Does Government R&D Policy Mainly Benefit Scientists and Engineers?

usissuescom Discussion Categories , , , , ,

By Larry Kummar – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Does this apply to Climate Science?

Paper By Austan Goolsbee

NBER Working Paper No. 6532, Issued in April 1998

Conventional wisdom holds that the social rate of return to R&D significantly exceeds the private rate of return and, therefore, R&D should be subsidized. In the U.S., the government has directly funded a large fraction of total R&D spending.

This paper shows that there is a serious problem with such government efforts to increase inventive activity. The majority of R&D spending is actually just salary payments for R&D workers. Their labor supply, however, is quite inelastic so when the government funds R&D, a significant fraction of the increased spending goes directly into higher wages. Using CPS data on wages of scientific personnel, this paper shows that government R&D spending raises wages significantly, particularly for scientists related to defense such as physicists and aeronautical engineers. Because of the higher wages, conventional estimates of the effectiveness of R&D policy may be 30 to 50% too high.

The results also imply that by altering the wages of scientists and engineers even for firms not receiving federal support, government funding directly crowds out private inventive activity.

Full paper here.

H/T Larry K of the FabiusMaximus website.

CONTINUE READING –>

Advertisements

Approve the PCCS!

usissuescom CAGW Alarmism, Energy Policy , , , , , , , ,

By John Droz – Re-Blogged From WUWT

America absolutely needs outside expert review of climate claims used to oppose fossil fuels

Should the United States conduct a full, independent, expert scientific investigation into models and studies that say we face serious risks of manmade climate change and extreme weather disasters?

As incredible as it may seem, US government climate science has never been subjected to any such examination. Instead, it has been conducted by government agencies and assorted climate, environmental, history, psychology and other “experts” paid by the same government agencies – to the tune of literally billions of dollars per year.

Moreover, all that time, effort and money has been spent on studies that claim carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” are causing unprecedented climate and weather cataclysms, requiring the immediate and total elimination of fossil fuels that supply 82% of all US energy. Virtually none of it has been spent on studies of the powerful natural forces that have driven global warming and cooling, other climate changes and innumerable extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history.

Replacing all that energy – under the Green New Deal we hear so much about lately, or some similar schemes – would cost this country up to $93 trillion by 2030! That’s $65,000 per family per year!

Continue reading →

Neutrons Detected on Commercial Airplane Flights

usissuescom Discussion Categories , , , , ,
By Dr.Tony Phillips – Re-Blogged From Space Weather

March 13, 2019: Long lines. Narrow seats. Baggage fees. You recognize this list. It’s the downside of flying on modern commercial airlines. And now we have a new item to add: cosmic ray neutrons.

Spaceweather.com and Earth to Sky Calculus have just completed a 5-continent survey of neutron radiation at aviation altitudes. From December 2018 through February 2019, Hervey Allen of the University of Oregon’s Network Startup Resource Center carried  Earth to Sky radiation sensors–including neutron bubble chambers–onboard commercial flights from North America to Europe, Africa, South America and Asia.

map2

Continue reading →

Stop the Anti-Climate Science Totalitarians

usissuescom CAGW Alarmism , , , , ,

By Paul Driessen -Re-Blogged From WUWT

They want to upend and transform America, but demand No Debate on underlying “science”

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

Continue reading →

The US Economy Is In Big Trouble

usissuescom GDP & Employment , , , , ,
By Dave Kranzler – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle

“You’ve really seen the limits of monetary and fiscal policy in its ability to extend out a long boom period.” – Josh Friedman, Co-Chairman of Canyon Partners (a “deep value,” credit-driven hedge fund)

The Fed’s abrupt policy reversal says it all. No more rate hikes (yes, one is “scheduled” for 2020 but that’s fake news) and the balance sheet run-off is being “tapered” but will stop in September. Do not be surprised if it ends sooner. Listening to Powell explain the decision or reading the statement released is a waste of time. The truth is reflected in the deed. The motive is an attempt to prevent the onset economic and financial chaos. It’s really as simple as that. See Occam’s Razor if you need an explanation.

Continue reading →

Does Fed Know Something Gold Investors Do Not Know?

usissuescom Monetary Policy, Stocks & Commodities , , , , ,
By Arkadiusz Sieroń – Re-Bloged From Gold Eagle

The Fed doubled down on its dovish stance. What card will gold play now?

Fed Remains Patient

Yesterday, the FOMC published the monetary policy statement from its latest meeting that took place on March 19-20th. In line with the expectations, the US central bank unanimously kept its interest rates unchanged. The federal funds rate remained at the target range of 2.25 to 2.50 percent:

The Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. In support of these goals, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 percent.

Continue reading →