3 ms·

Federal funds are often disbursed to researchers. What is disturbing here is that Economic Stimulus funds were spent on a climate researcher who was already emp

Federal funds are often disbursed to researchers. What is disturbing here is that Economic Stimulus funds were spent on a climate researcher who was already employed. There's no stimulation in this "stimulus". FTA: "It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenets of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli.

sophacles 17y ago
"Federal funds are often disbursed to researchers. What is disturbing here is that Economic Stimulus funds were spent on a climate researcher who was already employed. There's no stimulation in this "stimulus"." Sure that guy was employed. But assuming his corner of academia works like the rest of academia there are a lot of other people who are now not unemployed. See researchers (Ph.D's) are more like project managers. They hire grad students, interns, staff, etc to do the actual work. The phds just just supervise, put their names on papers, etc. Now, when this grant was awarded the researcher probably had a secure job. All the people I just mentioned however, were subject to cutbacks. Further depending on specifics, a job or two may have been created. For a similar thing I know of first hand, we were awarded a grant out of stimulus money. I got to keep my job. Several grad students got to keep their appointments (and not require student loans). We may be hiring a staff member or two. The official PI (principle investigators) on the grant all have tenure. I don't know how you count "works", but a job saved is about the same as creating a different job instead by my reckoning.
ajross 17y ago
I don't think you understand what "stimulus" means, or how it works. It's not and was never intended solely to go to unemployment benefits. Handing cash to an organization (say, a science lab) that it then spends (to, say, do flawed or fraudulent research) produces economic activity (say, buying computers) that benefits the economy as a whole. So at the end of the day there are fewer jobs lost in total. There certainly isn't an "is the organization already solvent" test for stimulus cash; and to add one would be silly and self-defeating. Really, it doesn't matter where the money goes as long as it's spent. All spending is stimulatory. The biggest problem with the stimulus bill was actually finding "public good" projects (i.e. ones that don't look like pork) that can spend the money fast enough.
- walkon 17y ago
  The biggest problem with the stimulus bill was actually finding "public good" projects (i.e. ones that don't look like pork) that can spend the money fast enough. The biggest problem with the stimulus bill is that it passed.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Please don't try to make what are very complicated macroeconomic points (there are some valid arguments against Keynesian stimulus, but I'm all but certain you've never heard of them) with trite one-liners you probably heard on FOX News. It cheapens the site.

sophacles 17y ago

"Federal funds are often disbursed to researchers. What is disturbing here is that Economic Stimulus funds were spent on a climate researcher who was already employed. There's no stimulation in this "stimulus"." Sure that guy was employed. But assuming his corner of academia works like the rest of academia there are a lot of other people who are now not unemployed. See researchers (Ph.D's) are more like project managers. They hire grad students, interns, staff, etc to do the actual work. The phds just just supervise, put their names on papers, etc. Now, when this grant was awarded the researcher probably had a secure job. All the people I just mentioned however, were subject to cutbacks. Further depending on specifics, a job or two may have been created. For a similar thing I know of first hand, we were awarded a grant out of stimulus money. I got to keep my job. Several grad students got to keep their appointments (and not require student loans). We may be hiring a staff member or two. The official PI (principle investigators) on the grant all have tenure. I don't know how you count "works", but a job saved is about the same as creating a different job instead by my reckoning.

ajross 17y ago

I don't think you understand what "stimulus" means, or how it works. It's not and was never intended solely to go to unemployment benefits. Handing cash to an organization (say, a science lab) that it then spends (to, say, do flawed or fraudulent research) produces economic activity (say, buying computers) that benefits the economy as a whole. So at the end of the day there are fewer jobs lost in total. There certainly isn't an "is the organization already solvent" test for stimulus cash; and to add one would be silly and self-defeating. Really, it doesn't matter where the money goes as long as it's spent. All spending is stimulatory. The biggest problem with the stimulus bill was actually finding "public good" projects (i.e. ones that don't look like pork) that can spend the money fast enough.

walkon 17y ago
The biggest problem with the stimulus bill was actually finding "public good" projects (i.e. ones that don't look like pork) that can spend the money fast enough. The biggest problem with the stimulus bill is that it passed.
- ajross 17y ago
  Please don't try to make what are very complicated macroeconomic points (there are some valid arguments against Keynesian stimulus, but I'm all but certain you've never heard of them) with trite one-liners you probably heard on FOX News. It cheapens the site.