Of course, that's all generalities, sometimes directly monetizable stuff does come out of basic research. But the NFS should focus on basic research, because nobody else will in the US, and if we want to have it here at all, have the practitioners, have the knowledge, and then also reap the economic rewards because we have those people here, we need to fund the basic science that politicians love to mock and criticize.
The sooner the public learns that the public coffers aren't theirs, and will never be theirs, the better.
Poster children for tech with no realistic commercial prospects. Projects in these fields have been pipe dreams for decades. Where are any commercial products in the areas of fusion reactors? Quantum computers? Asteroid mining operations?
If private investors want to fund this stuff, fine. As long as they don't come seeking bailouts later.
Fusion is literally still in the pure science stage that OP was telling governments to stick too.
The government is actually really really good at funding the right things. The grant process has been extremely successful in directing funding efficiently towards cutting edge ideas. It does this by handing off the decision making to experts who review proposals rather than having political/profit driven kingmakers.
In contrast corporate/VC money mostly only funds the latest shiny bauble that may result in exit liquidity in a few years. The minority investments in things like fusion are still only applied work and are built on decades of unprofitable basic science.
In other words. Government funding has basically funded every science/tech breakthrough of the last 80 years.
I'm pretty sure you have this totally backwards. People who study scientific development seem to think that the government is actually a really effective funder of research, and covers gaps that would never be addressed by private industry. See for example:
* https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-r...
* https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/07/government-fun...
* https://www.americanscientist.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhy-are-w...
Hmm I wonder how these were originally funded when it was less likely that they would work.
And by cutting funding now, I wonder what we're missing out on in the future.
