Will Washington Pay For Science?

I'm sure we all know that there's some horrific history in politically managed "science."

What most people don't seem to know is that the history of science, when politicians leave it alone, is wonderful.

Why must we insert the inherent violence and coercion of politics into every aspect of our lives? Isn't voluntary cooperation better?

When I think about the proven tendencies of governments, I think we'd be wise to dust off our constitutions and give them another good, deep reading.

Bernard Shaw, the playwrite, said, "Two things in a man's life, Politics and Women." Why? is not an answer. Washington has had notable successes as far as investing in Science. NACA and NASA, and the Tennessee Valley Authority come to my mind. Certainly Edison and Tesla had an interesting relationship. As a rule, I'd say with both women and government, you don't get it, unless you ask for it.

What concerns me most is Mr. Obama's definition of "science"...

Please elaborate about your concerns? I feel President Obama is smart enough to know that Science is what the dictionary says it is. -Branch of knowledge conducted on objective Principles... Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus. Certainly I was pleased to note that he was for investment in the Electrical Grid.

GA from me. The signs all point to Obama being bright and even curious. I thought it was revealing that in his recent book he stated his hope that more parents would encourage their children not to become lawyers, but to persue science, engineering and math instead.

I think your being a little hard on the guy. I know that after the last sixteen years when ridiculing the President has been a national pastime, the old habit of cynicism is hard to break. Its not surprising that many of us want to keep up the tradition, even if the facts to support our jabs are a little sparse right now (it is after all only about the 10th day of the 'failed' Obama adminstration).

But from what I've seen, heard and read, Obama may be pretty much who he says he is. He's not our savior, but he is a reasonable, responsible, educated, pragmatic grown-up. He might even know some people who are actual scientists. He may well have read a book or two. He might even know how to use a calculator.

I imagine that his preference for research might lean more toward energy, transportation, and conservation then some people would prefer, but as always, it will be up to Congress (not the President) to actually draft the legislation and specify the programs to support, and how much to give.

It has been pointed out in this thread that commercial support for R&D will certainly face cuts, probably significant ones. Without government spending its hard to see how we can maintain a competitive position in the world economy when things start to recover. If this downturn is in fact a depression, and it lasts a decade or so, talented people will find themselves drifting into other careers.

So I say we should demand and welcome government support for research, even if a lot of it is misguided. . A lot of research by private industry never really pays off, but I think most of us agree that in the aggregate, the success stories in R&D more than pay for the failures. If nothing else, keeping people working is a goal in and of itself right now.

Well, this downturn is just like every other down turn we have had. Let's talk facts, not hype.

Since post WWII we have had 10 recessions, this one, yes it is official boys and girls, is number 11.

Okay, the mass media and Obama cite this as the worst since the great depression. Bunk!

The mass media cited the last quarter of 2008 as the worst drop ever recorded. Lies! They cited that the last quarter was down -3.8%. Well read the paper again. Oh, they mean if you multiply the sum of the last two quarters by four and call it a whole year. Again, that is pretty stupid math when you look at the actual numbers.

The third quarter of 2008 was the first negative GDP growth of -0.1%. The last quarter of 2008 was -1.0%. Check the facts if you don't believe me.

The GDP growth for all of 2008 was something like -0.2% because the first two quarters saw growth.

Okay, so how bad is it really? The last 10 recessions averaged about a total of -2.0% GDP from start to finish. We are half way there to the average.

Recessions come in cycles, about every 6 years.

Unemployment averaged about 7% to 8% for all ten recessions. We are at about 7.2%; about average so far.

Recessions average about 3 to 4 months before rebounding on average. That means we should see a turn around, under normal conditions by the end of this year.

Not one of the last 10 recessions were effectively thwarted by government spending. It never worked before, never. Why should it work now?

Now the scary part. The historical worst deficit we had with any previous recession (or ever, for that matter) was 6% of GDP. Since the government has gone into open loop spending mode we are already at a projected 7% GDP and we haven't even spent the $1 trillion that Obama wants to pass and there is another "Big Bang" scheduled later. Also, government is growing during this recession.

We will be so far in debt that even China is starting to pull out of the game.

Of the $1 trillion shopping spree Obama wants to spend, only about 1/3 of it is designed to be spent this year. The rest is spread out over years. Tell me why should a stimulus bill last for years? Doesn't stimulus mean an instant shot in the arm? This is a life-time country club membership to the bar. Pork spending.

Of the $350 billion that is to be spent this year, most goes to pay favors for last year's election.

It would be nice to see some funds spent in R&D, but this bill and the subsequent Big Bang is lip service and everyone is lapping it up like hungry dogs.

So, you ask, if the GDP numbers don't look so bad, why is everyone acting like the sky is falling and telling us this is the worst thing since the great depression? Politics, baby! And the world is eating it up.

Oh, yes we had a banking crises and a mortgage blowout, thanks to government mismanagement and a number of stupid managers. However, the drag of that on the economy was not critical until the election year got rolling into high gear. That's when all the media talk got jazzed up and we have all been told that the situation is the worst since WWII. I think that the housing collapse and the subsequent collapse of the banks had something to do with it, but the perception created by the media (economic placebo effect) and the mouthpiece of the election brought us where we are.

Personally, I think if we were to let the economy roll on its own it would recover just as fast as it would stuffing (err.. wasting) trillions of dollars down its throat.

The advantage of the former idea is that it will not strangle us with debt for the next 20 years.

Yes, Obama is what he says he is. He is a socialist, but I think he is straight up and honest guy. However, his plan to spend our way out of this recession is wrong and will only serve to exasberate our economy many years to come with huge debt.

I'd love to see dollars pumped into R&D, but the family budget is in bad debt (7% GDP) way over our heads and cooler heads should stop the vicious cycle of spending and distorting the numbers to create panic.

Sorry for the long rant, but the whole thing is a big mess.

Since I have lost my job, and am older and a bit less resilient it feels pretty bad to me. Certainly whether or not the numbers are correct can be disputed, though you have to allow for how they might have been figured in the past. Further I don't remember major financial institutions failing at quite the same rate. Nor do I recall such overall systemic involvement. You have to look at the big picture. What work was providing incomes to people? What opportunities exist now? I myself have been versatile. When Greenspan said the American Worker needs to suck it up and get retrained, what jobs really was he even talking about for them to be retrained for? I myself have decided to become an economist! It is really bad now. I called a Commercial Real Estate attorney in Manhattan last week and he told me that he had never seen it so bad. Let us hope that Washington does spend money on the national infrastructure.

'Well, this downturn is just like every other down turn we have had.'

Well let's see – the other 10 recessions we've had are over. We know how they ended etc. With the current one we are still apparently on the downhill (and gaining speed), so predicting where the bottom lies is fraught with difficulties. It seems to me that this kind of bald faced assertion requires a pretty detailed argument to back it up. Where is your support?

None of the other 10 began with the collapse of the financial industry. None of the others happened in our current global economy, where cheaper foreign labor resulted in the massive shift of decent paying jobs to other countries. None of these happened with the US balance of payments at anything like the current levels, or with personal debt at such high levels. None happened in the middle of the collapse of a huge real estate and Wall Street asset bubble that destroyed wealth not only for business, but for average families everywhere. This one could be different.

'the mass media and Obama cite this as the worst since the great depression'

A big component of the current recession is a widespread loss of confidence. Talking up the danger can only reduce the confidence level, making the problem worse (I guess I should commend you for trying to assuage those fears). But the mass media you refer to is for the most part the property of some very large, powerful and well connected businesses: NBC-GE-Viacom, CBS-RCA, ABC-Disney, FOX-Newscorp, etc. Please tell me why these large businesses would want to trash talk the economy when the most likely outcome would be to send their own stocks into the toilet.

'Not one of the last 10 recessions were effectively thwarted by government spending. It never worked before, never. Why should it work now?'

If however you extend the argument to include the pre-WWII recession (the one we call the Great Depression), your argument is less persuasive. I believe that most economic historians argue that the 'New Deal' played a necessary if not sufficient part in our recovery from this sorry part of our history. Massive government spending for the war effort (supported entirely by government debt) finished the job.

'The historical worst deficit we had with any previous recession (or ever, for that matter) was 6% of GDP.'

I know some people like to concentrate on government debt, but the current federal debt is chump change compared to our private debt, and our balance of payment deficit. It is the total size of all our debt, not the relatively small portion due to government spending that is dragging us down.

'Of the $1 trillion shopping spree Obama wants to spend, only about 1/3 of it is designed to be spent this year. The rest is spread out over years.'

You may be right about this, but it is really a bit early to say. The bill passed by the House is just that – the bill passed by the House. It bears little resemblance to the priorities Obama has publically set for creating jobs by building and repairing infrastructure, and by investing in research to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If the bill is as half-baked as many are suggesting, and if the cooler heads in the Senate (which includes some fairly sensible Republicans) don't impose some sanity on this bill, and if Obama then signs the bill, then you are probably right. But just out of a sense of fair play we might want to wait until the ink is dry before passing a final judgment.

'Of the $350 billion that is to be spent this year, most goes to pay favors for last year's election.'

Are you referring to the second installment of the TARP money, or to the 1/3 of the 'shopping spree'? If it's the TARP, the argument doesn't make sense. This money was requested by the Bush administration, not Obama. If as you claim Obama is a 'socialist', then I don't think sending money to Wall Street banks would qualify as 'favors' to his supporters. If it's the new money you are speaking of, again…why not wait to see what the final bill entails, and if Obama signs it?

'It would be nice to see some funds spent in R&D, but this bill and the subsequent Big Bang is lip service and everyone is lapping it up like hungry dogs.'

When Obama says that he wants to return science to its 'rightful place' in his administration, and that he wants to fund science and engineering, I am greatly encouraged. When he writes that parents should raise their children to be engineers and scientists, and not lawyers and MBAs, I am encouraged, and I lap it up like a hungry dog (thank you for your kind words).

We haven't had a pro-science, pro-R&D president in a long time. Bush Jr. and his 'faith-based' administration had no use for science, logic, or even facts. Clinton was the ultimate 'liberal arts' type, who may have had some respect for science, but demonstrated little interest in or knowledge of it. Bush Sr. seems to have been a fairly decent guy, but again not the tech-savvy type. Reagan liked research, so long as it was military. Carter may have been our only 'scientist' president (I believe he was trained as a nuclear physicist?). Ford, Nixon, Johnson? Not much meat there. So I'd guess that the last president we've had who was for science and engineering was Kennedy.

It would be a nice change.

'Personally, I think if we were to let the economy roll on its own it would recover just as fast as it would stuffing (err.. wasting) trillions of dollars down its throat.'

Hoover tried this from 1929 to 1932, with disastrous results.

I think we all know that Economics is more an art than a science. Beyond the law of supply and demand, there's not much 'there there'. However, while I don't agree with you on the causes of the current mess, I do think we agree that we are in a mess. With the bond yield at ¼% there is no room for monetary policy to work. We've had massive tax cuts (for the rich at least) for the last 8 years, and yet here we are. My sense is that many former supply siders are loosing faith. I think I could make the argument that these huge tax cuts, intended to encourage investment and innovation, were instead poured into real estate, causing the bubble. When home prices rose beyond the ability of ordinary folks to pay, particularly in an economy that was shedding the good paying (productive) jobs required to maintain a middle class, the bottom fell out.

There is no question that many of the people who bought over-priced houses using sub prime financing could and should have known that they had no business getting into the market, but you know what – these people may not be the sharpest tools in the shed. But this gets used as a political argument, and it ignores the many other people who bought in, only to find that the 'good' job they had worked in for years just went away. It ignores the many people who were doing fine until a serious family illness cut their income in half and simultaneously drained their savings.

You have clearly stated your conspiracy theory that the mass-media and socialist politicians have gotten us into this mess. I'll put on my tinfoil hat and tell you mine.

I think many of the smart and wealthy people in this country saw the writing on the wall. They saw that the global conditions that had for generations supported our unprecedented levels of power, industrial might, wealth and comfort were changing. They foresaw that a major adjustment to our level of prosperity was inevitable, and they developed a plan to loot our government coffers and our financial institutions. I don't really think they did this out of malice. I think they actually thought that they could use this pile of money to rebuild a new economy after the current one collapsed.

They supported conservative politicians who promised to cut taxes. They managed to slow spending on infrastructure (which would not be needed as the economy contracted), and reroute that spending into government contracts, funneling the money into their own pockets. They derailed the system of financial market regulations that had more or less protected us since the great depression.

They encouraged the rest of us to start putting our spare cash in the stock market and other less savory investments (remember the bit about privatizing social security) to keep the market booming along, all the while slowly pulling their money out. I could go on and on, but again – back to work…so in conclusion I hope and believe that Obama will find some way to pry a decent bill out of our congress, that will include real investments in infrastructure and new technologies. Otherwise…..

Johnfotl, that was simply excellent. Put your and Anonymous Hero's exchange in the Wall Street Journal and things will improve. P.S. I like you both.

My concerns stem from such word bites as Mr. Obama's reportedly stated goal of providing 20% of the electrical power for the entire United States from wind- when, experience suggests, much more than 10% from intermittent sources results in significant control problems and possibly frequent grid crashes, as experienced in Germany. I am concerned about Mr. Obama apparently embracing the Al Gore school of "science" rather than actually reading the UN report on global warming. I am concerned that Mr. Obama thinks lawyers are better for leading science and technology endeavors than actual scientists. I am concerned about the expressed political agendas of those he has appointed to significant posts within the administration.

Other than that, I am willing to give him a chance to prove himself...

My experiences with the UN do not encourage me to rely on them for much of anything practical overall. I am a strong supporter of Reinvention of the UN as described by Andre` Lewin in the March 15th 2002 New York Times. Ambassador Lewin was Ambassador to India from France and part of the UN Administration under Botros Boutros Galli. -He was at the time of my work with him Chairman of the French UN Association. (I miss Mr. Lewin, he was experienced and smart.) My concern as far as Obama goes is that he will be like Carter. Only hope I have is that the rough and tumble of Chicago Politics, which are about killing over work, will have toughened him up. I am not too happy with Mr. Gore myself. I've heard of Current TV, but never seen any of it, and he didn't hire me. Still he is right that the Grid is a good place for the US to put its money as a government. Edwards lives not 5 miles from me. I asked him to check on how long from joint to joystick a doctor would certify as safe to the FAA. He wouldn't do it. Everybody hates lawyers, till they need one. When you need a lawyer hire a mean one, is my advice.

Actually if the USA can harness the wind in only 3 states we can produce 4 mega jewels of electric power. That is enough to provide electric power for the next 400 years.

dadw5boys-

The issue is not HARNESSING the power of the wind- humans have been doing that for millenia (when I was younger, the midwest and Great Plains were studded with windmills, mostly for pumping water where electricity was not available). The issue is how to tie a highly variable, intermittent power source into the grid without causing problems. EPRI in the US suggests that much more than 10% of the grid being powered by intermittent sources will create serious problems, as has been experienced in Europe. Also in Europe, it has been demonstrated that the idea that the wind is always blowing somewhere is not a viable concept, when trying to balance your power sources...

Lets hope so we need R&D badly.

Most companies that went to China opened 100 or more R&D labs with the help of the Chinesse Government. When in the USA they only had 5 R&D labs.