Comments on: Science in the Stimulus http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:52:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Matt A http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63869 Matt A Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:02:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63869 @counterMatt: Did you read the Becker article? The point is that even in the short term the stimulus will negative economic impact. In other words, as the economy finds equilibrium and enters a recovery phase, the stimulus will actually slow this process. You are assuming the stimulus will help, not hurt the recovery phase. Both professor Becker and the CBO (a govenment agency!) agree the long term impact is negative. @counterMatt: Did you read the Becker article? The point is that even in the short term the stimulus will negative economic impact. In other words, as the economy finds equilibrium and enters a recovery phase, the stimulus will actually slow this process. You are assuming the stimulus will help, not hurt the recovery phase.

Both professor Becker and the CBO (a govenment agency!) agree the long term impact is negative.

]]> By: ccous http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63815 ccous Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:34:17 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63815 The letter above written by Tim Nelson states "The advancements in technology resulting from fundamental scientific research have been responsible for half of the economic growth since World War II". What is the source for that statement? The letter above written by Tim Nelson states “The advancements in technology resulting from fundamental scientific research have been responsible for half of the economic growth since World War II”.

What is the source for that statement?

]]> By: 271. Continuing dS/CFT - correspondence. Part 2 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63769 271. Continuing dS/CFT - correspondence. Part 2 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:42:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63769 [...] It seems that there are good news for science funding in US. Cosmic Variance points out that science funding in the stimulus package was largely restored: with 3 bill. for NSF, 1.6 bill. for DOE and 1 bill. for NASA. I really hope this is [...] [...] It seems that there are good news for science funding in US. Cosmic Variance points out that science funding in the stimulus package was largely restored: with 3 bill. for NSF, 1.6 bill. for DOE and 1 bill. for NASA. I really hope this is [...]

]]> By: counterMatt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63678 counterMatt Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:26:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63678 Matt: I would argue that stemming the unemployment tide and getting back to full employment are not zero economic impact. Whether it's worth (or requires) $800 billion of spending in this manner is another question. Matt: I would argue that stemming the unemployment tide and getting back to full employment are not zero economic impact. Whether it’s worth (or requires) $800 billion of spending in this manner is another question.

]]> By: Matt A http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63594 Matt A Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:17:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63594 You can print 1 Trillion dollars to pay millions workers to dig holes all day, that doesn't mean they are adding anything productive to the economy. Just by more issuing debt to pay for more grad students and postdocs in physics/math/astronomy doesn't mean those jobs will add anything to long term economic growth (even if they are really smart girls/guys ... are they producing something people want to buy?) Public funding for science and technology research should always be a part of any budget (that's how I funded graduate school), but the best way to stimulate the economy is through tax cuts, not increased wasteful government spending. Don't take my word for it. For example, Ask Christina Romer (Obama’s new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) found an economic multiplier of 3 for tax cuts: http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf An analysis of the current stimulus package Professor Becker (UChicago, Nobel '92) found the current stimulus to have an multiplier of <1 even if we continue to have a large output gap. Once we get back to full employment the multiplier will approach 0. In other words, all that money spent will have ZERO economic impact, while increasing our debt by 800B. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423402552366409.html You can print 1 Trillion dollars to pay millions workers to dig holes all day, that doesn’t mean they are adding anything productive to the economy. Just by more issuing debt to pay for more grad students and postdocs in physics/math/astronomy doesn’t mean those jobs will add anything to long term economic growth (even if they are really smart girls/guys … are they producing something people want to buy?)

Public funding for science and technology research should always be a part of any budget (that’s how I funded graduate school), but the best way to stimulate the economy is through tax cuts, not increased wasteful government spending.

Don’t take my word for it. For example, Ask Christina Romer (Obama’s new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) found an economic multiplier of 3 for tax cuts:

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

An analysis of the current stimulus package Professor Becker (UChicago, Nobel ‘92) found the current stimulus to have an multiplier of <1 even if we continue to have a large output gap. Once we get back to full employment the multiplier will approach 0. In other words, all that money spent will have ZERO economic impact, while increasing our debt by 800B.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423402552366409.html

]]> By: Stimulus II http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63563 Stimulus II Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:46:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63563 [...] to this website, the science community can expect almost all of the proposed spending on basic science as was originally proposed. The final number will be somewhere well north of $10 billion, relieving [...] [...] to this website, the science community can expect almost all of the proposed spending on basic science as was originally proposed. The final number will be somewhere well north of $10 billion, relieving [...]

]]> By: Patrick http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63532 Patrick Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:09:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63532 re: John Says: February 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm "combine NIH, NSF, DOE/OS, NIST, NASA/Science, NOAA, USGS, … Of what use is having so many disparate agencies?" John, I thought that combining agencies was the way to go when I was at a National Lab. My thinking evolved to prefer a multi agency community. This because I could see the benefit of competition to maintaining higher standards of science. I also feared possible "Stalinization" of a centralized "Department of Science". re: John Says: February 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm “combine NIH, NSF, DOE/OS, NIST, NASA/Science, NOAA, USGS, … Of what use is having so many disparate agencies?”

John, I thought that combining agencies was the way to go when I was at a National Lab. My thinking evolved to prefer a multi agency community. This because I could see the benefit of competition to maintaining higher standards of science. I also feared possible “Stalinization” of a centralized “Department of Science”.

]]> By: Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-02-12 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63436 Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-02-12 Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:58:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63436 [...] Shared a link on Google Reader. Science in the Stimulus [...] [...] Shared a link on Google Reader. Science in the Stimulus [...]

]]> By: nemo http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63430 nemo Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:43:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63430 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTKnD4R_g8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTKnD4R_g8

]]> By: Ciaobella http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-63410 Ciaobella Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:33:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/02/12/science-in-the-stimulus/#comment-63410 Great news! But according to John, the money won't be used to create more permanent jobs in basic science. Too bad, post docs and grad students! Maybe you can go into real estate or high finance (oops, maybe not). There's not enough money to hire new faculty AND let the tenured faculty maintain their sinecures. Great news! But according to John, the money won’t be used to create more permanent jobs in basic science. Too bad, post docs and grad students! Maybe you can go into real estate or high finance (oops, maybe not). There’s not enough money to hire new faculty AND let the tenured faculty maintain their sinecures.

]]>