3 ms·

Just because government can do big projects doesn't mean it should. And Fedex's success depended far more on aviation advances than on the Interstate Highway S

by greedo 14y ago

Just because government can do big projects doesn't mean it should. And Fedex's success depended far more on aviation advances than on the Interstate Highway System. Aviation that was pushed by private industry (while also enjoying support from the militaries of the world). In the US, the major "infrastructure" type projects that were government driven are often listed as the Erie Canal, the Hoover Dam, and the IHS. Some will throw in the TVS as well, though I consider that more of a state-cooperative effort. Yet we still seemed to have a great deal of scientific progress that in turn led to economic progress before these huge programs were enacted. The steam engine, the locomotive, the airplane, wireless radio, etc. etc. Goddard didn't have much government support in his initial efforts yet was a pioneer. I'm not discounting that governments can have a disproportionate impact on some programs. But do we really want to have a government that picks winners and losers as we currently do with alternative energy? I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

simba-hiiipower 14y ago
..never said i'm in favour of ‘trying to pick winners and losers' nor do i think the current approach to alternative energy (essentially doing just that) is the right way to go by any means. rather, i'd like to a concerted effort by the government to find a solution itself (i.e. let’s get a man on the moon in ten years ... let’s have all new vehicles running on a clean and sustainable fuel source within the next 20 years). that type of approach is fundamentally different than let’s invest in this particular company’s particular solution or let’s give a loan to these guys.. it’s more analogous to the projects you described in which the government funded research/planning, developed particular approaches, and then contracted-out the development of potential solutions/implementations, and where it all fit together towards achieving a tangible goal. that’s very different than what’s going on today. and i'd say ‘alternative energy’ is a poster-child for a project in which the cost of development and commercialization is fairly significant, but the economic and societal benefit of an adequate solution being realized far outweighs it; to me, that makes for an ideal case (and one of few) where increased government involvement can play a good role. especially so, given the government has already distorted the market by subsidizing ‘traditional energy’ sources for so long. as to what happens tomorrow, i doubt we’ll find-out how it impact this issue in any meaningful way. as i see it, it’s a choice between continuing to pick winners and losers or just giving up entirely; neither is ideal as far as i'm concerned..
- greedo 14y ago
  Jerry Pournelle has been a huge advocate of X-prizes for advancing technology. These were very valuable at the dawn of the aviation era, and races like the Schneider cup helped push boundaries. The cost is zero if the company/organization fails to reach the defined threshold. Too bad so much govt. spending is associated with buying votes instead of advancing technology.
  - simba-hiiipower 14y ago
    now there's something we can agree on. happy election day good sir.

by greedo 14y ago

simba-hiiipower 14y ago

..never said i'm in favour of ‘trying to pick winners and losers' nor do i think the current approach to alternative energy (essentially doing just that) is the right way to go by any means. rather, i'd like to a concerted effort by the government to find a solution itself (i.e. let’s get a man on the moon in ten years ... let’s have all new vehicles running on a clean and sustainable fuel source within the next 20 years). that type of approach is fundamentally different than let’s invest in this particular company’s particular solution or let’s give a loan to these guys.. it’s more analogous to the projects you described in which the government funded research/planning, developed particular approaches, and then contracted-out the development of potential solutions/implementations, and where it all fit together towards achieving a tangible goal. that’s very different than what’s going on today. and i'd say ‘alternative energy’ is a poster-child for a project in which the cost of development and commercialization is fairly significant, but the economic and societal benefit of an adequate solution being realized far outweighs it; to me, that makes for an ideal case (and one of few) where increased government involvement can play a good role. especially so, given the government has already distorted the market by subsidizing ‘traditional energy’ sources for so long. as to what happens tomorrow, i doubt we’ll find-out how it impact this issue in any meaningful way. as i see it, it’s a choice between continuing to pick winners and losers or just giving up entirely; neither is ideal as far as i'm concerned..

greedo 14y ago
Jerry Pournelle has been a huge advocate of X-prizes for advancing technology. These were very valuable at the dawn of the aviation era, and races like the Schneider cup helped push boundaries. The cost is zero if the company/organization fails to reach the defined threshold. Too bad so much govt. spending is associated with buying votes instead of advancing technology.
- simba-hiiipower 14y ago
  now there's something we can agree on. happy election day good sir.