Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the new technologies are economical and valued, they will succeed.

[/ QUOTE ] Yup. But there could potentially be a very long transition period. This is especially true where there's a chicken-and-egg problem. Let's say the experts decide that hydrogen-powered cars are the best way to go. No one's going to buy a hydrogen car, because there are no hydrogen fuel stations, and no one's going to build a hydrogen fuel station, because there are no hydrogen cars. If the government steps in and subsidizes both the cars and the stations, we can break this impasse and get much faster adoption.

[ QUOTE ]
Engineering the economy so that cars are built with some materials that a select few have decided are best is a stupid, stupid idea. Such manipulation can never be as efficient and effective as letting the market decide.

[/ QUOTE ]If we're talking about deciding something like whether people listen to music on vinyl records or CDs, I agree with you. The problem is that in the realm of energy, there are very important externalities that are not reflected in the market prices. The price of gasoline reflects its supply/demand characteristics, but it doesn't incorporate the costs that will be imposed by global warming, or by sending lots of money to governments like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that hate us. The true cost of gasoline is higher than its market price. We can't rely on markets to do everything.

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the experts decide

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to continue.

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the experts decide

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]Now that's just f*cking stupid.

I know! Let's just have the public vote on whether polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells or high-temperature catalyst coated fuel cells are better!

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the experts decide

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]Now that's just f*cking stupid.

I know! Let's just have the public vote on whether polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells or high-temperature catalyst coated fuel cells are better!

[/ QUOTE ]

They will vote, with their wallets and pocket books.

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
Car manufacturers goals are to produce the highest quality inexpensive cars they can so that they can create good profit margins. This goal is not in line with reducing the US's dependance on international oil sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'll bite, why are the goals of the car manufacturers not inline with reducing the US's dependence on international oil sources. Put another way, why would more fuel effecient automobiles reduce US dependence on foreign oil sources ceritas paribus (all things being equal)?

[ QUOTE ]
Why should an auto company change how they produce cars to a more expensive method when it won't benefit their business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope wouldn't make sense. But if the price of a gallon of gasoline was high enough people may pay more, competition may bring down costs, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if the government subsidized the additional costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Vis-a-Vis subsidizing domestic producers but not foreign? Not sure if this would violate WTO agreements or not.

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you wanted to make more fuel efficient cars, wouldn't a great way be to hike the federal gas tax to about $15 a gallon? There'd definitely be some high demand for cheap energy then! You just have to get around that small problem of the public lynching the officials in charge...

[/ QUOTE ]

As well as the reduced supply of gasoline.

Re: So *that\'s* what they mean by \"Apollo program for energy\".
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the experts decide

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]Now that's just f*cking stupid.

I know! Let's just have the public vote on whether polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells or high-temperature catalyst coated fuel cells are better!

[/ QUOTE ]

This attitude is sadly typical and reveals a failure to understand not only the complexities of a market economy, but also a failure to understand that everyone has different priorities and that it's a foolish dream to think that a committee can make decisions that accurately address each individual's priorities.

This maoist view, where a committee of planners can engineer the "right" way for us all to do things, where a select few experts are considered capable of directing something as complex as an economy, this view is sadly typical but wholly, disastrously mistaken. It doesn't work. Yet hope springs eternal that we can find men of goodwill, who will never corrupts, and who possess godlike intellect and genius, who will lead us to utopia through central planning.

"What we need is the all-knowing government to solve our problems!" Ask the residents of New Orleans how that works out in practice...

natedogg