Stimulus I can live with

User Forum Topic
Submitted by AK on July 3, 2010 - 8:24pm

Sourcing from Fox News to maintain my fair-and-balanced reputation.

True, $2 billion ain't peanuts, but AFAIK this is in the form of loan guarantees and not just grants. This will create manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (holy crap!) and make some incremental contribution to energy independence ... which is a good thing whether or not one believes in global warming. And at $2 billion for an estimated 5,000 jobs (some of them even long-term) the bang for the buck seems to be an improvement over the quoted figures for infrastructure projects.

Even if one of the beneficiaries is a Spain-based multinational.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/...


President Barack Obama announced Saturday a $2 billion commitment to solar energy companies with the hope of creating new jobs, in light of lackluster employment figures released Friday that bodes poorly for a swift economic recovery. ...

The Energy Department is awarding nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments from federal stimulus funds to Abengoa Solar and Abound Solar Manufacturing. In return for the funds, Abengoa Solar has agreed to build what the administration says will be one of the largest solar plants in the world in Arizona. It will be capable of providing clean energy to 70,000 homes.

The Obama administration estimates the Arizona plant will create about 1,600 construction jobs, with more than 70 percent of the construction components and products used to build it manufactured in America.

Abound Solar Manufacturing agreed to build two new plants in exchange for the funds, one in Colorado and one in Indiana. The administration says these projects will create more than 2,000 construction jobs, and more than 1,500 permanent jobs as the plants produce millions of solar panels each year.

Submitted by CA renter on July 4, 2010 - 12:46am.

Agreed. If we're going to be spending taxpayers' money, it should be used to create useful jobs instead of pumping up asset prices.

Submitted by gandalf on July 4, 2010 - 1:07am.

Ditto.

I think stimulus efforts should concentrate on energy research, development, conservation, transportation, infrastructure upgrades, etc. I expect the next leg up in the economy will coincide with changes in the energy paradigm.

Submitted by joec on July 4, 2010 - 8:29am.

The main problem with governments picking winners and losers is the game isn't fair already. As you've probably seen, T. Boone Pickens has invested insanely in things such as wind power and has been buying up wind farms, technologies, lobbying/influencing governments to force them to use more wind, etc...by passing laws.

I don't think helping a multi-billionaire with stimulus that he is lobbying and banking on to make himself even more wealthy sounds right.

It's one thing for the Tesla CEO to use his own funds and near bankrupt himself to do something new, but some billionaire trying to buy up something, then influence our governments to pass laws and stimulus for just 1 sector isn't a good thing.

The main point is that a lot of this is extremely complex and there is no black/white answer.

Submitted by jimmyle on July 4, 2010 - 8:32am.

Sometimes it is unfair but we can't rely on businesses to invest in R&D all the times while the Chinese government pumps billions into wind powered technology and solar.

joec wrote:
The main problem with governments picking winners and losers is the game isn't fair already. As you've probably seen, T. Boone Pickens has invested insanely in things such as wind power and has been buying up wind farms, technologies, lobbying/influencing governments to force them to use more wind, etc...by passing laws.

I don't think helping a multi-billionaire with stimulus that he is lobbying and banking on to make himself even more wealthy sounds right.

It's one thing for the Tesla CEO to use his own funds and near bankrupt himself to do something new, but some billionaire trying to buy up something, then influence our governments to pass laws and stimulus for just 1 sector isn't a good thing.

The main point is that a lot of this is extremely complex and there is no black/white answer.

Submitted by AK on July 4, 2010 - 11:35am.

Agreed joec ... it can go too far ... I think of the South Korean auto industry in the 1990s, with government sponsorship getting to the point where a small nation of 40 million had five auto manufacturers.

But yeah as jimmyle notes, the rest of the world isn't standing still :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.