> 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 tha

> 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....