Economic Stimulus Idea

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well.....we agree both are bad decisions, don't get me wrong I'd "go green" if it made financial sense, say it payed for itself in 5 years +/-.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

I thought it was an Obama quote, he called it stimulus.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

Don't change the subject. The conversation shifted toward whether government spending can act as stimulus, something numerous non-politically affiliated economists believe to be true. Just so you know, the guys you listen to on talk radio do not count as economists.

 

[piasabird]

From my last post you might think I am against Solar Power. That is not the case. My position is that Solar power is a worthwhile proposition. While some people will tell you that it is not cost effective to make electricity from Solar Panels, they are nearsighted and do not look at all of the costs of using Coal to generate electricity. The pollution created by the electric plant costs the tax payer who may live in an EPA Zone that has added expense due to high pollution in that area. Some of these costs are hard to estimate and quantify. To the child that has Asthma clean air is more valuable.

I am not totally sucked in to the Solar depate either. If you are using an array of say 12 to 24 Lead Acid Batteries, that causes other kinds of pollution and they are not cheap. These deep cycle lead acid batteries are very expensive.

I also like Wind and Hydro power generation. In some locations there is just not enough Wind to support large turbines. However, there are some areas like along the Mississippi that we could build some more Hydro Electric Dams. The main complaint about the dams is they are not that cost effective. However, I would argue that they save you a lot of pollution that would have been created otherwise and that tips the scale in my mind.

Aren't we suppose to think about the Children???

 

[giantjoebot]

Originally posted by: 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.

LCD TV and monitors are made of rare metals that went up in price due to the demand for TV's and monitors, but somehow the price of those TV's and monitors has been dropping at a steady rate.

A brief googling, and I was unable to find anyting about solar panels using rare commodities.

It probably wouldn't matter, becasue basic economics says that the free market will find a way. If their ia a demand, and money to be made, then a free market will find a way to meet that demand. What I want to do is create that demand, and encourage the free market.

 

[giantjoebot]

To answer the questions about Batteries.

Grid-tied PV systems. You are not cutting the buildings off from the grid. These will probably just produce enough electricity for the buildings they are on, and if there is any left over it will just go back into the power grid. When the solar panels don't provide enough power the remainder will come from the power grid. And when the Solar panels aren't supplying power the buildings will pull from the power grid. But how many government buildings are open after dark?

SO NO BATTERIES

I posted this in another forum
http://www.dslreports.com/foru...Economic-Stimulus-Idea

and Spice300 had this to say

Photovoltaic manufacturing is still an infant industry whose costs would be reduced by mass production. Switching to PV grade silicon rather than recycling rejected stock from the microelectronics industry will reduce the cost of manufacturing. The conversion is underway and almost paid off which should reduce the price of PV's in 2009 or 2010

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: 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.

Not true. The best comparison is LCD panels, in which higher demand justified construction of advanced fabs and enabled drastically lower per-panel costs. It's the exact same for solar panels.

 

[Fern]

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?

QuantumPion is correct.

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

Fern

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: giantjoebot
Economic Stimulus Idea

I have an idea that would help our countries economy grow through investing in solar panels.

Step one:
Train a bunch of people to install solar panels.

Step two:
Have those people, at a lower wage, install American made solar panels on all government building that receive enough sunlight every year to make it practical.

What this will do:

First, it will create SKILLED laborers, who can then start their own business, or work for a company after they have worked for the government at a low wage.

Second, it will increase the demand for American made solar panels. Basic economics shows that if you increase the demand companies will increase production and the price will drop. So this will make solar panels cheaper, and stimulate the American solar panel industry. The United States could become the world leader in solar panel production.

Third, it will reduce energy consumption, which should reduce energy costs for everyone else.

Forth, this is an investment that the government is making. Those solar panels will eventually pay themselves off, and actually save the government money.

Summary:
By creating skilled workers who can install solar panels on government building, we can stimulate the US solar panel industry. When its done there will be cheap solar panels, and plenty of skilled laborers to install them. This will reduce energy consumption nation wide, which should reduce energy costs, and eventually save the government money.

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, and wants to pass it along. Maybe post it in another forum, or something, please do. Just give me credit please.

i like it! always hated paying electricity bills.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: giantjoebot
Economic Stimulus Idea

I have an idea that would help our countries economy grow through investing in solar panels.
-snip-
Basic economics shows that if you increase the demand companies will increase production and the price will drop. So this will make solar panels cheaper, and stimulate the American solar panel industry. The United States could become the world leader in solar panel production.

Third, it will reduce energy consumption, which should reduce energy costs for everyone else.

"Basic economics show.."

Stop right there. OP, that's your problem with this idea. Under this assumption increasing demand for oil/gasoline would bring a price drop, but it doesn't does it?

Why is that? Because your "basic economics" stuff doesn't take into account limited resources.

Read this. The problem hasn't been a lack of demand for (photovoltaic) solar panels, rather the demand has been vastly outstripping supply. So your poposal to increase demand is misplaced IMO.

We've just come through a period where the cost of processed silicon for use in (photovoltaic) solar panels became 10 times more expensive because of demand exceeding supply.

New processing plants are soon coming on-line, ONLY if those have excess capacity should anybody even consider stimulating demand.

The ecess demand over the last several put many here in the US out of work, quite the opposite of your objective. As the demand outpaced the supply, those contractors in the US just couldn't get product to install, business fell and people went unemployed (and worse). More demand surely won't help increase jobs.

BTW: energy consumption won't drop. It might shift the source of energy generation, but it won't affect levels of consumption. We may need fewer increases in coal generated energy to meet increased consumption, but that's it.

Fern

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Fern

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?

QuantumPion is correct.

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

Fern

I don't believe that at all, but I do believe along with a number of acclaimed economists that government spending can and does stimulate an economy and weaken recessions.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your sweeping and ridiculous generalizations.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

Don't change the subject. The conversation shifted toward whether government spending can act as stimulus, something numerous non-politically affiliated economists believe to be true. Just so you know, the guys you listen to on talk radio do not count as economists.

It did wonders in Japan.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

Don't change the subject. The conversation shifted toward whether government spending can act as stimulus, something numerous non-politically affiliated economists believe to be true. Just so you know, the guys you listen to on talk radio do not count as economists.

It did wonders in Japan.

Funny you should bring up that example, because Japan teaches us exactly the opposite. When its economy faltered initially, the government listened to people like you and sat with their thumbs up their asses while their economy imploded. When the government did finally step in, it was too little too late and the damage was done.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
QuantumPion is correct.

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

Fern

I don't believe that at all, but I do believe along with a number of acclaimed economists that government spending can and does stimulate an economy and weaken recessions.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your sweeping and ridiculous generalizations.

The phrase of yours I've underlined is bogus and irrelevent.

Can government spending stimulate an economy? Of course, no one's is arguing that.

The question is does government spending stimulate better than consumer spending? Because if the government takes taxpayer (so they can't spend it), so it (the gov) can spend it.

No need to act silly and try to mis-characterize the question. This very question (gov spedning vs peoples' spending for stimulus) recently came up during the stimulus bill and the Dem's theory is that gov spending is better than peoples on the basis people may use it to pay off lanks loans (Of course that begs the question of why isn't an infusion of capital to banks from people themselves as good as peoples' money passing through to the government who then infuse money to banks, but that's another topic).

So my statement stands:

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

Fern

 

[SammyJr]

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.

Nonsense. If a worker learns a skill, that's not zero-sum. If the project decreases the cost of business (private, Government, etc.) in some way, that's not zero-sum. If the project jump starts an entire industry, its definitely not zero sum. If a new Government office/base/University/whatever encourages private investment in surrounding business, then that's not zero sum.

Adding value above the initial investment isn't some magic power reserved for the private, for-profit sector.

 

[SammyJr]

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.

You're right. As soon as a Republican is back in office, they'd tear down and destroy the solar panels in order to "prove" that Government doesn't work.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: 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.

Nonsense. Increased demand fuels innovation. Someone will develop a method of producing better solar panels using cheaper materials.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

Don't change the subject. The conversation shifted toward whether government spending can act as stimulus, something numerous non-politically affiliated economists believe to be true. Just so you know, the guys you listen to on talk radio do not count as economists.

It did wonders in Japan.

Funny you should bring up that example, because Japan teaches us exactly the opposite. When its economy faltered initially, the government listened to people like you and sat with their thumbs up their asses while their economy imploded. When the government did finally step in, it was too little too late and the damage was done.

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

Did Obama waste our tax money fast enough and did he waste enough of it to work?

It looks like obama is using California as the financial model of how he will run the country.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fern

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?

QuantumPion is correct.

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

In some cases, the Government can better spend the money. Is it necessarily better for all of us to spend our individual $13/week tax cut on individual or is it better for the Government to spend the money on a large project from which we all benefit?

Example: My net benefit from having high quality public schools is far better than the $2000/year in property taxes I pay to finance them.

Example: My state and local taxes fund highway construction. If it weren't for roads, how would I get anywhere? Horse? I'd rather pay the few hundred/thousand per year to have roads than to come up with some magic individual alternative.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

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.

Are the democratic appointed economists for installing solar panels or digging holes?

Don't change the subject. The conversation shifted toward whether government spending can act as stimulus, something numerous non-politically affiliated economists believe to be true. Just so you know, the guys you listen to on talk radio do not count as economists.

It did wonders in Japan.

Funny you should bring up that example, because Japan teaches us exactly the opposite. When its economy faltered initially, the government listened to people like you and sat with their thumbs up their asses while their economy imploded. When the government did finally step in, it was too little too late and the damage was done.

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

Did Obama waste our tax money fast enough and did he waste enough of it to work?

It looks like obama is using California as the financial model of how he will run the country.

Is Obama's stimulus plan the same as the Japanese stimulus plan?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

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.

You're right. As soon as a Republican is back in office, they'd tear down and destroy the solar panels in order to "prove" that Government doesn't work.

They would probable take all the CFL bulbs and break them creating hazardous waste sites.

 

[Rustler]

What happens when the SUN dosen't shine or the Wind doesn't blow? It also uses more energy to produce these products than they generate back.........................one windmill uses 235 tons of steel you have to mine the metal and smelt it, how much enviromental damage does that do?

We need fusion reactors to sustain the population on this planet not the BS this govenment is feeding us.

Green plolicies=genoicide, back to the dark ages.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Is Obama's stimulus plan the same as the Japanese stimulus plan?

I don't know did Japan use the stimulus money to pay back the people that put them in power?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Rustler
What happens when the SUN dosen't shine or the Wind doesn't blow? It also uses more energy to produce these products than they generate back.........................one windmill uses 235 tons of steel you have to mine the metal and smelt it, how much enviromental damage does that do?

We need fusion reactors to sustain the population on this planet not the BS this govenment is feeding us.

Green plolicies=genoicide, back to the dark ages.

That's the plan.

We are talking about proven and cheap technologies being replaced by inefficient financial non-viable technologies for political ideaology.... global warming.