So what happened to your Aids research at Rutgers Santa Claus?
No you post an article that simply says "with support of the NSF."
What happened to the NIH and its funding a "good deal" of MIT's lung cancer breakthrough Santa Claus.
You just pull something out of your ass like an 18 year old undergraduate and can't back it up. You're really getting pathetic.
I guess they must be making budget cut back and your livelihood is threatened so you've just become a blind maniac for "government does everything."
How utterly pathetic.

The ScienceDaily article you cited is 600 words long and says " support of the National Science Foundation" and ", conducted with worldwide collaborations."

What stunningly precise statements for an egghead like you to extrapolate the idea that "MIT derives a good deal of its funding from the NIH."

Please say you have something more to offer Santa Claus

The government funded the Trans-Continental Railroad Santa Claus?
Making you look like an utter fool is so easy.
The government funded the Trans-Continental Railroad by giving the Union Pacific and Central Pacific a 400 foot right-of-way and ten square miles of Native American land for every mile of track laid.

So that's your idea of "government funding" Santa Claus?
The government giving undeveloped Native American land to railroads.
Does your ignorance and incompetence know no bounds?

how about 20million acres of government land and 60million dollars in 30 year US bonds. That isnt government support?

that is my idea of Government funding

here is the source ,

http://opportunistmagazine.com/the-transcontinental-railroad%E2%80%94-america%E2%80%99s-ultimate-construction-project-name/

obviously a communitst rag

You aren't much of a historian Santa Claus.
Do you let students cite "opportunist magazine.com?"
What a joke.
Why don't you read the classic treatment of the subject in short article form written in 1871 by the venerable Charles F. Adams Jr. "The Government and the Railroad Corporations."

"How Railroads Took Native American Lands in Kansas" by William G. Thomas is another excellent work.

Santa Claus,
I'm going to fund an endowed chair of history for you with 2 million acres of land on Mars.
You simply have a terminal case of the dumb ass.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

This is actually beautiful.

I was wrong about the Koch Center deriving funding from the NIH It is actually a "NCI Cancer Center" which means it is actually under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute. Its a Federal Research institution which also derives money from donors such as Koch.

http://cancercenters.cancer.gov/cancer_centers/cancer-centers-list.html#MA

Santa Claus,

If you took the time to educate yourself about the trans-continental railroad you would realize that private money built the railroads.
That Native American land was developed by private citizens from Europe who migrated here and paid their hard earned money for the land.
The Native American land you saying was crucial government funding was literally worthless. The only way the railroads made any money off of it was because war and overpopulation in Europe drove millions of immigrants west.

You sound like the kind of fool who would say that Plymouth Colony was government funded.

Santa Claus, you are concrete proof that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

Santa Claus, the list of what you are wrong about rivals the infinity of the universe.

"That Native American land was developed by private citizens from Europe who migrated here and paid their hard earned money for the land. "

And paid the railroad companies for the land, which the railroad companies got for free

"The Native American land you saying was crucial government funding was literally worthless. "

Completely Wrong

And dipshit, it wasn't Native American Land, it was Government land

and where is your support?

"Between 1850 and 1871 the federal government and the states had granted railroad corperations more than 200 million acres, making the railroads the largest land jobbers in the west."

"The railroad lands lay on both sides of the track from 20 to 40 square miles for every mile of track in the territorie and up to 20 in the states"

"Homesteaders were obliged to accept areas remote from the tracks or to pay the higher price the railroads asked."

from the textbook the national experience by c van woodward, phillip morgan, aurthur schlessinger jr, kenneth stamp, you know historical lightweights

"The Native American land you saying was crucial government funding was literally worthless. The only way the railroads made any money off of it was because war and overpopulation in Europe drove millions of immigrants west. " So... the land *became* valuable because of the immigrants moving west. Like many investments it became more valuable with time. No surprise there. That is the nature of investment. (are you taking notes?) The fact that much of the land was not instantly valuable and that some of it still is not valuable is irrelevant. Enough of it became valuable to make it an extremely profitable venture. And I use the word venture purposely... as the government essentially played the role of venture capitalist along with the railroad barons. Each invested, each saw a return. ...and, critically to this conversation, the railroads would not have been built nearly as quickly without this cooperation. Even the land grants were an investment. Yes, the government never got paid directly for these grants, but the country was grown as a result... thus the power and influence and revenue was grown. It was definitely an investment... not for personal profit, but for the profit of the American people.

http://cprr.org/Museum/FAQs.html#funding

If you do not count land grants as funding, then you cannot count corporate donations and private foundation donations of land or other non-liquid assets as funding either. And if you do not count government bonds as funding, then you cannot count any private loans. Therefore, taking your logic out to the extreme, the only funded projects ever are those funded directly from your personal pocket with no participation by other investors or donations. You also seem to have a zero-sum model of economics that does not at all take into account the fact that the value of land and infrastructure and other investments actually changes over time (!!). To claim that receiving all this land strategically located immediately adjacent to the entire length of each of the transcontinental rail lines (five complete lines, eventually, as I recall) is somehow worthless strains credibility. To call the land that the railroads were granted "worthless" displays either utter dishonesty because you *know* that many towns and cities were built along the rail lines (duh!) (and crops planted - along mostly the eastern half) causing the value to skyrocket over the following decades, or you simply have no understanding of capitalism and investment. Both the railroad companies and the government invested in the transcontinental railroad project... both saw returns. The government got back their bonds with interest, the railroad company owners became fabulously rich. ...and the project would not have proceeded without the foresight and bold commitment of both parties, private and public.

Santa Claus, all I can say is you have no idea how to make a historical argument.
You regressed from discussing the Trans-continental railroad to make broad statements that you don't even cite.
I know I can spot you in a crowd, you will be the one with "incompetent" tattooed on your forehead.
Can you mention a specific railroad in your 21 year window?
I guess the basic survey text they give undergraduate is all you can rely on.
Those texts are also written by van woodward? Schlessinger jr. (who is dead and did his best work in the 40's and 50's.
You use dated, general undergraduate survey texts to pull general ambiguous statements from and then say Ah Ha!
My God, you aren't even aware the magnitude of your own incompetence.

I'll show you how it is done.
My thesis is that the federal government was irrelevant to the massive technological expansion of the 19th century.
To support this here is a list of inventions that emerged from the private sector from Washington's first administration through McKinley's.

The Cotton Gin, the Rumford Fireplace, the Sewing Machine, the Elevator, the mechanical thresher, the mechanical reaper, the steam shovel, the steel plow, the wrench, the revolver, interchangeable parts, the fire hydrant, the circular saw, the lathe, the telegraph, Morse code, vulcanized rubber, the corn sheller, ether, tumbler lock, the monkey wrench, the mason jar, the ironing board, the vacuum cleaner, the escalator, the pencil eraser, the typewriter, tungsten steel, traffic lights, barbed wire, the mail order catalog, the telephone, the phonograph, the lightbulb, toilet paper, the cash register, and the adding machine.

All developed by private enterprise.

Now please give me a list of government supported innovation besides giving Native American dirt to railroad corporations you incompetent oaf Santa Claus you.

"From 1850-1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (708,000 km²) of public land - an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas." This according to an unsourced wikipedia article... but if the previous noted 60 million acres is accurate for the first transcontinental line, then 175 million total seems reasonable - and perhaps low. So, basically, Tettleton is claiming that an area greater in size than Texas, *all* adjacent to major rail lines, is worthless? Might as well conclude that the entire U.S. west of the Mississippi is worthless. After all, the land away from the rail lines would be less than worthless. So, you heard it here first, Tettleton says that the American West, in total, is worthless.

""That Native American land was developed by private citizens from Europe who migrated here and paid their hard earned money for the land. "

And paid the railroad companies for the land, which the railroad companies got for free"

+1 Santa

You cited the Fraser Institute earlier in this thread Tettleton, and you're criticizing Mother Jones and the DailyKos? You are such a hypocrite.

"My thesis is that the federal government was irrelevant to the massive technological expansion of the 19th century. " Pretty damn specific thesis you have there. Considering how much smaller the government was in comparison to the private sector in that century it is not a surprising thing that most innovation (outside of military and infrastructure) came from private companies... in that century. So the fuck what.

Also it is possible to be left wing and intellectually honest. The question isn't "Does the source have a particular political slant." Of course it has one. I defy you to find me a source with no ideological slant at all. The question is, is the information accurate, is it presented in a way that honestly represents the relevant facts, and isn't misleading or otherwise dishonest.

Considering how many times TC has flat out ignored people who raise points (through squelching them or otherwise), the entire idea of him ranting on about intellectual honesty makes me laugh.

Dinner and a show.

"Santa Claus, all I can say is you have no idea how to make a historical argument. "

$500 award says otherwise

I still don't get the question. Rather ambiguous..

TC is trying to change the topic AGAIN. He looks like a fool claiming that the advancements made by a federally funded MIT research lab is an example of why the federal government should not be supporting research. He looks like a fool claiming that the Transcontinental railroad was not assisted by the federal government (we didnt even talk about the windfall subsidies given to the railroads during the period btw). So now hes trying to pick a fight about technilogical advancement in the 19th century. It isn't my period, my degree is in Early American history, and I no longer have a desire to present facts to you so you can arbitrarily reject them and call me stupid. Have fun, everyone sees you are a joke.

Santa Claus, you demonstrate your total disconnect from reality with the statement "$500 award says otherwise" in cyberspace.
Then again unsubstantiated, ambiguous, and meaningless generalities are your stock in trade.
What does a "historian" do with a $500 award? LOL!
You sound more an more like a high school teacher who graduated a few decades ago every single day.
Relying on old survey textbooks for quotes.
No access to modern databases.

I wonder if you can find this landmark essay that deals with the subject at hand.
It is almost 50 years old, but it settled the issue so effectively no one has tackled it since.

Robert Fogel's critical research in "Railroads and American Economic Growth" where he demonstrated that Railroads weren't even a turning point in American economic history because steamboats and canals powered economic growth in the country up until 1890.

Of course a pretend historian looking at a dated copy of his undergraduate textbook wouldn't know anything about that.
Someone exactly like you Santa Claus.

I can see this thread has 84 replies to it now, but I only see a portion of them.
This thread is obviously driving the can't-live-without-big-government-sheep nuts.
The mute button is so soothing.

"What does a "historian" do with a $500 award? LOL!"

pay rent

"You sound more an more like a high school teacher who graduated a few decades ago every single day. "

not quite

"
Robert Fogel's critical research in "Railroads and American Economic Growth" where he demonstrated that Railroads weren't even a turning point in American economic history because steamboats and canals powered economic growth in the country up until 1890."

You mean the Robert Fogel that advocated cliometrics which has been bunk in historical circles for well over 30 years. Who got punched in the face at Yes you are such a well read and historiographical sound scholar.

"Of course a pretend historian looking at a dated copy of his undergraduate textbook wouldn't know anything about that.
Someone exactly like you Santa Claus. "

The study you just cited is older than the textbook I used you fucking twit

take the punched in the face out, that was neither here nor their, just comical.

You don't seem to understand Santa Claus that "historians" work in universities and an award of $500 would do what for them? Fund one round-trip plane ticket.
You don't understand history or how it's funded either.

Yes, Santa Claus. The Robert Fogel, nobel prize winning, economic historian.
The difference between Fogel and the author's you referred to is Fogel's work hasn't been challenged because he won a nobel.
So what else do you need an education on Santa Claus.

You don't understand the minimal role of government in the economic expansion of the United States.
You don't have access to any databases that a real historian would.
You don't understand how historians or historical research is funded.
The list is pretty much endless about what you don't know.
Trying to figure out what you do know if a mystery.