In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.
Which says nothing about how much they should be. But still, parent went on about sinking budgets, not budget-to-GDP ratios.
Nominal dollars are a meaningless yardstick. Inflation is only slightly better, GDP on the other hand tends to compare better across time periods.
There are 100 million more people in the US now vs 1980. Yet, we have fewer people doing fundamental research. Just because some numbers look better does not mean we are somehow actually doing more research.
PS: GDP growth is also inflated when the same physical house is suddenly worth more, that's not progress.
Please do not focus on partitions the message, specially if there are readings which also address your concern: the real GDP figures were there from the beginning.
Your postscript is also just wrong. Notice that GDP might be estimated by three different accounting approaches, all of which are mutually consistent. One of them is the net product approach, which takes the value produced by all economic activities/sectors liquid of their expenditures and sums all those up to get the GDP. So two things: first, if something isn't sold in a year, it isn't accounted for in the GDP for that year; second, activities which have no net product have zero impact on GDP. Trade is defined as having zero net product for national accounts purposes, so any sort of capital gains of the sort you're describing has no impact on GDP. It merely shuffles money and assets between hands.
If you produced an identical house in Arlington VA in 1950 vs 2016 the 2016 version would be worth more above the inflation rate. It's still a new thing so it counts for GDP it also adds more to GDP without somehow actually being better.
And yes new housing is a significant share of US GDP.
PS: I specially said fundamental research as government funding covers a wide range of R&D.
In 1980, US nominal GDP was USD 2.863 trillion. Today it is USD 18.625, which gives out an average growth rate of 5.34% and thus an 650% increase over 36 years. Real growth over the same period is around 2.69%, which gives out a 259% increase in real GDP, which is still way above a 45% decrease. In real terms, research budgets are actually 42.45% higher than what they were in 1980.
Which says nothing about how much they should be. But still, parent went on about sinking budgets, not budget-to-GDP ratios.
GDP figures: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543