On May 22, 8:18*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


There was both. There was basic work done on multi-layer thin-film
photovoltaics.

I never heard anything about basic research.


But what is non-stimulative about developing manufacturing technology,
and production scale for pilot projects?

The stimulus produced by developing manufacturing technology and
production scale pilot projects is pretty short term. In WWII there
was a lot of development of new technology.

There are two angles on stimulative spending. One, the short-term
method for maintaining consumption, is digging holes and then filling
them back in. The other is building fundamental elements of a future
economy. If it was politically possible, that was the plan that the
Democrats had for further stimulus.

--
Ed Huntress

Pretty much everything I heard was about shovel ready projects. Not
anything about increasing spending on say NSF or Darpa. _And all
that stimulus money has been spent with no long term results.

Dan

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:37:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 22, 8:18*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


There was both. There was basic work done on multi-layer thin-film
photovoltaics.

I never heard anything about basic research.

You can go to www.recovery.gov and see who got the money. There is a
wide variety of energy projects of different types.



But what is non-stimulative about developing manufacturing technology,
and production scale for pilot projects?

The stimulus produced by developing manufacturing technology and
production scale pilot projects is pretty short term. In WWII there
was a lot of development of new technology.

I'm sure there was, as one would expect in the time of a modern
all-out war.


There are two angles on stimulative spending. One, the short-term
method for maintaining consumption, is digging holes and then filling
them back in. The other is building fundamental elements of a future
economy. If it was politically possible, that was the plan that the
Democrats had for further stimulus.

--
Ed Huntress

Pretty much everything I heard was about shovel ready projects. Not
anything about increasing spending on say NSF or Darpa. _And all
that stimulus money has been spent with no long term results.

Well, you'd get an argument on "long term results" from a lot of
economists. Many have said that the stimulus money prevented the
probable loss of a lot of jobs.

--
Ed Huntress

" wrote:

On May 22, 8:18 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


There was both. There was basic work done on multi-layer thin-film
photovoltaics.

I never heard anything about basic research.

But what is non-stimulative about developing manufacturing technology,
and production scale for pilot projects?

The stimulus produced by developing manufacturing technology and
production scale pilot projects is pretty short term. In WWII there
was a lot of development of new technology.


Electronics went from simple TRF radios and amplifers to RADAR during
W.W. II and a lot of that research was done at the MIT 'Radiation
Laboratory'. The entire series of once classified books are available
for download:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=f irefox-a&hs=S9a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=mit+radiation+lab+series+pdf+free+ download&oq=mit+radiation+lab+series+pdf+free+down &aq=0w&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_l=serp.1.0.33i21.3052.5549.0.8162.7.4.0 .0.0.0.1618.3253.1j1j7-1j1.4.0...0.0.5FBdoS2G1c4

www.4shared.com looks to have them all.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On May 25, 7:08*pm, Hawke wrote:

Nope, as usual you got it mixed up. What Krugman said was that the
stimulus bill that passed was about half as big as it should have been.
It probably only did half as much as it would have done if it had been
as big as he wanted it to be.

No, I did not get it mixed up. Krugman came up with an estimate of
how big he thought the stimulus bill ought to be very early at the
start of the recession. It was much less than what was enacted. He
later changed his estimate of what was needed.





I'm not making claims. I'm telling you something you don't know. The
fact that you demand a cite for everything is out of line especially
when you just admitted your ignorance.

Hawke

I asked for a cite because I was confident that if you tried to find
that jobs bill, you would realise it was not anything that was being
considered by Congress. So it was not because of my ignorance. It
was because I thought you would learn something if you tried to find
it.


Dan

On 5/25/2012 6:42 PM, wrote:
On May 25, 7:08 pm, wrote:

Nope, as usual you got it mixed up. What Krugman said was that the
stimulus bill that passed was about half as big as it should have been.
It probably only did half as much as it would have done if it had been
as big as he wanted it to be.

No, I did not get it mixed up.

Call it what you want. You didn't have it right.


Krugman came up with an estimate of
how big he thought the stimulus bill ought to be very early at the
start of the recession. It was much less than what was enacted. He
later changed his estimate of what was needed.

Actually Krugman believed all along that the stimulus needed to be more
than a trillion, something like a trillion one or a trillion two.
republicans kept it down to 775 billion, which he thought was not nearly
enough. He was right. It helped but it wasn't enough.




I'm not making claims. I'm telling you something you don't know. The
fact that you demand a cite for everything is out of line especially
when you just admitted your ignorance.

Hawke

I asked for a cite because I was confident that if you tried to find
that jobs bill, you would realise it was not anything that was being
considered by Congress. So it was not because of my ignorance. It
was because I thought you would learn something if you tried to find
it.


You ask for a cite for everything so don't bother making up excuses for
what you do. They don't work. You ask for cites for everything, period.
So I routinely ignore your requests. It is just how you act like a pest.

The bill I cited was considered by congress. It would not pass because
the republicans don't want any bills passed that will create jobs and
reduce unemployment. They want it high until the election.

You show your ignorance in many ways, Dan. One way is that you don't
know that a political scientist knows how to do research and knows how
to find bills under consideration by congress. It's not something
someone with my education would have to learn. Your mistake is that you
underestimate my abilities and you over rate your own. In fact, I'd say
it's you that is ignorant to many things that I tell you about and you
don't know how to confirm them on your own, which is why you always want
cites. If you had the ability to research things by yourself you
wouldn't be asking how I know what I know. You would find it for
yourself. You have the time but you are too lazy to verify anything. But
like I said, I'm not proving everything you doubt. If you doubt me then
find out I'm wrong.

Hawke

On May 26, 4:25*pm, Hawke wrote:

Actually Krugman believed all along that the stimulus needed to be more
than a trillion, something like a trillion one or a trillion two.
republicans kept it down to 775 billion, which he thought was not nearly
enough. He was right. It helped but it wasn't enough.

Not a true statement. Krugman originally thought the stimulus did not
need to be as big as a trillion dollars.






You ask for a cite for everything so don't bother making up excuses for
what you do. They don't work. You ask for cites for everything, period.
So I routinely ignore your requests. It is just how you act like a pest.

I ask for a cite on your statements that seem to be wrong. You post
claims that seem absurd so I ask where did you get that idea.


The bill I cited was considered by congress. It would not pass because
the republicans don't want any bills passed that will create jobs and
reduce unemployment. They want it high until the election.


You keep referring to a " bill " but refuse to identify which bill you
are talking about. All bills have names and numbers. You just refer
to a bill with no real identification.


You show your ignorance in many ways, Dan. One way is that you don't
know that a political scientist knows how to do research and knows how
to find bills under consideration by congress. It's not something
someone with my education would have to learn. Your mistake is that you
underestimate my abilities and you over rate your own. In fact, I'd say
it's you that is ignorant to many things that I tell you about and you
don't know how to confirm them on your own, which is why you always want
cites. If you had the ability to research things by yourself you
wouldn't be asking how I know what I know. You would find it for
yourself. You have the time but you are too lazy to verify anything. But
like I said, I'm not proving everything you doubt. If you doubt me then
find out I'm wrong.

Hawke

What a load of crap. I am pretty sure I am better educated than you
are. And have come to that conclusion from reading your post. In
addition I have found that when you claim something , it may not be
true. And when asked for some proof you go into this " I do not have
to prove things to you." Well I do not have to believe what you post,
and when you do not provide a clue as to where you came up with your
claims, I come to the conclusion that you just made it up.

So if you are too lazy to tell where you came up with ideas, I will
continue to assume you do not have a clue.

You really ought to read what you post. Consider

One way is that you don't
know that a political scientist knows how to do research and knows how
to find bills under consideration by congress. It's not something
someone with my education would have to learn.

You just said you did not have to learn how to do research or find
Congressional bills. I am sure you did not mean to say this but your
writing is really screwed up in this case.

Dan

On 5/27/2012 9:53 AM, wrote:
On May 26, 4:25 pm, wrote:

Actually Krugman believed all along that the stimulus needed to be more
than a trillion, something like a trillion one or a trillion two.
republicans kept it down to 775 billion, which he thought was not nearly
enough. He was right. It helped but it wasn't enough.

Not a true statement. Krugman originally thought the stimulus did not
need to be as big as a trillion dollars.

I need to see a citation for that. Got one?



You ask for a cite for everything so don't bother making up excuses for
what you do. They don't work. You ask for cites for everything, period.
So I routinely ignore your requests. It is just how you act like a pest.

I ask for a cite on your statements that seem to be wrong. You post
claims that seem absurd so I ask where did you get that idea.

You think I am wrong for one reason. You don't know that what I have
said is true. If you knew that what I was saying was true then you
wouldn't contest it, would you? But you don't know what I say is true an
awful lot of the time, which leads me to think your education is not
very broad. You might know a lot about a few things but not much about many.



The bill I cited was considered by congress. It would not pass because
the republicans don't want any bills passed that will create jobs and
reduce unemployment. They want it high until the election.




You keep referring to a " bill " but refuse to identify which bill you
are talking about. All bills have names and numbers. You just refer
to a bill with no real identification.

I already gave you the bill numbers. The House bill was (H.R. 12). The
senate version was something like (S.B. 1549). They're easy to find,
which is why I don't bother with them. Anyone can find them easily
enough for themselves if they want to. Quit asking me. If you doubt my
"claims" then prove me wrong. The name is the American Recovery Act. Why
don't you know any of this? You keep saying you know so much and here I
am having to educate you. Why is that?



You show your ignorance in many ways, Dan. One way is that you don't
know that a political scientist knows how to do research and knows how
to find bills under consideration by congress. It's not something
someone with my education would have to learn. Your mistake is that you
underestimate my abilities and you over rate your own. In fact, I'd say
it's you that is ignorant to many things that I tell you about and you
don't know how to confirm them on your own, which is why you always want
cites. If you had the ability to research things by yourself you
wouldn't be asking how I know what I know. You would find it for
yourself. You have the time but you are too lazy to verify anything. But
like I said, I'm not proving everything you doubt. If you doubt me then
find out I'm wrong.

Hawke

What a load of crap. I am pretty sure I am better educated than you
are. And have come to that conclusion from reading your post. In
addition I have found that when you claim something , it may not be
true. And when asked for some proof you go into this " I do not have
to prove things to you." Well I do not have to believe what you post,
and when you do not provide a clue as to where you came up with your
claims, I come to the conclusion that you just made it up.

So if you are too lazy to tell where you came up with ideas, I will
continue to assume you do not have a clue.

Assume all you want. You know what assuming says about you. The problem
is that you don't know anything about what I say at least half the time.
It's your ignorance that makes you question everything I say. You never
know that what I say is true so you always want proof. If you were as
smart as you pretend you are then you wouldn't need proof to confirm my
statements because they are true 99% of the time. It's just the fact you
don't know the facts that requires you to ask for proof. Since you never
seem to know anything without some kind of proof I take that as proof
that you don't know much about anything but what your job was.



You really ought to read what you post. Consider

I do. The problem is your reading not my writing.


One way is that you don't
know that a political scientist knows how to do research and knows how
to find bills under consideration by congress. It's not something
someone with my education would have to learn.

You just said you did not have to learn how to do research or find
Congressional bills. I am sure you did not mean to say this but your
writing is really screwed up in this case.


The problem is yours. Your comprehension is not very good. Anyone with a
high school level of English would not have any problem with what I
wrote. You misconstrued it is the problem. So I'll explain it to you.
The first sentence says that you don't know that a political scientist
knows how to do research and how to find bills congress is considering.
That's as simple as it gets.

The second sentence means that someone with my education in political
science would not have to learn how to do it because he would have
learned that in college just as you would have learned what an engineer
does when you were in school. It does not mean I didn't have to learn
how to do research. That was an incorrect assumption on your part. It
means I don't have to relearn it because it is a normal part of what one
learns in political science. So you see, you just misunderstood a very
simple sentence. You do it all the time and that's why you have trouble
understanding things.

Hawke

On May 28, 3:36*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 5/27/2012 9:53 AM, wrote:

On May 26, 4:25 pm, *wrote:

Actually Krugman believed all along that the stimulus needed to be more
than a trillion, something like a trillion one or a trillion two.
republicans kept it down to 775 billion, which he thought was not nearly
enough. He was right. It helped but it wasn't enough.

Not a true statement. *Krugman originally thought the stimulus did not
need to be as big as a trillion dollars.

I need to see a citation for that. Got one?


Hawke


Yes I have a citation for that. It is what he wrote for the New York
Times
The url is so you can see everything else he wrote in that column.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-math-wonkish/

"When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package
should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion."

See how well that works. You question something I wrote, and I give
you an easy to follow path to the source of my information. I do not
go all ****y and say that you can find it on your own.

So the Republcans kept it down to 175 billion more than Krugman first
thought was needed. Shame on them.

Dan