4 ms·

"It's pretty ironic watching all the anti-government comments on this site while most people here are ignorant about where Silicon Valley came from." The fact

"It's pretty ironic watching all the anti-government comments on this site while most people here are ignorant about where Silicon Valley came from." The fact that one of the biggest investment of resources of all time created silicon valley, or the nuclear bomb, does not mean that if a similar amount of resources have been spent privately a bigger advance could be made. In fact, the fact that the nuclear research was directed to the creation of a bomb, and not towards energy creation, is a huge problem today, when alternative fuel research that did not created plutonium were severed. The creation of Silicon Valley has more to do with the emergency of the situation that with being public or private. In peace it is very difficult both for public or private institutions to agree on a single place to centralize everything. Only China have done it, in Shenzhen, because it is a dictatorship, but when Germany wants to do it in Berlin, France wants to do it in Paris, and UK in London. They could not agree on a single place to centralize everything for all Europe. The same happens in South America with Chile, Brasil, Argentina, Ecuador, they all going on their own makes them weak.

SapphireSun 12y ago
I think the difference between private and public capital is that 1) public capital is far larger and 2) private capital needs quick turn around. I can't see private industry inventing the nuclear bomb. Any time you conceive of a start up, the mantra is always MVP, fastest time to positive ROI. It's hard to do research like that. I think I could accept that you could have motivated a sufficient number of brilliant people to work on nuclear energy instead of the bomb, but the economics are still suspicious. There are a few fusion startups in the valley, but the common question is why they think they can create something salable in a reasonable amount of time, which I assume in turn injures the amount of talent they can pull.
setpatchaddress 12y ago
This might be a failure of imagination on my part, but I'd love to know how you think private enterprise would have been able to find a way to spend the money to accomplish the same things. Say the US government didn't fund these things. How would private enterprise have done it? Write me the alternate history.
api 12y ago
On strict economic terms, all nuclear research beyond perhaps medical applications was wasteful. Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, and there's still plenty of coal. Solar and large-scale wind generation research is also similarly contrary to market economics, as neither is competitive with the cheapest available fossil fuels. A pure market would likely follow the "olduvai theory" scenario exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory By the time fossil fuels became too expensive, there would be no capital available to invest in alternatives as fossil depletion would slow growth and cause investment capital to evaporate. Thermodynamically this is a manifestation of the energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ Avoiding these scenarios requires planning rooted in conceptual thought. Markets "think" through price signaling. I see little evidence that markets as a whole can incorporate long-term conceptual thinking into price signals, which means that markets basically can't think conceptually. In fact, price signals on the run-up side of a bubble are deceptive. This is why so many people lose money in them. As the first article says -- many of these peak-ist predictions have not materialized. The reason is probably that we don't have a pure market, and thus we "irrationally" invested in things like nuclear, wind, solar, efficiency, and even enhanced oil/gas recovery that wasn't economic when we funded it. Imagine our energy picture right now with no nuclear, wind, or solar on the table. It remains to be seen whether what we've done is too little too late or not.

SapphireSun 12y ago

I think the difference between private and public capital is that 1) public capital is far larger and 2) private capital needs quick turn around. I can't see private industry inventing the nuclear bomb. Any time you conceive of a start up, the mantra is always MVP, fastest time to positive ROI. It's hard to do research like that. I think I could accept that you could have motivated a sufficient number of brilliant people to work on nuclear energy instead of the bomb, but the economics are still suspicious. There are a few fusion startups in the valley, but the common question is why they think they can create something salable in a reasonable amount of time, which I assume in turn injures the amount of talent they can pull.

setpatchaddress 12y ago

This might be a failure of imagination on my part, but I'd love to know how you think private enterprise would have been able to find a way to spend the money to accomplish the same things. Say the US government didn't fund these things. How would private enterprise have done it? Write me the alternate history.

api 12y ago

On strict economic terms, all nuclear research beyond perhaps medical applications was wasteful. Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, and there's still plenty of coal. Solar and large-scale wind generation research is also similarly contrary to market economics, as neither is competitive with the cheapest available fossil fuels. A pure market would likely follow the "olduvai theory" scenario exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory By the time fossil fuels became too expensive, there would be no capital available to invest in alternatives as fossil depletion would slow growth and cause investment capital to evaporate. Thermodynamically this is a manifestation of the energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ Avoiding these scenarios requires planning rooted in conceptual thought. Markets "think" through price signaling. I see little evidence that markets as a whole can incorporate long-term conceptual thinking into price signals, which means that markets basically can't think conceptually. In fact, price signals on the run-up side of a bubble are deceptive. This is why so many people lose money in them. As the first article says -- many of these peak-ist predictions have not materialized. The reason is probably that we don't have a pure market, and thus we "irrationally" invested in things like nuclear, wind, solar, efficiency, and even enhanced oil/gas recovery that wasn't economic when we funded it. Imagine our energy picture right now with no nuclear, wind, or solar on the table. It remains to be seen whether what we've done is too little too late or not.