tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post8878642700679596416..comments2024-03-10T05:26:42.148-04:00Comments on My Biased Coin: Robobees ReduxMichael Mitzenmacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-59941340909623706832010-05-18T02:05:08.916-04:002010-05-18T02:05:08.916-04:00Grant funding is actually an effective way to get ...Grant funding is actually an effective way to get money flowing into the economy, because the money has to be spent relatively quickly rather than hoarded. And, as has already been mentioned, one of the main things it gets spent on is employing people.<br /><br />The usefulness of this sort of spending as an economic stimulus is largely unrelated to the value of the research generated by the grant, but in this case the research does appear to be worthwhile too.D. Eppsteinhttp://11011110.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-24947478280013089992010-05-18T01:35:45.607-04:002010-05-18T01:35:45.607-04:00If you say you'll hire 11 postdocs, how does t...If you say you'll hire 11 postdocs, how does that get translated into 1.66 jobs? Or is the project really of size ($9.6 million) x 11 / 1.66? This stimulus math has been rather funky, so if you can shed some light on it, I'd appreciate knowing. (And, by the way, I did not assert that it <i>would</i> create no jobs, but that <i>I</i> wouldn't be surprised if that 1.66 number were really 0. If it's really 11, that's even further off from 1.66 than I thought, though in a surprising direction from it!)<br /><br />The ARRA was sold to the American people as a stimulus. If it wasn't, why did we need to spend the better part of a trillion dollars now on things that couldn't fit in the budget during flusher times? The whole point - we were told - is that the taxpayers shouldn't worry about ARRA money because it's a one-time expense and won't affect the deficit in the long term, only the debt (ignoring, of course, interest payments on the debt). If you're telling me that politicians lied, I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. But I should hope you'd at least have some reservations about that fact. That doesn't mean Harvard should give back the money, but you should at least understand why some people might not be terribly happy about how Harvard got it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14749446395269735704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-44923783676023810552010-05-17T16:25:29.340-04:002010-05-17T16:25:29.340-04:00M - a few points. The term "stimulus package&...M - a few points. The term "stimulus package" has been used too broadly to cover every aspect of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. $8.9bn of ARRA was earmarked for Scientific Research. There is a large amount of the ARRA funding that is not about the conventional meaning of the term "stimulus"; take for example funds for maintenance of Coast Guard facilities. So the blanket term is misleading.<br /><br />Second, the RoboBees project did in fact create jobs: we have budget to hire something like 11 postdocs and close to that many graduate students, and a substantial number of undergraduate researchers over the 5 years of the project. So while I will not defend RoboBees as being intended to "stimulate the economy", the accusation that no jobs were created is just plain false.Matt Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255792550910131960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-60996564917323587792010-05-16T15:26:52.294-04:002010-05-16T15:26:52.294-04:00You know that great feeling you get when you drop ...You know that great feeling you get when you drop the Harvard name? This animosity is just the flip side of that.<br /><br />If this project were being done instead at say, UIUC, no way it makes the stupid list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-34590029423523537492010-05-16T13:25:03.465-04:002010-05-16T13:25:03.465-04:00Well, if it is accurate, then I'm with "u...Well, if it is accurate, then I'm with "unidentified male #1." Granted, it's more of a matter of <i>improper</i> spending rather than <i>reckless</i> spending. The stimulus was a huge spending package sold as necessary to get the economy back on its feet as soon as possible. Yet we find that too much of the spending is not going to "getting America working" in 2009 and 2010, to "jobs saved or created," but rather to projects that someone just wanted funding for, irrespective of whether a job was involved or not. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Robobees created or saved 0 jobs in 2009 and 2010. Will Harvard hire 1.66 more members of staff due to the project? I somehow doubt it.)<br /><br />It might have defense applications, but the funding didn't come from DoD. It might have general science applications, but the funding didn't come from NSF's general budget, either. It came from the stimulus, and, as such, deserves to be criticized. Maybe it's #1 because of the cute name, but it's on the list because it's spending that was billed as one thing but used for something else. If I embezzled $1 million from a company and donated it to needy families and orphans, would you be right to criticize my actions as "reckless"? I think so. The main difference here is that, when the government does it, it's not illegal.<br /><br />With so many governments, from Greece to California, in peril from spending in excess of their means, we should realize that <i>most</i> governmental spending "looks good" from the right perspective. But we can only afford to spend so much. Maybe Robobees should be part of that. But, if so, it should be funded through proper channels, not some three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar loophole called "stimulus," which is supposed to be for short-term growth, to smooth out the effects of a down economy. Will Robobees help do that? Is $10 million the right price to save or create a job or two? If not, it should be criticized, but criticizing the way government funds a project shouldn't be confused with criticizing the project itself. Some viewers and blogs might be doing this, but so, I suspect, are those offended by the criticism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14749446395269735704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-78859405169402363302010-05-16T12:07:05.229-04:002010-05-16T12:07:05.229-04:00Just ignore what these jerks are saying. Everyone ...Just ignore what these jerks are saying. Everyone knows that Robobees is an interesting project with lots of important applications.<br />I am the same person, who raised the issue that perhaps 9.6M was too much for this project. I stand by my views. <br />But, I think that Hannity and others are being complete a$%holes because of their stupid arguments. <br />Thanks,<br />CS Grad StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com