09-05-2008, 12:41 PM
Jerry,
Your point is fair. Indeed, such strategic policy decisions need to be based on side-by-side, comprehensive comparisons of genuine alternatives -- rather than one proposal, up or down.
$1.1 billion is a big chunk of change on this island -- no matter where it is spent.
How it is spent, makes a vast difference.
My guess is, lots of the telescope $$ will go to buy very sophisticated equipment manufactured elsewhere and shipped here at a cost to be taken right off the top.
The high-paying jobs, scholarships (reference?), and science center setting are indeed attractive, but not the whole story and certainly no where most of the $$ will be spent.
Do you have the projected financial breakdown and/or economic impact details for the proposed telescope?
If you get, or at least link me to an online source of, the numbers on total and on-the-ground investment, jobs, salaries, and other direct and indirect economic impact, I'll pull out some tools from the economic tool kit and see what can be compared.
Basic analysis generates multipliers for income, employment, and sales
A cost/benefit analysis can also be helpful -- all costs have benefits and vice versa. And, it's not just how much cost and how much benefit, but who pays the cost and who gets the benefit.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park