4 ms·

I am not an economist, nor am I an exec or anything so it is all observations but: 1. When we talk about joint academic/industry projects we talk about numbers

I am not an economist, nor am I an exec or anything so it is all observations but: 1. When we talk about joint academic/industry projects we talk about numbers of dollars on the order of 1M and 10M not 10K and 100K. 2. Lots of conversation from various people along the lines of "we just hired some guys to get ready for FOA-xx" or "we picked up some guys to integrate with the new NERC requirements" where FOA-xx describes one of the many stimulus grants -- at the time many had not been awarded. Now that they have been "awarded" many companies are hiring people to do the jobs. The contracts w/ the gov't still arent signed, so this money is not actually listed as spent yet. I am personally involved w/ a couple of these, this is how it works. 3. Industry meetings/conferences have gotten bigger in terms of # of attendees. Many of the people selling software are new entries to the market. As for: * Do you really think that the borrowed money wouldn't have created any jobs? * I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about borrowed money. Which borrowed money? Sure more money may have created more jobs, but at least in the power sector, even when credit was good and easy there wasn't this level of interest and job creation. About your last statement I totally agree: money spent on something I don't like doesnt enter the economy, therefore cannot possibly be helping things. (actually thats unfair, you seem like the type susceptible to poe's law so heres a bit of help: that last sentence was sarcasm).

anamax 17y ago
> 1. When we talk about joint academic/industry projects we talk about numbers of dollars on the order of 1M and 10M not 10K and 100K. Pikers. The project that I'm talking about has already spent over $500M out of a $5B budget. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9780935 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9780935 > Lots of conversation from various people along the lines of "we just hired some guys to get ready for FOA-xx" Giggle. In other words, it's in the noise even for an anecdote. We're spending around $800B so the overall effect better be massive or it's a waste. > * Do you really think that the borrowed money wouldn't have created any jobs? * I have no idea what you are talking about. The stimulous is being funded with a combination of borrowed money and printed money. The borrowed money came from somewhere. That somewhere is likely to have been producing jobs as well, jobs that won't happen because the money went into the stimulus. Unless the stimulus produces more jobs, it's a net loss. > but at least in the power sector, even when credit was good and easy there wasn't this level of interest and job creation. Which tells us that the jobs and interest are not driven by market value but by subsidy. In other words, you're being paid to do things that don't make economic sense. That brings us back to weatherizing houses for $50k a piece. Yes, someone got a job, but do you really think that that's a reasonable way to spend money? Or, are you arguing that "govt money" is special? Surely you're not going to argue that money that goes into your pocket is special....

anamax 17y ago

> 1. When we talk about joint academic/industry projects we talk about numbers of dollars on the order of 1M and 10M not 10K and 100K. Pikers. The project that I'm talking about has already spent over $500M out of a $5B budget. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9780935 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9780935 > Lots of conversation from various people along the lines of "we just hired some guys to get ready for FOA-xx" Giggle. In other words, it's in the noise even for an anecdote. We're spending around $800B so the overall effect better be massive or it's a waste. > * Do you really think that the borrowed money wouldn't have created any jobs? * I have no idea what you are talking about. The stimulous is being funded with a combination of borrowed money and printed money. The borrowed money came from somewhere. That somewhere is likely to have been producing jobs as well, jobs that won't happen because the money went into the stimulus. Unless the stimulus produces more jobs, it's a net loss. > but at least in the power sector, even when credit was good and easy there wasn't this level of interest and job creation. Which tells us that the jobs and interest are not driven by market value but by subsidy. In other words, you're being paid to do things that don't make economic sense. That brings us back to weatherizing houses for $50k a piece. Yes, someone got a job, but do you really think that that's a reasonable way to spend money? Or, are you arguing that "govt money" is special? Surely you're not going to argue that money that goes into your pocket is special....