Washington D.C. Throwing Your Money Away
You know the time has come to stop paying your taxes when you discover that your government spends hundreds of thousands, nay, millions, on the following researches:
The federal government is spending $423,500 to find out why men don’t like to wear condoms . . .
As Patterico points out, I’ll give you the answer for half that. Heck, I’d even settle for 10%.
But wait, there’s more:
The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad.
But some questionable queries have come under close scrutiny, including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.
They may just as well throw your money away directly. That’ll be even more effective, and fast, yet you accomplish the same basic result: you lose your money. You know, the money you work so hard for to earn day in, day out.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael, it’s that darn Keynesian revival. Every example you mentioned has to do with holes and Keynes thought that if you paid people to fill them it would stimulate the economy. Also, when the financial crisis hit, many economists started dressing up as Keynesians again, selling their services on the market. Maybe there’s more to these studies than meet the eye.