The economy doesn't come into it. Consider the continued operation of such things as the IIS, which have no compelling reason to continue to exist. Research alone is a good enough reason, plus the potential for sponsorship/tv rights etc also recouping some of the costs for such things

That is depressing as hell: we'll just throw money at something that makes good propaganda rather than makes sense to invest in.

well, the moon would likely only serve for research purposes until space faring society is a bit more established. The most likely "cash crop" for the moon would be serving as a drydock for spacecrafts. The low gravity would majorly reduce the cost and remove the size and profile constraints of said spacecrafts.

I think you're interpreting me wrong: the gravity well is the source of the cost. It'd make more sense to land and mine asteroids than the moon.

The gravity well is partially a cost and partially a benefit. By having low gravity, the capacity to manipulate objects is greatly improved but having at least some gravity enables a lot of manufacturing processes that would otherwise be complicated by the lack of gravity. One example is laser sintering which needs some force to hold the powder in place. This process in particular is beneficial as it is very heavily utilised in rocket engine production.

Also I agree that asteroid mining needs to happen however the moon would serve as a very good base of operations for such industries.