5 ms·

The problem is that its always something that people are unwilling to pay full price for with their own money. so the actual value is somewhat unknown. But the

The problem is that its always something that people are unwilling to pay full price for with their own money. so the actual value is somewhat unknown. But there are so many distortions and subsidies, one cannot really tell with a lot of things. One thing is certain though. When government spends money, it borrow it or take it by taxation or inflation. So it really just changes who is spending it and the desirability of the spending. Desirability drops because people spend on thing or invest in things that are of real value to them, where as government puts money where it politically popular. I hear the government is going to be giving two solar companies $2 billion that will create 2000. That's $1 million per job. And on a technology that is not all that competitive yet. But don't worry. Government knows exactly what technologies will win out. And if it doesn't, it will spend whatever is required to make it look like its winning.

sprout 16y ago
Why are you so hostile to research that sees production use? The theory, which is increasingly being borne out, is that economies of scale will kick I bun if you subsidize it. But even if not, it's small-scale research, and extremely important. But politicians need a message that sells, and talking about the complexities of solar panel research and job creation that motivate this endeavor just leaves people's eyes glazed over.
- kiba 16y ago
  Solar research will dramatically kicks in as soon as oil become too expensive. Moreover, solar productions will kick in when it become too expensive to run our economy on oils. There is no need for solar researches until then. We could use that money to spend on other research programs, such as space exploration, semiconductor research, or even water conservation research. However, we don't know which to fund. So we end up with a government that more or less redirect the path of technological development, not so much advance the overall state of technology. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
  - chwahoo 16y ago
    Do libertarians not believe in externalities? There is a free lunch! It's the other costs of fossil-fuels (political instability, pollution, global warming, risks of environmental disaster) that are not reflected in the price of oil and so are unable to influence development of energy alternatives!
    - eru 16y ago
      How about taxing follil-fuels to internalize those externalities? Seems better to me than picking winners by subsidizing certain sexy technologies.
      - chwahoo 16y ago
        I think there is a place for both! The latter is certainly more politically tenable ;). But seriously, funding research doesn't need to be thought of as "picking winners." For example, I think the NSF does an admirable job of funding longer-term research using peer review to decide which ideas are funded. Some wild ideas are funded when proposal authors can make a good case for their research, others are not. Many ideas fail, but the externalities of the research process are positive - Ph.D. students learn to be effective researchers and many will contribute later in industry. But I agree with much of your statement: 1. Governments shouldn't pick the winners, particularly too early in the process. (but I don't have a problem with funding promising ideas to promote their development) 2. I also agree that a fossil-fuel tax would be a good way of enlisting the power of private industry to find good solutions to the problem. But in the short term, it would surely draw the ire of those unaccustomed to paying for these externalities.
        eru 16y ago
        Just propose to pay out the proceeds of the tax equally among all citizens. That should be popular.
        sprout 16y ago
        >1. Governments shouldn't pick the winners, particularly too early in the process. If we do that, we only end up with things that can reasonably be expected to work. And things that can reasonably be expected to work rarely change the world.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  We don't know what technologies will win out. When money is thrown at one for political reasons, its quite possible that other more viable technologies don't get developed. And if an alternative like solar or wind is truly viable, it will succeed. What we need to do is make sure that all of the costs of oil are paid for by its users. We shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions ensuring a cheap supply with foreign policy. All we're doing is hiding the true cost of its instability. And if things like oil are creating other indirect problems, its use should be taxed to pay for those costs. That will allow alternatives that don't have the same problems to compete. But to pick a solution the way the government does and throw money at it is a wasteful strategy. They're doing the same thing with electric cars. Both the federal and California governments will give thousands in deductions for this particular solution. This hides the true costs. And we ignore that the additional electricity probably comes from burning fossil fuels anyway. Most of the technologies that created the wealth we enjoy came from private risk taking, not politically fashionable government money spraying. Divining the future is very difficult and best done with distributed intelligence with a great diversity of perspectives all competing with each other, not with any one particular brain installed in Washington.

sprout 16y ago

Why are you so hostile to research that sees production use? The theory, which is increasingly being borne out, is that economies of scale will kick I bun if you subsidize it. But even if not, it's small-scale research, and extremely important. But politicians need a message that sells, and talking about the complexities of solar panel research and job creation that motivate this endeavor just leaves people's eyes glazed over.

kiba 16y ago
Solar research will dramatically kicks in as soon as oil become too expensive. Moreover, solar productions will kick in when it become too expensive to run our economy on oils. There is no need for solar researches until then. We could use that money to spend on other research programs, such as space exploration, semiconductor research, or even water conservation research. However, we don't know which to fund. So we end up with a government that more or less redirect the path of technological development, not so much advance the overall state of technology. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
- chwahoo 16y ago
  Do libertarians not believe in externalities? There is a free lunch! It's the other costs of fossil-fuels (political instability, pollution, global warming, risks of environmental disaster) that are not reflected in the price of oil and so are unable to influence development of energy alternatives!
  - eru 16y ago
    How about taxing follil-fuels to internalize those externalities? Seems better to me than picking winners by subsidizing certain sexy technologies.
    - chwahoo 16y ago
      I think there is a place for both! The latter is certainly more politically tenable ;). But seriously, funding research doesn't need to be thought of as "picking winners." For example, I think the NSF does an admirable job of funding longer-term research using peer review to decide which ideas are funded. Some wild ideas are funded when proposal authors can make a good case for their research, others are not. Many ideas fail, but the externalities of the research process are positive - Ph.D. students learn to be effective researchers and many will contribute later in industry. But I agree with much of your statement: 1. Governments shouldn't pick the winners, particularly too early in the process. (but I don't have a problem with funding promising ideas to promote their development) 2. I also agree that a fossil-fuel tax would be a good way of enlisting the power of private industry to find good solutions to the problem. But in the short term, it would surely draw the ire of those unaccustomed to paying for these externalities.
      - eru 16y ago
        Just propose to pay out the proceeds of the tax equally among all citizens. That should be popular.
      - sprout 16y ago
        >1. Governments shouldn't pick the winners, particularly too early in the process. If we do that, we only end up with things that can reasonably be expected to work. And things that can reasonably be expected to work rarely change the world.
stretchwithme 16y ago
We don't know what technologies will win out. When money is thrown at one for political reasons, its quite possible that other more viable technologies don't get developed. And if an alternative like solar or wind is truly viable, it will succeed. What we need to do is make sure that all of the costs of oil are paid for by its users. We shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions ensuring a cheap supply with foreign policy. All we're doing is hiding the true cost of its instability. And if things like oil are creating other indirect problems, its use should be taxed to pay for those costs. That will allow alternatives that don't have the same problems to compete. But to pick a solution the way the government does and throw money at it is a wasteful strategy. They're doing the same thing with electric cars. Both the federal and California governments will give thousands in deductions for this particular solution. This hides the true costs. And we ignore that the additional electricity probably comes from burning fossil fuels anyway. Most of the technologies that created the wealth we enjoy came from private risk taking, not politically fashionable government money spraying. Divining the future is very difficult and best done with distributed intelligence with a great diversity of perspectives all competing with each other, not with any one particular brain installed in Washington.