3 ms·
His point is that innovation is both something that we all want, yet something that is often inadvertently stifled by regulators or competitors. Perhaps the ene
by ythn 9y ago
His point is that innovation is both something that we all want, yet something that is often inadvertently stifled by regulators or competitors. Perhaps the energy innovation that would benefit society most is not pursued because it's too lucrative to pursue solar (the government's "winner"). Perhaps there are streaming video/music innovations we will never see because there is so much red tape put up by Disney, etc.
- Qwertious 9y ago>His point is that innovation is both something that we all want, yet something that is often best decided by the market, not by regulators or competitors. Perhaps the energy innovation that would benefit society most is not pursued because it's too lucrative to invest in solar. As a generalisation, I think that solar "subsidies" are a two-part problem. First off, the government is refusing to price the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions (in part due to the republicans largely refusing to acknowledge the externalities even exist), which distorts the value of solar by implicitly subsidising fossil fuels. Second, people acknowledge that solar needs to be made more viable and attempt to correct the market by adding a subsidy to solar instead of removing the subsidy from fossil fuels. I think this exposes a fundamental flaw in common neoliberal ideology today - the notion that the way to remove market distortions is for government to do less, not more. This is clearly absurd, since climate change will cause trillions of dollars of property damage, and penalising property damage is basically the government's job.