I thought this was quite interesting: Subsidized Green Jobs Destroy Jobs Elsewhere The Foundry

The first week of every principles of economics class goes over the problem with free-lunch assumptions. The labor and material used to make windmills or solar panels or to install insulation cannot simultaneously be used to make refrigerators and automobiles. When government spends more money, it necessarily diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector.

Dr. Calzada simply calculated how many jobs, on average, would have been supported with these resources had they been left to the private market. The ASE critique doesn’t even recognize that the costs exist. Therefore, the ASE critique can hardly be used to undermine the credibility of the Spanish conclusion—subsidies for green technologies reduce overall employment.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

I thought this was quite interesting: Subsidized Green Jobs Destroy Jobs Elsewhere The Foundry

WingNut balderdash from The Heritage Foundation.

.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

I thought this was quite interesting: Subsidized Green Jobs Destroy Jobs Elsewhere The Foundry

It is an issue that resonates throughout may 'good' published journals and houses as well. The reviewers often have a vested interested. Also the research is going to paint the best light possible so as to get published. What is ever wrong with research that says it does not work I wonder.

The above research (in quotes) is what bring the credibility of the green sector down.

Originally Posted by SPN

WingNut balderdash from The Heritage Foundation.

Well thanks for your pointless comment, which has nothing whatsoever do do with the topic which I posted and the associated neg rep. How terribly childish of you.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Well thanks for your pointless comment, which has nothing whatsoever do do with the topic which I posted and the associated neg rep. How terribly childish of you.

The topic you posted is a load of nonsense.

The Neg Rep was for posting such nonsense.


If you had put it in the humour section you'd have been okay.


.

Originally Posted by SPN

The topic you posted is a load of nonsense.

The Neg Rep was for posting such nonsense.


If you had put it in the humour section you'd have been okay.

Still nothing of substance to add.

Originally Posted by riven

It is an issue that resonates throughout may 'good' published journals and houses as well. The reviewers often have a vested interested. Also the research is going to paint the best light possible so as to get published. What is ever wrong with research that says it does not work I wonder.

The above research (in quotes) is what bring the credibility of the green sector down.

The issue of academic research is an interesting one, might make an interesting thread when I have more time.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

Still nothing of substance to add.

Substance?

On a thread about some illogical nonsense being peddled by the fruit loops at the Heritage Foundation?

Would you ever cop on?

.

Originally Posted by SPN

Substance?

On a thread about some illogical nonsense being peddled by the fruit loops at the Heritage Foundation?

Would you ever cop on?

Nothing at all to add? Seriously, with some due respect IYDLIFO.

I don't know what sort of substantive comment you expect on this article, from your link

Dr. Calzada simply calculated how many jobs, on average, would have been supported with these resources had they been left to the private market. The ASE critique doesn’t even recognize that the costs exist. Therefore, the ASE critique can hardly be used to undermine the credibility of the Spanish conclusion—subsidies for green technologies reduce overall employment.

This is a ridiculously simplistic approach.

It's obvious that money paid in taxes does not compete 1:1 with money which would have been used for new hires. Very very few businesses are so labour constrained at any time and right now I doubt there are any.

The Heritage foundation has a track record of producing extremely poor research designed merely to back whatever the Republican party are currently claiming. They're quite literally not worth reading except perhaps for the emotional enjoyment of such if you already agree with them.