Thoughts About Conspiracy Theories Regarding U.S. Economy?

[RobsEG]

I find conspiracy theories very interesting. although I do not believe everything I see or read, I believe there are some truths within, such as corruption in the government and the media.

but these are just 2 articles I read this morning and thought to ask the mmm community, since these involve the US economy.

conspiracy-watch.org/experts-predict-crash-of-dollar-collapse-of-united-states-in-2014/

conspiracy-watch.org/warning-signs-dollar-collapse/

please let me know your thoughts. topics like these definitely makes me think twice about what to do with my money and where to invest.

[Northerly]

I didn't click the links, but I'm very familiar with these arguments through reading and having zealous libertarian friends.

From my reading, I come away with a few solid principles.
-Government is somewhat corrupt. No shit.
-Media is somewhat corrupt and manipulated by powerful people. No shit.
-There is no guarantee that the U.S. will continue to be the world's premier superpower. Its currency is controlled by a Reserve Banking System which is unable to a. predict the future and b. which may not always act in the best interest of the general public. No shit.

But for me, information is only really relevant if it can be acted upon. So all this information is nearly irrelevant. What/where is the better investing alternative? The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet.

So I'd say: It's fun to read about, and there is a kernel of truth there. But it is not a secret body of knowledge that you are now privy to. It's a lot of speculation and half-truths.

[Sebastian]

Oh man if that first article is true I might as well kill myself right now because what's the point?

Actually that is why I like the lifestyle of ERE because it's prepping me for when we really can't afford or buy anything...

As far as investments go, if you are scarred of putting your money in 401Ks IRAs etc because of some kind of economic collapse like this... well you'll probably have bigger problems than fake paper money AKA how will you feed yourself and provide shelter?

I was a tinfoil hat kid for several years which is why I vowed to never invest in the market. After reading many books and blogs all I can do is kick myself now for missing out on all the money I could have made in the markets the past 2 years.

[Nords]

If these groups are really so good at what they do, then why do things continue to suck?

Oh, wait.  They don't suck.  Is that because of the conspiracy groups?  What are they trying to hide?

 

[jpdcpajd]

"The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet."


UNDERTAXED?

[cdub]

"The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet."


UNDERTAXED?

Ummmm YES. UNDERTAXED.

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

[MoneyCat]

"The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet."


UNDERTAXED?

Ummmm YES. UNDERTAXED.

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

It is really hard for people to recognize how undertaxed the American people are.  And that low rate of taxation is the primary reason why so many Americans are financially insecure, because our government services are really, really weak.    Other countries have services that help get people out of poverty, but we don't believe in helping the poor in the USA.  Things are going to get worse too, because Libertarians have become mainstream, so government is going to be shrunk to the point where the USA will basically become a strange oligarchy/anarchy hybrid.  There is this weird anti-civilization sentiment growing in the country right now.

[former player]

I have never understood why anyone needs to invent conspiracy theories in order to explain what is or what could be going wrong.  Humanity is perfectly capable of cocking things up without so much as being in the same universe as a conspiracy.

And regards the failings of the US government, the problem as I see it is that so many people are fighting over its size that they don't realise that the first thing they need to worry about is having good government, whatever its size.  First make sure government is good (not corrupt, fiscally aware, evidence based) and then fight over what size it should be.   

It seems to be particularly the case that no-one on the libertarian side of the argument seems to notice that a small corrupt and inefficient government is as bad in its own ways as a large corrupt and inefficient government.

[Ottawa]

"The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet."


UNDERTAXED?

Ummmm YES. UNDERTAXED.

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

It is really hard for people to recognize how undertaxed the American people are.  And that low rate of taxation is the primary reason why so many Americans are financially insecure, because our government services are really, really weak.    Other countries have services that help get people out of poverty, but we don't believe in helping the poor in the USA.  Things are going to get worse too, because Libertarians have become mainstream, so government is going to be shrunk to the point where the USA will basically become a strange oligarchy/anarchy hybrid.  There is this weird anti-civilization sentiment growing in the country right now.

From the article linked with the graphic below:

Total Taxes:
Taxes paid by individuals and corporations as a percentage of GDP is one of the meaningful ways to determine whether a country’s tax rates are high or low. Based on this metric, the U.S. has the third lowest taxes among OECD countries in 2009, the latest year for which data is available. The total U.S. state, local and federal taxes in 2009 was 22.6% of GDP. Only Chile and Mexico had lower taxes at 18.2% and 17.5% respectively.

[former player]

What that graph doesn't show is that a citizen paying taxes in those high-tax countries probably doesn't have to pay any health costs.   The USA is a low-tax country, but not a particularly low-cost one if you add in healthcare.

[Ottawa]

What that graph doesn't show is that a citizen paying taxes in those high-tax countries probably doesn't have to pay any health costs.   The USA is a low-tax country, but not a particularly low-cost one if you add in healthcare.

True, this is total spending as a % of GDP on healthcare. 



So, what is up with the US then?

[MoneyCat]

Most of the rise in the cost of healthcare in the USA came from hospitals having to provide free treatment for people without insurance at the ER.  Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment to people who can't pay for it.  However, the hospitals have to make up those costs somehow, so they pass the cost of it to people who CAN pay for it (either through direct payment or insurance.)

Under the ACA, there has been a rapid decrease in the number of uninsured people in the USA and we've already seen a reduction in the increase of medical costs due to that.  Nothing will ever reverse what has been done, but over the years we may be able to slow it down enough that inflation will begin to catch up with it.

[BlueMR2]

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

For sure.  For all the things we love to complain about here in the USA (taxes, oppression, etc), we've actually got it good overall.  Want to be taxed and nanny-stated to death, move to Europe.  I feel sorry for the poor saps stuck over in the old world.

[Paul der Krake]

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

For sure.  For all the things we love to complain about here in the USA (taxes, oppression, etc), we've actually got it good overall.  Want to be taxed and nanny-stated to death, move to Europe.  I feel sorry for the poor saps stuck over in the old world.

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not. Many Europeans wonder why America is okay with losing your life savings when you get cancer, the higher crime rates, and a nanny state that lets the NSA spy on their own citizens. They've got it pretty good overall too, so your sympathy would probably be met with a good chuckle.

[warfreak2]

a nanny state that lets the NSA spy on their own citizens

To be fair, you won't avoid this by moving to Europe - the NSA spies on us too. :-D

(Also, our own governments. But also the NSA.)

[sol]

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not.

I think he was completely serious.  Americans love America because they're American Americans, America Fuck Yea!

If your worldview revolves around maximizing corporate profits and concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthy while keeping minorities, women, gays, and the working class properly subjugated, then America is a pretty great place to be a straight white male.  We've had some troubles with this administration trying to steal the good silver, but we'll get that fixed up right quick come 2016.

[PKFFW]

Most of the rise in the cost of healthcare in the USA came from hospitals having to provide free treatment for people without insurance at the ER.  Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment to people who can't pay for it.  However, the hospitals have to make up those costs somehow, so they pass the cost of it to people who CAN pay for it (either through direct payment or insurance.)

Under the ACA, there has been a rapid decrease in the number of uninsured people in the USA and we've already seen a reduction in the increase of medical costs due to that.  Nothing will ever reverse what has been done, but over the years we may be able to slow it down enough that inflation will begin to catch up with it.

Thanks for the good chuckle.

Australia has a health system paid for by taxes.  This means no one, insured or not, who shows up for treatment at any form of treatment facility for any form of treatment, emergency or not, has to pay much at all out of their own pocket at point of treatment if they choose not to.

Funnily enough we spend nearly half the amount on healthcare as the USA and have comparable or, arguably, better outcomes.

I'm sure your costs have much more to do with insurance, pharmaceutical and associated medical industry corporations simply jacking up the prices because they can and they have the backing of those in power and far less to do with the minority of people who receive basic treatment at an emergency ward to keep them from dying before being sent on their way.

[Travis]

Part of the cost disparity between the US and other nations is the price of health services is not set by anything other than the hospital you happen to be visiting and what your insurance wants to pay for.  The system encourages the hospital to charge your insurance more for the same service if they know you can afford to pay more.  You will rarely see two people charged the same amount for the same service.  Unfortunately the ACA didn't address how services are priced, but rather who pays for them.

Getting back to the original topics, JCollins mentioned in his Stock Series that if the economy goes full on Armageddon, it doesn't matter where your money is since it'll lose all meaning anyways so you might as well take some risk and enjoy what has over the long term been a winning strategy.

[Jamesqf]

It is really hard for people to recognize how undertaxed the American people are.

No.  I think you are confused: If you are waist deep in the boiling pitch, being able to point to other people who are up to their neck doesn't mean you're in a good spot.

[gdgyva]

"The U.S. is an undertaxed, stable dreamland compared to almost the entire remainder of the planet."


UNDERTAXED?

Ummmm YES. UNDERTAXED.

Go see what the tax rates are in Europe. We have it easy.

It is really hard for people to recognize how undertaxed the American people are.  And that low rate of taxation is the primary reason why so many Americans are financially insecure, because our government services are really, really weak.    Other countries have services that help get people out of poverty, but we don't believe in helping the poor in the USA.  Things are going to get worse too, because Libertarians have become mainstream, so government is going to be shrunk to the point where the USA will basically become a strange oligarchy/anarchy hybrid.  There is this weird anti-civilization sentiment growing in the country right now.

anti civilization?

i am a libertarian.....we WASTE almost as much as we use.....we have different parts of different agencies doing the same damn job

and no one wants to cut it....for fear of being labeled hateful or spiteful, or racist

there will always be a need for some people to be aided by the government....i, and many of my brethren have no issue with that.....what we have issues with are the freaking people gaming the system....i dont care if it's only 200....it's 200 too many.....but 200 is just a number i picked out of the air......everyone knows it is much higher....the question is, how high?

if we are going to spend.....lets spend on something more permanent.....job training.....as long as you have the physical and mental acuity to function in society, you need to be a productive member of such....you can get your payments, but lets teach you to be a plumber, or a mechanic, or some sort of tradesman.....and if you refuse to go to school, then i guess you really dont want to help yourself

lets get people off the lifetime aid programs.....let's stop paying for baby factories.......

i dont mind giving a hand UP.....i mind when we just keep giving a hand out

[warfreak2]

No.  I think you are confused: If you are waist deep in the boiling pitch, being able to point to other people who are up to their neck doesn't mean you're in a good spot.

But, coincidentally, many of the European countries who are neck deep in boiling pitch beat the USA on all sorts of important yardsticks. Almost as if they aren't imminently dying horrible death, after all!

[gdgyva]

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not.

I think he was completely serious.  Americans love America because they're American Americans, America Fuck Yea!

If your worldview revolves around maximizing corporate profits and concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthy while keeping minorities, women, gays, and the working class properly subjugated, then America is a pretty great place to be a straight white male.  We've had some troubles with this administration trying to steal the good silver, but we'll get that fixed up right quick come 2016.

yeah, yeah, yeah

it's all whitey's fault

same old song and dance

amazing that some people refuse to believe that crap, and actually reach the summit....or is it?

is the playing field completely fair? no.....

will it ever be?  dunno....but it is a lot closer today, than 25 years ago, and closer then than 50 years ago

progress is coming.....slower than many would like.....but it is there

but you dont have to be a athlete to make it out.....you just gotta want it

one of the biggest issue with minorities is a LACK of mentors....a lack of people that they can follow the path of

there are some good programs out there trying to change that.....but changing the mindset of generations is tough

[thepokercab]

No.  I think you are confused: If you are waist deep in the boiling pitch, being able to point to other people who are up to their neck doesn't mean you're in a good spot.

But, coincidentally, many of the European countries who are neck deep in boiling pitch beat the USA on all sorts of important yardsticks. Almost as if they aren't imminently dying horrible death, after all!

Pfft.  Any freedom loving American knows there is only one that matters. 

[Ftao93]

I have never understood why anyone needs to invent conspiracy theories in order to explain what is or what could be going wrong.  Humanity is perfectly capable of cocking things up without so much as being in the same universe as a conspiracy.

A wise friend of mine once said:  "Think of how hard it is to get 5 people to work together, especially if it was supposed to be SECRET.  Then think of how hard it would be to get thousands of people to do the same."

'nuff said.

[DollarBill]

Printing money and High speed trading...nuff said! But what are you going to do?

[Insanity]

Things are going to get worse too, because Libertarians have become mainstream, so government is going to be shrunk to the point where the USA will basically become a strange oligarchy/anarchy hybrid.  There is this weird anti-civilization sentiment growing in the country right now.

Maybe I'm not as libertarian as I think i am but the way I see it, the local governments and communities can do a much better job managing their community then the federal government can.  I'm perfectly okay with the federal government dictating policies around health care, education, and anything which ties into the constitution as long as they are not the ones implementing the program.

It's simply a size question.  Look at most of the larger companies and see how much waste is generated.  Organizations pass budgets down and groups spend all the money they ask for because they are afraid they will lose it if they don't. And if they happen to need that money next year, they can't risk going back to management and asking for it again.

And as far as health care costs. I've always wondered how much medical research plays into that equation.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

Anyway, the simple fact is, most libertarians are more than willing to lend a helping hand for those in need - but we would much rather teach those who need the hand how to live on their own two feet.

[mulescent]

And as far as health care costs. I've always wondered how much medical research plays into that equation.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

Two points:

1) The R/D spending figure you cit is for all sectors of the economy not just healthcare

2)  Your implicit contention is that R/D spending increases healthcare costs.  R/D spending is a tiny percentage of health care spending, and has been stable as a percentage of the economy for a long time (http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/healthdollar12.pdf).  However, the fact that we have a privately (mis) managed, for-profit healthcare system has driven costs through the roof.

[gdgyva]

While there are many opinions about our nation's health care system (particularly in Washington), there's one overwhelming area of consensus -- the United States leads the world in medical innovation.

In addition to the best and brightest practicing medicine and state-of-art medical facilities, we have benefited from having the best and, usually, the earliest access to the latest medical technologies and innovations. In large part, this is because they were discovered, developed and produced here in America.

Consider the following: We have access to diagnostics that allow us to detect health issues early. We have medical devices that open blocked blood vessels, replace joints and even limbs. We have medicines that have turned HIV into a treatable, chronic condition and significantly lowered death and disability rates from heart disease, many cancers, and stroke, among other diseases.

Not only has medical innovation helped reduce the toll of disease, it has created jobs and inspired economic growth: from the scientists here at Emory and those at once small start-ups that now employ thousands, to the iron worker helping to build a facility, the manufacturing worker assuring a quality product, the clinicians participating in clinical trials and the statisticians analyzing resulting data. In short, at a time when the United States has actively shed jobs, the biomedical sector has consistently added them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-thorpe/medical-advancements-who-is-leading_b_807796.html

article is a couple of years old....but it tells the story well

one reason WHY medical costs are higher here is that we develop a lot of the new advances.....

go back and look at the major advancements in medicine over the last 30 years.....the lion's share occurred within our borders

some government funded...some corporate funded

if a company develops a new ways of treating aids, or develops a cure for something, arent they entitled to profit from that advance?

eventually that technology makes it way across the ocean.....and the world reaps the benefits

i wonder how much slower advances would come, if profit was taken out of the equation

[former player]

Since 2001, Wikipedia shows 17 Nobel prize for medicine winners from public health care/single payer systems and 17 from the USA (two are shown as from both).  Seven come from the UK alone, with a population one quarter of that of the USA, so proportionately the USA with its for-profit health system is seriously lagging behind the UK with its public sector health system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine

There are amazing treatments in the USA for those who can afford them.  On health outcomes overall, the USA comes way below countries with "not for profit" systems because of the patchy availability and distribution of those amazing treatments. Your "overwhelming area of consensus" is not so overwhelming outside the borders of the USA.

[gdgyva]

i didnt say nobel prize winners

i said who is developing the new stuff

who is taking an idea, and turning it into a medicine, or a new surgical appliance, or a new machine

who is paying for all the research?

[former player]

Governments, mostly.

[warfreak2]

R/D spending is a tiny percentage of health care spending

Well, as a percentage of medicine sales revenue, it's something like 13.4%, and marketing is 24.4%. That actually isn't really out of line with other innovative industries, for example Microsoft's figures look very similar, and IBM's look worse. The problem here is that the pharma industry isn't an exception, when it should be. Medicine is supposed to be a science; doctors should be selecting medicines based on trial results, not adverts. (Most pharma marketing is targeted at doctors, rather than consumers.)

[greaper007]

I have a feeling that most conpiracy theories are created by people that are seriously mentally ill, then people that fall somewhere on the spectrum perpetuate them.

Case in point.   I have an uncle with schizophrenia.    He was enlisted in the air force, and for a very brief period worked with radar in a low level capacity.     Because of his kookiness, he eventually ended up doing mostly janitorial work.    Yet, 30 years later he thought that the Mossad was after him because he knew all sorts of secrets about radar.    I'm sure if he wrote an article about it, it might end up being somewhat convincing to a conspiracy theorist.    However, I've seen behind the curtain.    And I doubt the Mossad is after a 400lbs man with a shaved head that chain smokes hand rolled cigarettes all day while he tries to figure out ways to scam the government out of more disability.

[waltworks]

You didn't trail off once...

What have you done with the *real* gdgyva, you filthy imposter?

-W

i didnt say nobel prize winners

i said who is developing the new stuff

who is taking an idea, and turning it into a medicine, or a new surgical appliance, or a new machine

who is paying for all the research?

[gdgyva]

Governments, mostly.

Funding for science has changed with the times. Historically, science has been largely supported through private patronage (the backing of a prominent person or family), church sponsorship, or simply paying for the research yourself. Galileo's work in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, was supported mainly by wealthy individuals, including the Pope. Darwin's Beagle voyage in the 19th century was, on the other hand, funded by the British government — the vessel was testing clocks and drawing maps for the navy — and his family's private assets financed the rest of his scientific work. Today, researchers are likely to be funded by a mix of grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations. For example, a 2007 study of the movement of carbon in the ocean was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Australian Cooperative Research Centre, and the Australian Antarctic Division.1 Other research is funded by private companies — such as the pharmaceutical company that financed a recent study comparing different drugs administered after heart failure.2 Such corporate sponsorship is widespread in some fields. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies. And, of course, some researchers today still fund small-scale studies out of their own pockets. Most of us can't afford to do cyclotron research as a private hobby, but birdwatchers, scuba divers, rockhounds, and others can do real research on a limited budget.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

governments give grants and pay for some, but most medical research is still paid for by companies

[waltworks]

Getting OT a bit, but my wife is an NIH funded biomedical researcher, and I can tell you for a fact that those companies wouldn't be able to do squat for clinical trials without the basic research (ie, "what is the structure of this protein?") that allows real world applications/drugs/machines/etc. No companies pay for much/any basic research like this because A) it often (usually?) leads nowhere, and B) they know they can have their guys read the papers that get published and jump on anything promising, because the grant-funded scientists will usually move on to another new high-risk/high-reward investigation of some other fundamental thing.

That kind of research does not generally happen at private companies because they can't go years without getting anything useful. But without those basic discoveries and fundamental knowledge, you would not have a lot (or maybe most) of modern medical technology.

So basically, everyone is right. You need a profit-motivated private sector. You need a fundamental-research based public sector. The question is whether or not it's worth doing *more* fundamental research to provide the raw material for the private sector to work with. IMO you could increase the NIH/NIST/NREL/DARPA/DOE/NSF funding by tenfold and still not be overspending. That's fuel for the future and it's *cheap* - my wife, who has a PhD and is very, very good at what she does makes $45k, and she was one of only about 5% of applicants for NIH grants who was funded last year! That's so cheap that if you were the CEO of any private company you'd immediately hire as many of those folks as you could and set them loose making you rich by finding out awesome new stuff. We should be doing the same.

-W

[gdgyva]

walt

no disagreement from me

there are a few radically underpaid professions in the world

researchers are one of them

but that is a topic for another day

but i keep hearing how so many want the "profit" taken out of medicine

you can do it....but you also take away a lot of the motive to advance it

one of these years, we will reach a point where profit isnt the biggest motivator out there

that isnt today or tomorrow

[waltworks]

If you think that gov't should spend more on basic research, I don't think you should be voting for any of the Tea Party folks, unfortunately.

I think medical *research* and the day to day practice of medicine are very different things and that taking the profit motive out of things like administering routine tests or setting a broken bone is probably a good idea. Giving at least a basic level of health care, free, to everyone is a no-brainer IMO since we have EMTALA - it's either pay for the care up front and cheaply through taxes, or pay for it at the ER through increased charity work passed on by hospitals/insurance companies to the consumer. And I don't think anyone would seriously advocate repealing EMTALA, so the whole "socialized medicine" debate is stupid - we already have socialized medicine, we are just doing it incredibly badly and trying to pretend we don't.

It's worth quite a bit to me in taxes to have a bunch of happy, healthy people using public roads/bike paths/bridges, protected by publicly funded police departments, not worrying about whether they will lose their health insurance if they start a business - because I can sell to and buy things from those people and everyone wins - people can take risks on big cool ideas and not go bankrupt if they get sick, etc. IMO health care should be thought of as a public good like a road or a traffic light that MORE than pays for itself, regardless of how you feel about the ethics or morals of providing care to folks who can't afford it.

-W

walt

no disagreement from me

there are a few radically underpaid professions in the world

researchers are one of them

but that is a topic for another day

but i keep hearing how so many want the "profit" taken out of medicine

you can do it....but you also take away a lot of the motive to advance it

one of these years, we will reach a point where profit isnt the biggest motivator out there

that isnt today or tomorrow

[matchewed]

The answers and the questions aren't aligning very well.

What was asked -

who is paying for all the research?

Which portion of the research? Much of the initial scientific research which forms the foundation of the techniques or methods that the medicine is based on is through NIH funding and the efforts of scientists which are also supported through our education infrastructure. So a combination of academic and government supports the initial foundation for our scientific and medical breakthroughs.

Once those foundations are in place our private industry and medical infrastructure (hospitals) steps in and uses that information and foundation to create drugs and specific treatments.

We can't draw neat little lines, as much as we'd sometimes like to, between all these different areas. Those lines don't exist. Without any one of those key blocks the rest of the framework doesn't work. It is our ability to make all those disparate gears function somewhat well together which makes us a number one producer of innovative medicines and medical techniques. Not solely private industry. To think so is to narrow your viewpoint and deliberately ignore that which doesn't jive with your worldview.

[gdgyva]

did you bother to read my reply to walt?

did i not acknowledge that grants from government start basic research

BUT the lion's share of cost to produce a new technology, or drug, or machine comes from "greedy" companies who expect a profit from that endeavor

that is all i was saying.....

[matchewed]

did you bother to read my reply to walt?

did i not acknowledge that grants from government start basic research

BUT the lion's share of cost to produce a new technology, or drug, or machine comes from "greedy" companies who expect a profit from that endeavor

that is all i was saying.....

I did. You stated that 75% of clinical trials were performed by private companies. Those clinical trials would not be possible without the research done by people in academia or the government funding provided to them. You may state that the lion's share of the cost to produce a new technology comes from companies but you haven't provided any evidence which supports that. You've only provided evidence that private companies are the most likely to get the end product to the consumer. Surprise surprise you've just proven capitalism. That capitalism doesn't function without the taxpayer money, academic research, or any of the other foundations.

You haven't compared the dollar value put in before those clinical trials were performed. You just hand-waved them away since it's so convenient for your worldview.

[gdgyva]

http://www.battelle.org/media/press-releases/battelle-r-d-magazine-annual-global-funding-forecast-predicts-r-d-spending-growth-will-continue-while-globalization-accelerates

Experts from Battelle and R&D Magazine forecast that a 2.1 percent growth in United States R&D expenditures will be balanced against an estimated 2 percent inflation rate, suggesting that U.S. R&D investments will remain flat in real terms over the next year. That $436 billion in forecasted spending is expected to be broken down in the following way:

U.S. Private Industry will spend by far the largest amount with a projection of $279.6 billion in R&D in 2012, up 3.75 percent over 2011.
U.S. Federal Government spending will reach $125.6 billion in 2012, a decrease of 1.16 percent.
Academia in the U.S. will spend $12 billion on research in 2012, up 2.85 percent over last year.
Non-profits will increase spending in 2012 by 2.7 percent to $14.5 billion and other government entities in the U.S. will round out total R&D expenditures by increasing 2.72 percent to $3.8 billion.


dont know how much clearer i can make it than this

[matchewed]

http://www.battelle.org/media/press-releases/battelle-r-d-magazine-annual-global-funding-forecast-predicts-r-d-spending-growth-will-continue-while-globalization-accelerates

Experts from Battelle and R&D Magazine forecast that a 2.1 percent growth in United States R&D expenditures will be balanced against an estimated 2 percent inflation rate, suggesting that U.S. R&D investments will remain flat in real terms over the next year. That $436 billion in forecasted spending is expected to be broken down in the following way:

U.S. Private Industry will spend by far the largest amount with a projection of $279.6 billion in R&D in 2012, up 3.75 percent over 2011.
U.S. Federal Government spending will reach $125.6 billion in 2012, a decrease of 1.16 percent.
Academia in the U.S. will spend $12 billion on research in 2012, up 2.85 percent over last year.
Non-profits will increase spending in 2012 by 2.7 percent to $14.5 billion and other government entities in the U.S. will round out total R&D expenditures by increasing 2.72 percent to $3.8 billion.


dont know how much clearer i can make it than this

Excellent. Thank you. Claim and support like this is rare in a post. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't disagreeing with your claim that the lion's share was from private. Just that a) you provided no support, and b) conveniently ignored the non-private side of the discussion with your original post asking for "who pays for research?". Oversimplifying to prove your point in other words.

[thepokercab]

http://www.battelle.org/media/press-releases/battelle-r-d-magazine-annual-global-funding-forecast-predicts-r-d-spending-growth-will-continue-while-globalization-accelerates

Experts from Battelle and R&D Magazine forecast that a 2.1 percent growth in United States R&D expenditures will be balanced against an estimated 2 percent inflation rate, suggesting that U.S. R&D investments will remain flat in real terms over the next year. That $436 billion in forecasted spending is expected to be broken down in the following way:

U.S. Private Industry will spend by far the largest amount with a projection of $279.6 billion in R&D in 2012, up 3.75 percent over 2011.
U.S. Federal Government spending will reach $125.6 billion in 2012, a decrease of 1.16 percent.
Academia in the U.S. will spend $12 billion on research in 2012, up 2.85 percent over last year.
Non-profits will increase spending in 2012 by 2.7 percent to $14.5 billion and other government entities in the U.S. will round out total R&D expenditures by increasing 2.72 percent to $3.8 billion.


dont know how much clearer i can make it than this

Pleassssse.  Where do you think all that R&D money from private industry comes from?  It's indirectly provided via the tax payer in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.  Much of what big pharma spends on R&D can be written off as a tax deduction, and the pharma industry has some of the lowest tax rates among all types of companies. 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/6948/a_spoonful_of_subsidies_for_big_pharma
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/11/12175/opinion-big-pharmas-stranglehold-washington

And all that R&D... Its about $$$$$$:

In fact, much of the R&D budget flows not to new meds, but to drugs designed to capture market share and evade patent expirations by changing dosages, altering a few molecules, or adding a previously off-label use. Bottom-line priorities mean that the industry favors drugs that people take for years, like antidepressants, over one-course lifesavers.

Boner pills and anti-depressants are big money. 

And of course, they need special special treatment from lawmakers: 

It’s actually the pharmaceutical industry that spends the most each year to influence our lawmakers, forking over a total of $2.6 billion on lobbying activities from 1998 through 2012, according to OpenSecrets.org. To get some perspective on just how big that number is, consider that oil and gas companies and their trade associations spent $1.4 billion lobbying Congress over the same time frame while the defense and aerospace industry spent $662 million, a fourth of Big Pharma’s total.

My personal favorite crony law: 

...the industry’s friends in Congress (and the White House at the time) went along with Big Pharma’s demand that Medicare not be allowed to negotiate pricing with drug makers to make medicines more affordable to beneficiaries.

So not only did drug makers get a huge new revenue stream from taxpayers, but they pulled a fast one on us.  Insurers and hospitals and even the Department of Veterans Affairs can bargain with drug makers to get better deals on prices. But, incredibly, not the Medicare program.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government could save $112 billion over the coming decade if Congress reconsidered its 2006 gift to drug makers and gave Medicare the ability to negotiate prices.

But unfortunately, price controls would give the medical industry a case of the sads and our health care system would devolve into some sort of Thunderdome type dystopia.  Like it is in Canada.   

[EricL]

"I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him." - Saint Teresa of Avila

Yeah, conspiracies are out there, they exist.  But generally they aren't all that as all encompassing and efficient as some people think.  The scary part is that people who embrace the most wide ranging crazy conspiracy theories are often the types most likely to try to carry out the nastiest conspiracies.  The sad part is that's a mentality that seems to be growing in the US thanks to crazies on the Right and Left.