10/7/2023 0 Comments Los alamos daily post classifiedsRecipient counties did grow faster on average - though, as mentioned, not spectacularly so - and it wasn’t a case of NASA just pouring money into areas that were growing already. How they figure all this out is to compare a constellation of data series in the U.S.’s more than 3,000 counties to see how those where NASA spent a lot on R&D evolved economically compared to those where it didn’t. counties where money was spent were negligible and the multiplier effects on economic growth, though they existed, were not much different from those of generic public spending. ![]() What do Kantor and Whalley discover about the growth effects of all the public research and development involved in the actual moonshot? In brief, that there was an effect, as you would expect from spending so large an amount of money (noticeable from space, you might even say) that the rate of return on the project was an impressive 77 per cent, but that the spillover productivity effects in the U.S. But I doubt they will be content to be compensated mainly in the satisfaction of knowing their work will be contributing to (if all goes well) a potentially slightly greener world and cooler climate. That’s not to say the Stellantis and Volkswagen engineers who will be working on those companies’ heavily subsidized electronic vehicle and battery ventures in, respectively, Windsor, and St. Whalley of the University of Calgary, makes the same point regarding the space program, namely, that it’s possible “intrinsic geopolitical motivation encouraged scientists to exert high levels of effort” during the 1960s. space program of the 1960s, “Moonshot: Public R&D and Growth,” written by the economists Shawn Kantor of Florida State University and Alexander T. Article contentĪ new study of the economic impact of the U.S. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. To cite just one example: the biography on which the movie Oppenheimer is based says that at Los Alamos “the scientists, at least, were not working for the money.” Oppenheimer himself “had been six months in Los Alamos when his secretary reminded him one day that he had not yet received a salary cheque.” When a young physicist asked why plumbers were making three times what he was, Oppenheimer replied that “the plumbers had no idea of the laboratory’s importance to the war effort, whereas the scientists did - and that … justified the pay difference.” ![]() Trouble is, the Manhattan Project and the Moonshot were products of very unusual times and may not replicate well in peacetime. Now it’s 2023 and ambitious industry ministers everywhere, fired by visions of the Manhattan Project and the Eagle’s soft landing at Tranquility Base, are planning new mini-moonshots of their own to revolutionize battery technology, repatriate semi-conductor production, revive home-based vaccine research and, not incidentally, light up their own political careers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |