Comments on: More on the Stimulus

By: Stimulus for scientists « Science in Society

Stimulus for scientists « Science in Society — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:20:33 +0000

[...] But research — even and especially basic research — drives future productivity. Cosmic Variance makes the point that we’re not going to get the much vaunted revolution in green energy [...]

By: Gaining a Perspective on Energy « Competitive intelligence on e-recruitment SaaS Vendors

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:24:44 +0000

[...] interesting. Cosmic Variance (a blog primarily focused on discussions related to physics) had a post about the stimulus package with a graphic that gives view into U.S. sources and uses of energy. I [...]

By: Gaining a Perspective on Energy

Gaining a Perspective on Energy — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:36:41 +0000

[...] Cosmic Variance (a blog primarily focused on discussions related to physics) had a post about the stimulus package with a graphic that gives view into U.S. sources and uses of [...]

By: Making sausage | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Making sausage | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:31:46 +0000

[...] the development of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 (HR 1)” here, here, and here. The bottom line is that the House version of the bill will reinvigorate basic science in [...]

By: Hari Seldon

Hari Seldon — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:31:49 +0000

Grab what you can while you can, gents & ladies–we’ve been on voodoo economics for a long time now, and reality is fighting back. Think more Collapse of the Roman Empire than Great Depression.

By: Anonymous Snowboarder

Anonymous Snowboarder — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:04:38 +0000

The problem with this ’stimulus’ is that most of it is not stimulus and worse, they are lumping the spending into one year so as to sweep it under the rug. This is not to say there are not things in science or other ares which are justified in seeing increased funding, hopefully for more than one year. But it seems to me we are literally drowning some agencies in money that they cant possibly hope to use in short order. These are not trivial sums of money.

Someone else seemed to think the previous bailouts were not a monetary problem as they are loans and will be repaid – this assumes they will be repaid, something that looks increasingly unlikely. But bailout money aside – Bush did 160B in stimulus last year and Obama is about to do 860B. Thats 1.020T buckeroos. Nominal GDP? 14T. When will that money be paid back and from where? What about the debt service? And with the bailout of last fall, total federal debt is 11.3T, while the public debt is over 40% of nominal GDP. Add on top the present value of social sec., medicaid/medicare obligations (40-50T) and its quite frightening.

I suspect few people here realize it, but you could eliminate the entire discretionary portion of the US budget and we would still have a deficity this year (about 1T of which 480B is defense). Whenever speaking to this topic I strongly recommend people read http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08mda.pdf which is the ‘Financial Report’ of the US and is based on accrual accounting (like a business would use), not cash based accounting (like the Federal Budget). Please take a quick spin and check out the charts, paying attention to years 2015-2030. We are upon the brink.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:21:39 +0000

DougA, I used to work in a govt. lab, and this is precisely the behavior one saw literally every fiscal year. I doubt much has changed. Any leftover money is spent. Completely. On something, anything, just spend it. In that lab, the consequences of not spending were even more dire: Not only would they lose the money they hadn’t spent, they’d have their next budget shrunk by that amount, since, clearly, they didn’t need that extra cash in the first place, and administrators just love to reallocate. Fortunately, we at least got to discuss the spending spree together, and decide on what was best. Typically it went to non-perishable consumables, since buying almost any piece of equipment more complicated than an orbital shaker triggered the need for capital expenditure approval. Since the capital expenditure process was invented by total sadists, and created unwanted scrutiny, heaps of plastics it was!

Indeed, shoveling money on labs, especially govt. labs, can have some egregiously wasteful consequences if it’s not done with extreme care.

By: tyler

tyler — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:21:18 +0000

I would love to see a show of hands among this group on the following question:

Given massive funding and resources – meaning a significant portion of the money mentioned in this article, whatever the exact fraction – a proof-of-concept fusion reactor could be brought online in:

a) less than 10 years
b) 10-25 years
c) 25+ years but doable
d) it’ll never work

(proof-of-concept reactor must create positive net energy and not fail catastrophically, other parameters may vary)

By: Daniel C

Daniel C — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:45:47 +0000

The main purpose of the stimulus is to create jobs. Here is an analysis on how many jobs will be created from funding additional research.

http://www.itif.org/files/2009-stim-novation.pdf

By: Doug A

Doug A — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:29:55 +0000

Looks like us scientists aren’t the only ones concerning about effectively using an unimaginable windfall in cash:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html?_r=1&hp

The education stimulus, like the science investments, is sorely needed. But lots of cash now is likely to be wasted.

A fellow physicist told me this anecdote from his 2 years teaching in the DC school system. The principle shows up with a new laser printer, saying he had extra money that he had to use or lose. Everybody gets one. My friend replies that he had a perfectly good printer, but he could use some basic lab supplies. The principle’s response? Tough luck, this is what you get.

If we’re going to put the government into massive debt to invest in critical areas, lets make sure its spent wisely.