend so much on basic research, so that its Capitalist economy could advance innovation more quickly.
> We live in the most scientifically innovative period of our history.
You’d have to state your measure for this. Scientific breakthroughs are not advancing at anywhere near the speed of the early 20th century. This may be because we’ve picked off a lot of the easy targets in the fundamental aspects that describe our reality, but would be contrary to this sentiment regardless.
I don’t really get why you think this isn’t a market solution, and I don’t really see where you think the problem is at all. Research institutions compete for fee paying students, endowments, and government funding. When they come up with marketable ideas, those ideas tend to make it to the market.
The fact that private capital can even find its way to funding ideas that have not and may never be proven to work completely disproves your point. Long term, high risk business propositions don’t seem unable to find investors. There is no tragedy of the commons here. If the market values something, there’ll be somebody willing to produce it. The only real room for disagreement is when the market doesn’t value something as much as you think it should.
> You’d have to state your measure for this. Scientific breakthroughs are not advancing at anywhere near the speed of the early 20th century
There’s more to science than quantum mechanics and a good approximation of gravity. It’s generally seen as rather obvious that our rate of innovation is increasing exponentially. I’m typing this comment on a pocket sized computer that’s orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer in the world was on the day I was born.
But what we're slowly learning is that a huge percentage, perhaps most of that "millions upon millions of dollars and man hours" ends up producing terrible papers that don't replicate (in science) or don't even say anything coherent at all (e.g. basically all of gender/critical race theory).
COVID-19 has been an excellent demonstrator of this: at a time when it's become clear that epidemiologists and virologists don't actually seem to know much about viruses, and know even less about stopping them, we have widespread riots and protests against 'systemic racism' that can't be found in any data sources. All this badness is coming from universities which look bloated, over-funded and nowhere near scrutinised enough.
Then finally you look at the tech sector, you look at commercial organisations at the cutting edge. The sad reality is they don't use much university output. They don't. Look at CS, most of the breakthrough papers are coming from corporate labs. The last 10 years saw multiple new programming languages take off and gain critical mass, none of them bear any resemblance to Haskell or other research languages popular in academia. A lot of the improvement in tech, whether it's electric cars, self driving cars etc, it's been coming from corporate labs.
By millions upon millions of dollars and man hours spent by governments and universities doing basic research. Markets are very poor at laying the groundwork required for scientific breakthrough, but quite good at leveraging that space to their own advantage, once it exists. This is, in fact, why the US government used to spend so much on basic research, so that its Capitalist economy could advance innovation more quickly.
> We live in the most scientifically innovative period of our history.
You’d have to state your measure for this. Scientific breakthroughs are not advancing at anywhere near the speed of the early 20th century. This may be because we’ve picked off a lot of the easy targets in the fundamental aspects that describe our reality, but would be contrary to this sentiment regardless.