Economic Stimulus Idea

[Lemon law]

Budmanton asserts, "We all agree it will have a negative affect on the economy."

Oh no you don't, I and many others do not agree with you. Don't dare ever assert you have a license to speak for others.

 

[piasabird]

It takes a larger view to engineer a power generating grid of solar panels. You dont just install them and plug them in.

First if the electrical grid owned by the electric company goes out there must be a failsafe and approved disconnect or your power will flow into the grid and possibly kill a technician.

Are you going to use DC Power or generate AC power? If you want AC Power you have to also purchase a Sine Wave Generator. This has to be sized to the Solar panels or to the battery array.

Then you have to decide whether to use an array of batteries which will be charged by the solar panels. Batteries coud cost more than the solar panels. The batteries also requre special maintenance and can cause a fire or Kill if handled improperly.

You also have to take into account for things like circuits to connect the back-up generator to charge the batteries.

All of this takes the skill of an Electrical Engineer to manage.

In some areas the Electric comany will oppose any implementation of Solar Panels and require all kinds legal and technical requirements to increase the cost of using alternative energy. Be prepared for Legal opposition.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Budmanton asserts, "We all agree it will have a negative affect on the economy."

The debate is over and we all agree.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
In theory it sounds great but it will take too long and cost too much to be cost effective.


You may spend $20,000 to save $50 per month and if our government is involved they will spend $40,000 to save $25 per month and they will only use these solar panels for a year or two.

Funny you mention that, I have heard many supposedly well off educated people use that same argument against outfitting their house with alternative energy like solar and knock others that do , yet not hesitate to remortgage their homes to buy that class A motor coach at $250,000+ and then to hear them cry about the cost of fuel, constant upkeep never mind the massive depreciation once they drive it off the lot.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Budmanton asserts, "We all agree it will have a negative affect on the economy."

The debate is over and we all agree.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times do we have to say it?

No NO and NO, no one on these forums can presume to speak for others. Speak for yourself and try to convince others.

 

[giantjoebot]

See thats generally the biggest argument, rebates and tax breaks, but thats like saying, "hey I'm going to take your money, and give it to this guy who wants solar panels".

Where as I'm saying, "hey I'm going to take your money teach this guy to install solar panels on schools so he can learn a trade, so it will reduce government costs, possibly energy costs, and make solar panels more affordable for everyone".

What would you rather see your tax dollars go towards?

People seem to assume that the people being trained would be morons, and would screw things up. Why is that. Isn't it possible to screen people. And while its not an easy job, its still something that is trainable. Probably a lot more easier to learn then what you guys are making it out to be.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I agree with paying a lower wage. Hell, take everyone who is on unemployment, offer them this job instead, if they don't want it they don't get anything. Work for your money or dont get any money!

:thumbsup:

these people that are just sitting around collecting benefit could be doing all sorts of things.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Nothing the government spends money on can be stimulus since they took that money away from other people to begin with. Everything the government does is a zero-sum outcome with only a few exceptions.

holy fuck no

 

[IronWing]

On a side note, I'm in search of Keynes' exact quote concerning hiring a hundred men to dig holes and another to fill them back in. I've found several online versions of his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money and the quote isn't there. Keynes mentions paying men to dig holes but not the filling in part. I'm looking for the quote that is paraphrased so often.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Nothing the government spends money on can be stimulus since they took that money away from other people to begin with. Everything the government does is a zero-sum outcome with only a few exceptions.

negative

We all agree it will have a negative affect on the economy.

Really? Our current nobel prize winning economist and hundreds of others wouldn't. Don't extend the bubble you live in you everyone else.

 

[giantjoebot]

By the way, if anyone thinks this is a good idea, and want to pass it along. Maybe post it in another forum, or something, please do. Just give me credit please.

 

[ericlp]

Funny, you post this and there is a solar innovators add on here. Your idea about solar is good. It's the wave of the future. What we need is MORE R&D on panels to get more efficiency out of them. Then we need to make the southern states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, etc...etc... states that get a LOT OF SUN LIGHT. It's not just the photoelectric side of it.

Think about this... How much does it cost the average home in electricity to heat just "HOT WATER"? It's about 30-40% depending on how many showers you take, dishes, washing cloths, etc...etc... What if you could take 2-300 bucks, and get cut your electric bill by 35%? All you need is some piping, a box, put your s shaped copper tubes in the box, Add some reflective insulation around the box, top it off with glass panels... Add a pump and a thermostat. Now you have passive solar at almost 70% efficiency!

If we could install passive solar to homes where they get a lot of sun light that would free up A LOT of power and it's doable today for cheap!

Another thing we need to do is find a better battery. More R&D should be spent on that as well, not only will it help the grid but future electric cars will depend on it as well.

 

[giantjoebot]

Sodium actually makes a good battery. Its funny its mentioned in 2000 leagues under the sea, and then about ten years ago I hear about a guy winning a electric car race with a sodium battery.

Kind of off topic

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: cubeless
snip-

Assuming a solar installation to run buildings or homes etc, what happens at night? Does the system have to switch over to regular power grid or do solar installations have viable options for night time?

There would likely be some battery banks involved, and grid-tie inverters.


This doesn't seem like something I'd want unskilled laborers doing, any more than you'd want an unskilled laborer as an electrician.

Grid tie inverters can put out a lot of power, and of course since they're tied into the power grid, there are codes that need to be followed. You don't want to be an electric line worker out on a sunny day. servicing a power line that is "dead" only to find that a faulty panel array wiring job has energized that line with enough power to roast a buffalo in a half second.

And solar panels are assumed to last a long time - it's part of their whole selling point. Install once and they will live long enough to pay for themselves and then give a long, productive life. Poor installation can increase maintenance or repair costs, which lengthens the payback time.

Originally posted by: giantjoebot
Leave maintenance to the private sector. It will give jobs to some of the people who were trained. If its such a hassle to have them installed on large buildings, then the industry should adapt, and start to produce systems that are more reliable, and require less maintenance.

There are already government programs that are similare, such as Jobcorp, Americorp, and the California Conservation Corps.

They could even make it like military duty. Sign up for a year or two, come out with a skill. Except you don't have to kill people.

Making something that can sit outside 24/7 for a few decades with minimal maintenance is not an easy task. Nature is pretty damned erosive, corrosive, and abusive. They have to withstand ultraviolet exposure, daily thermal cycling, rain, the weight of snow, hail, curious animals, and wind.

Can something be made that would easily stand up to all that? Sure, no problem. I'm sure they could make panels to last 200 years with virtually no maintenance. Do you want to pay $100/watt for solar panels though?

I think you're missing the OP's point: The unemployed would be trained BEFORE they began installation. And, presumably, they'd continue to be trained on more technical aspects of PV technology so that after (say) a two-to-three year apprenticeship with the government (I think "apprenticeship" is an accurate term for what the OP proposes), these now-highly-trained and experienced workers would be able to enter the job market with excellent (and, hopefully, in-demand) skills.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Nothing the government spends money on can be stimulus since they took that money away from other people to begin with. Everything the government does is a zero-sum outcome with only a few exceptions.

holy fuck no

I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

 

[cubeless]

or do it more in line with how things are supposed to work in the usa: hire a company that already has the knowledge of how to do this; they will employ people and train them... a new govt program to do this will waste millions of dollars on setting up an infrastructure that should already exist in the private sector... give the company a tax break to hire some special group of people if you have to, but what happens when the people they are supposed to hire can't pass a test on electrical circuitry?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

You are right with the background information but you are wrong with your conclusion. You basicaly said something like this, "Since 1+1 = 2, pigs can fly." Yes, 1+1 = 2. But that truth doesn't lead to your conclusion.

Yes, in the long run, government spending must be offset by (a) future government taxes, (b) future government spending cuts, or (c) both. Thus, in the long run, government on average doesn't stimulate (or zero sum as you call it).

But, we aren't interested in long-term stimulus. In the short term, consumers and businesses aren't spending. That means that the economy is doing poorly. What the government is doing is spending for them now to boost the economy and then LATER when the economy is good the government will put a drag on the economy by raising taxes or cutting spending. Yes, the long-term net effect is zero (stimulus now and drag later). But the short term effects (preventing a depression and making a later boom less frantic) are both beneficial.

The consumers are sitting on a big pile of cash. Sitting and waiting. The government is taking that pile of cash from them and spending it for them. Zero sum, yes. Short-term stimulus, yes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

You are right with the background information but you are wrong with your conclusion. You basicaly said something like this, "Since 1+1 = 2, pigs can fly." Yes, 1+1 = 2. But that truth doesn't lead to your conclusion.

Yes, in the long run, government spending must be offset by (a) future government taxes, (b) future government spending cuts, or (c) both. Thus, in the long run, government on average doesn't stimulate (or zero sum as you call it).

But, we aren't interested in long-term stimulus. In the short term, consumers and businesses aren't spending. That means that the economy is doing poorly. What the government is doing is spending for them now to boost the economy and then LATER when the economy is good the government will put a drag on the economy by raising taxes or cutting spending. Yes, the long-term net effect is zero (stimulus now and drag later). But the short term effects (preventing a depression and making a later boom less frantic) are both beneficial.

The consumers are sitting on a big pile of cash. Sitting and waiting. The government is taking that pile of cash from them and spending it for them. Zero sum, yes. Short-term stimulus, yes.

I disagree. It is not "Zero Sum". By stimulating the Economy they are returning (or will return)Growth to the Economy. The outcome of Growth is to Government what Profit is to Business.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree. It is not "Zero Sum". By stimulating the Economy they are returning (or will return)Growth to the Economy. The outcome of Growth is to Government what Profit is to Business.

You forget the second half. To pay for this stimulus, we have to later tax or slash spending. That will slow future growth to the ecomony. The outcome of this shrinkage to the goverment is what loss is to business.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

You are right with the background information but you are wrong with your conclusion. You basicaly said something like this, "Since 1+1 = 2, pigs can fly." Yes, 1+1 = 2. But that truth doesn't lead to your conclusion.

Yes, in the long run, government spending must be offset by (a) future government taxes, (b) future government spending cuts, or (c) both. Thus, in the long run, government on average doesn't stimulate (or zero sum as you call it).

But, we aren't interested in long-term stimulus. In the short term, consumers and businesses aren't spending. That means that the economy is doing poorly. What the government is doing is spending for them now to boost the economy and then LATER when the economy is good the government will put a drag on the economy by raising taxes or cutting spending. Yes, the long-term net effect is zero (stimulus now and drag later). But the short term effects (preventing a depression and making a later boom less frantic) are both beneficial.

The consumers are sitting on a big pile of cash. Sitting and waiting. The government is taking that pile of cash from them and spending it for them. Zero sum, yes. Short-term stimulus, yes.

I disagree. It is not "Zero Sum". By stimulating the Economy they are returning (or will return)Growth to the Economy. The outcome of Growth is to Government what Profit is to Business.

That $2 trillion stimulus doesnt come from the sky, it comes from your future earnings in the form of taxes or inflation.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: dullard

The consumers are sitting on a big pile of cash. Sitting and waiting. The government is taking that pile of cash from them and spending it for them. Zero sum, yes. Short-term stimulus, yes.

Actually this is precisely the opposite of what is occurring. We are in a massive deflationary period with decreasing GDP caused by debt obligations dissolving. Consumers aren't sitting on a big pile of cash, they are sitting on a big pile of debt while their assets are evaporating. In this sense the government stimulus package is helping, by printing a butt load of money just to offset the deflation. So you are sort of right, but for the wrong reason.

The problem is that once the deflation stops and the economy tries to recover, that massive infusion of printed money could backfire and hugely devalue our currency. This is because the "stimulus" wasn't spent on stimulus, but just thrown at failing banks, the auto companies, unions, et. al. If the money was spent on physical goods like schools, roads, power plants, etc, then the situation wouldn't be as dire.

 

[giantjoebot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Nothing the government spends money on can be stimulus since they took that money away from other people to begin with. Everything the government does is a zero-sum outcome with only a few exceptions.

holy fuck no

I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

We'll didn't think their was much to argue since your point seems to be about something else all together. You seem to miss my point all together, and your simple cliche statement isn't much of an arument agianst what I'm tallking about.

I'm not arguing that government spending is good. I'm sayin that this plan, which is actually an investment to reduce government cost, an investment in our people, and an investment into a growing industry, is a good idea becasue its an investment.

If their is only a few exceptions then this is one of them.

1. It pays its self off
2. It creates not only jobs, but SKILLED laborers, you know good jobs
3. It will help a US industry grow. Maybe we can even start an export

It really basic, and you seem to miss the point. I believe in the private sector. What I think the government should do is take this industry, and nurture it so it can latter grow on its own.

Their is not much demand for solar panels, this would speed up that process, and could possibly make us the world leader in solar panel production.

Their going to try and stimulate the economy. Its going to happen. So this is the best way that I could think of for the to do it. And it is stimulating through government spending that doesn't actually interfere with the private sector that much.

Why do I need to even argue this, its so odvious, and why did I take your simple bait.

 

[giantjoebot]

Originally posted by: cubeless
or do it more in line with how things are supposed to work in the usa: hire a company that already has the knowledge of how to do this; they will employ people and train them... a new govt program to do this will waste millions of dollars on setting up an infrastructure that should already exist in the private sector... give the company a tax break to hire some special group of people if you have to, but what happens when the people they are supposed to hire can't pass a test on electrical circuitry?

I actually use to work for the California Conservation Corps for a short period of time. My job was to retro fit lights to make them more efficient in government buildings. We did it a lot cheaper than any company would have done it for, becasue we were getting paid minimum wage, but I also came from a poor town, and was glad to have a job during the last recession in the 90's.

All sorts of problems would occur from havinf private contractors doing it.

#1 it would cost more

#2 They might not use US made solar panels

#3 They probably wouldn't train as many paople as you think, or they would teach people just enough to get the job done, but not enough to start their own business.

I'm all for the private sector, but this isn't the private sector, its the government installing on government buildings. The government actually isn't that bad at training people and putting them to work.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: giantjoebot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Nothing the government spends money on can be stimulus since they took that money away from other people to begin with. Everything the government does is a zero-sum outcome with only a few exceptions.

holy fuck no

I have yet to hear a rebuttal. Did I make your brain hurt by forcing you to think?

We'll didn't think their was much to argue since your point seems to be about something else all together. You seem to miss my point all together, and your simple cliche statement isn't much of an arument agianst what I'm tallking about.

I'm not arguing that government spending is good. I'm sayin that this plan, which is actually an investment to reduce government cost, an investment in our people, and an investment into a growing industry, is a good idea becasue its an investment.

If their is only a few exceptions then this is one of them.

1. It pays its self off
2. It creates not only jobs, but SKILLED laborers, you know good jobs
3. It will help a US industry grow. Maybe we can even start an export

It really basic, and you seem to miss the point. I believe in the private sector. What I think the government should do is take this industry, and nurture it so it can latter grow on its own.

Their is not much demand for solar panels, this would speed up that process, and could possibly make us the world leader in solar panel production.

Their going to try and stimulate the economy. Its going to happen. So this is the best way that I could think of for the to do it. And it is stimulating through government spending that doesn't actually interfere with the private sector that much.

Why do I need to even argue this, its so odvious, and why did I take your simple bait.

The word investment implies that willing investors give money to an entity with the expectation of future returns and profit. The government forcefully coerces taxdollars from citizens, and any reduction of costs or spending will only be redirected to other areas of the government and result in increased government.

Your plan will not create jobs. It will only shift jobs from the private sector to the public sector. It will not help any industry grow because in order for an industry to be successful there has to be an actual demand for the product. Government buying panels for their own buildings would be a relatively short-term and inefficient project that would only waste taxpayer money.

 

[JS80]

Costs will not come down. Solar panels are made with very rare and expensive commodities. Increasing their demand will further cause the cost to increase.