[Remember_Salamis]

"we cannot determine per se which fields are guaranteeing the best ROI."

-- The Market will determine the best ROI. If society, in the form of the market (both business intersts and partisan intersts in the fields of arts, music, literature, and "non-applicable" sciences) say that there should be less money spend subsidizing Psychology, is there any reason why we SHOULDN'T spend less money subsidizing psychology???

"Stephen Hawking works on topics that are as zero-ROI as they come. Yet, he is a shingle for Cambridge. Which enhances the reputation for the institution which creates other non-tangible assets."

-- And Cambridge pays for Hawking, not the taxpayer. So, Cambridge IS getting a pretty sweet ROI on Hawking. The same goes for American intellectuals.

Oh, and another thought: What about the ultra-philanthropists, like Bill Gates, who donates over $1B to charity every year? He could fund the education of a thousand Hawkins if he wanted (and get a return on his money too!).

[drtom]

ROI: But if there are ROIs that are not too obvious or not too quick like theoretical astrophysics - the market approach would shut that down. The number of people who are able to understand t.a. and its merits at a level that they would feel it's worth supporting would be significantly less than the psych supporters. Your music example is very good. Symphony orchestras all over the country have money problems. Chances are this education would have a problem to survive through market-funding (sadly, pop music and music education are usually mutually exclusive). Yet, I wouldn't want to travel to Europe to see a good classical concert just because American musicians aren't funded.

And Cambridge pays for Hawking, not the taxpayer

Not really. His chair is base-funded so it is the taxpayer's money that pays for it.

Oh, my pizza arrived. I'm off this thread but might check back later. Good chatting with you R/S! Good luck with your EduBonds.