[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.