The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

Michael Davis told me to post a trip report so here it is.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see they said global warming was happening. They also stated stats saying 80% of americans polled believed it was happening so I was happy about that. They interviewed glacial scientists, mentioned the vostok ice cores (although very briefly and basically told us nothing about them), ripped apart GE's ecomagination (and similar advertisements) and the Kyoto treaty which was also good. They also mentioned climate change causing hurricanes, draughts, floods, etc and how the temp of the earth has risen. Then it went all down hill.

When talking about the fight for global warming they thought it was important enough to spend over 20 minutes (guestimating) interviewing the director of "the day after tomorrow" Linky and how he replaces the lightbulbs in his house with energy efficient bulbs. They also spent another 10 minutes or so interview the wife of Larry David from HBO’s "Curb your enthusiasm" and how she gave away her husbands hybrid at http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/. They interviewed random Hollywood figures, how 8 year old kids at a "global warming camp" learn to power little plastic fans with solar cells, a racecar driver that loves to race off of ethanol, and a CEO of a motor company using wonderful buzzwords like "we have scientists working not only on the next generation of fuel cells but the generation after that".

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
2) ITER and how it’s been in gridlock for 19 years and 358 days.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER
5) Why hybrids don’t save energy due to increased construction energy costs
6) Why hydrogen in itself isn’t going to help global warming because we still need to use fossil fuels to create it.
7) Offshore wind turbines
8) ocean thermal energy conversion
9) Fuel cells Achilles heel = not enough platinum to go around
10) severe lack of physicists in this country
11) interview any Nobel laureate
12) interview any physicist
13) carbon sequestration
14) interview Jerry M. Melillo
15) Mention C12/C14 data
16) This image: http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2084/3way8fp.png
17) peak oil
18) how shale oil will release massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere

I could go on and on and on….

Seriously, what is the point of having the show? They spent more time interviewing celebrities than scientists. All they had to do is watch the PBS/Edward Norton Strange Days series and Richard Smalley’s video and plagiarize. The only person on the show that said "come up with alternative ways to make energy" was a little boy at "energy camp". What a joke.

Here, let me help you FoxNews:
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_O...31101_300k.wmv
http://smalley.rice.edu/
www.pbs.org/strangedays


PS. Feel free to e-mail a link of this post to fox news. That used to be my favorite news station and now I think it’s a joke.

Atleast it seemed like their hearts were in the right place. Still, the show probably motivated maybe 2 people and left everyone in the dark about what our energy needs really will be in the future.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

wacki,

Thank you. How do we get our folks in DC to do anything except rattle on and on? They each have their agendas and special interest debts.

If they won't pay any attention to science, who will they listen to?

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, lets see what they didn't mention/do:

1) Richard Smalley and his terawatt challenge campaign.
3) A call from scientists for a 5 cent gas tax to fund an Apollo energy program

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a mediocre plan.

Let's start with one basic idea.

We will never run out of gas.

Oh, of course, the amount of gas in the world is finite, for sure. No doubting that. But we won't run out. The price will only get higher and higher.

Now, as the price of gas grows higher as the supplies run lower, demand for alternative energy skyrockets, and with demand comes massive private r+d investments by companies with a massive incentive to come up with an alternative fuel.

Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it? People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

Oh...and by letting the private sector handle it, you also don't have one other irritating problem. See, when you tax gas, you aren't just taxing gas. You are taxing EVVVVVERYTHING. Guess who that hurts the most. It's not the rich.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stupid wishful thinking. God I really hate people so committed to an idea that it blinds them to reality. I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

That's not soon enough and that's not good enough, and if you're happy with that because it fits your view of how the world should work then you're an idiot and deserve the chaos for which you yearn.

I want this problem solved now. Barring that as soon as possible, and I don't care if government or private industry finances the R&D and capital investment.

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

Also, FYI to the OP, if you don't know already, Smalley died a couple days back. So that sucks.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want us to start working on this problem when oil is $200 per barrel and the economy is [censored] and famine returns to many parts of the globe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "us"? If *you* want to start working on it, get to work. Lots of other people have already started, what are you waiting on?

[ QUOTE ]
I want this problem solved now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, go for it.


[ QUOTE ]
All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people are doing something. You aren't. What are you complaining about? That you can't force other people to do work that you personally want done?

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
We will never run out of gas.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. We can extract gas from coal, shale, etc. However, those processes will wreak absolute havok on our atmosphere by increasing CO2 emmissions many fold. Did you not see that in my original post?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, they might not come up with an alternative fuel. It's possible we're all screwed. But if they can't...how do you expect government to be able to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

www.iter.org/
solid state batteries
www.ocees.com/
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec...ml#development
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...f-aa653124a093

All emission free, all in gridlock. All of which are either ran/discovered by nonprofit research groups or ignored by private investors.

I could go on.

Again, my challenge of opening up a college biology/chemistry/physics textbook and counting how many novel inventions/discoveries were made by private industry vs. nonprofit groups goes unanswered.

[ QUOTE ]
People working for this "Apollo Program for Energy" won't have nearly the incentives of the private firms to come up with alternative energy - last time I checked, billions in profit was far more enticing than a pat on the back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, scientists work for money and profit only. That is why Einstein, Smalley, Watson, Crick, Darwin, Madame Curie, and all of the other greatest scientist were so ungodly rich. *sarcasm* I swear, anyone that gives answers like this has absolutely no clue what drives the best scientists on the planet. Many, if not most, of these people would much rather ride a bike to work than drive a lexus. If they were so driven by wealth many NASA scientists would start managing a restaurant. Why? Because that highschool dropout often gets paid more and doesn't have to pay off school loans.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate further?

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


Care to elaborate further?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://tinyurl.com/aque9


and from journals

http://tinyurl.com/duygt



You lazy bum. Maybe you should work for Fox News. :-P Oh well, atleast you are asking questions.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
6) Why hydrogen in itself isn’t going to help global warming because we still need to use fossil fuels to create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

nuclear power [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
www.iter.org/
solid state batteries
www.ocees.com/
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec...ml#development
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...f-aa653124a093

All emission free, all in gridlock. All of which are either ran/discovered by nonprofit research groups or ignored by private investors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gridlocked by what? By government intervention? Or by a market that finds them uninteresting? Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, my challenge of opening up a college biology/chemistry/physics textbook and counting how many novel inventions/discoveries were made by private industry vs. nonprofit groups goes unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


Care to elaborate further?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://tinyurl.com/aque9


and from journals

http://tinyurl.com/duygt


[/ QUOTE ]

Originally ethanol production may have been a net loser, older plants that used oil and coal may have been. Newer ethanol plants are much more energy efficient, I think that it is a misconception that all ethanol is produced at a net energy lose. If various forms of ethanol production increases because of demand, overall production will continue to become more effective.

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.


granted this link is to an ethanol site
many links against ethanol production are related to oil industry such as this one


[ QUOTE ]

You lazy bum. Maybe you should work for Fox News. :-P Oh well, atleast you are asking questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

no need for name calling [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try neither. The ROI on oil for stockholders is much higher right now and will continue to be so a while at the cost of the economy, the americans, and the environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great comeback! *sarcasm*

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

Ok, so I was slightly innacurate with the ethanol. It is possible for it to be +EV in some situations in fact, in many situations. I've even posted links about that in the past where conola is 0.8 input/output ratio as shown in this link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hgm092705.php

But many are -EV or simply not scalable. Even in situations where it is +EV, the difference isn't anything to get excited about in cost or ROI energy value. I have said in the past that biodiesel will be helpful especially with algae but corn simply isn't the answer.

That original post was long and I spend too much time here as is and was pissed off when I made this post..... sorry about the error. I'm trying to balance time and failing misersably.

Guh... short on time.... Gots to go.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

I'm not opposed to the idea of government funded R&D for energy, but I don't really think that technology is the primary barrier to adopting alternative energy. We know how to build wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, solar thermal energy generators, nuclear fission reactors and we have apretty good idea how to do ocean thermal energy. We also know how to make fuel cells. Why aren't we using these (except nuclear fission) to any significant degree? One very simple reason: Fossil fuel is cheaper. I submit that the barriers to using renewable energy are more economic than technological. That is going to change in the next few decades (mayber soon).

Wacki is absolutely right about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is one possible means of energy storage and transport. It may not even be the best means. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now is from fossil fuels. Hydrogen can also be made by electolyzing water, with electricity coming from renewable sources or nuclear energy (fission or fusion, assuming we ever make fusion work). The fuel cell problem is not necessarily a show stopper. Hydrogen can also be burned. A car with a hydrogen-burning internal combustion engine may not be as efficient as a fuel cell car, but it will work, and produces minimal pollution (some NOx), and will likely be much cheaper to manufacture than a fuel cell car.

I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain but potentially huge, than to refining existing, but currently non-cost-effective technologies. I think the private sector will work the kinks out of renewable energy, once the price of fossil fuels becomes high enough to make it profitable. I also think the conversion from fossil fuel to renewables may happen much faster than many people imagine, once the economic factors favor it.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain

[/ QUOTE ]

Most physicists think ITER is very low risk. It just requires time and money. Money isn't an issue, it's waiting the 20 years it takes to build and calibrate one of these things that is the problem. So, nobody wants to put forth the effort when your term in office is only 4 years and patents don't last that long.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

its cool, overall your OP was well written, thanks for the insight and info.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

Will

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try neither. The ROI on oil for stockholders is much higher right now and will continue to be so a while at the cost of the economy, the americans, and the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is the ROI higher for oil? Because of government intervention or because consumers find more value in it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great comeback! *sarcasm*

[/ QUOTE ]

Dismiss it with flippant one-liners instead of actual logic. The fact that government noses in on things and things still happen does nothing to prove that centralized funding is superior to privitized funding (for-profit or non-profit).

Look in your college textbook and count up how many people have been killed by governments compared to private criminals.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to a point. I think the issue made earlier rested on developing an alternate source that is commercially viable BEFORE the price of oil screws the world.

We're caught in a Catch-22 - the alternatives aren't cheap enough so no one uses them and since no one uses them they aren't developed enough to be cheap.

The oil companies are the ones making the money right now AND they have a pretty good handle on Washington D.C. - so the government really has no motivation to develop alternative fuels. Actually, their policy seems to encourage oil consumption...

I would think that the oil companies themselves would be working very hard at the next energy source because whoever figures it out, is gonna make Bill Gates look poor. They have all the resources required. Also, when Peak Oil does arrive and we have the alternate source, China is gonna be our bitch.

-Aqua

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. The smalley's video or pdf transcript explains why. Energy supplies decreasing, energy demands increasing, china comming online, and all of our current technologies simply aren't scalable or able to provide cheap energy. Fuel cell problem = platinum. All of this has been covered before in much greater detail.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that the oil companies themselves would be working very hard at the next energy source because whoever figures it out, is gonna make Bill Gates look poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

problem = patents don't last that long and fusion plants take a long time to build.

man I need to stop entering this forum.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. The smalley's video or pdf transcript explains why. Energy supplies decreasing, energy demands increasing, china comming online, and all of our current technologies simply aren't scalable or able to provide cheap energy. Fuel cell problem = platinum. All of this has been covered before in much greater detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear that you know a lot about global warming and alternate energy technologies. But I think that your understanding of economics could use some work. If energy supplies are decreasing (which is unclear), and demand for energy is increasing (which it definitely is), then the price of energy will go up. The price will go up until the point where alternative energy sources become cost effective. When they become cost effective, they will be invested in, and their cost of production will eventually come down, until it is cheaper than it was before.

There is simply no need for a massive bureaucratic government effort on something the market deems is not yet necessary. When the market wants it, it will get done, and it will be done better and cheaper.

Have a little faith in the market, brother.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]

Have a little faith in the market, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Wacki, if you want to leave it up to markets this is exactly what is needed FAITH. This is why those that believe in the market do so with such a religous zeal.

Te market is the solution end of discussion.
Christ was the son of God end of discussion.

One is not allowed to profer the blasphemy that maybe in this case the market is not the solution and the great satan government should get involved.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
When the market wants it, it will get done, and it will be done better and cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't know the history of penicillin, the atomic bomb, almost every major vaccine known to man...

college textbook challenge..

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Have a little faith in the market, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Wacki, if you want to leave it up to markets this is exactly what is needed FAITH. This is why those that believe in the market do so with such a religous zeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it! You snip the whole post and the economic argument and respond to the humorous remark at the end. I knew when I used that expression some nut would come out of the woodwork. Would you care to address the actual economic point of my post?

[ QUOTE ]
Te market is the solution end of discussion.
Christ was the son of God end of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say it was the end of the discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
One is not allowed to profer the blasphemy that maybe in this case the market is not the solution and the great satan government should get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can profer anything you like. Would you care to actually back it up though, that's the question.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

I summarised your arguement perfectly.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When the market wants it, it will get done, and it will be done better and cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't know the history of penicillin, the atomic bomb, almost every major vaccine known to man...

college textbook challenge..

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no, I don't know the history of penicillin or any major vaccine. It's not my field.

However, I know a fair bit about the history of atomic weaponry. And I'm not sure what your point is.

And what is a "college textbook challenge" ?

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the idea that I summerised an "arguement" could be construed as amusing.

The idea that the market allows for perfect distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on faith.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the idea that I summerised an "arguement" could be construed as amusing.

The idea that the market allows for perfect distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea. It would seem to be your strawman misrepresentation of what the advantages of free markets are alleged to be. Either that or your misunderstanding of what the advantages of free markets are alleged to be. Neither one wins you any points.

The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take this to be true, then any human interference could only lead to a negative impact on effeciency.

So:

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can be seen to be utterly false.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Have a little faith in the market, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Wacki, if you want to leave it up to markets this is exactly what is needed FAITH. This is why those that believe in the market do so with such a religous zeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this even more true for those that advocate statism?

"Don't worry, the state will take care of you."

"Trust us, we're from the government."

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, I know a fair bit about the history of atomic weaponry. And I'm not sure what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he's pointing out that without government, there would be no market for nuclear weapons, as if that would be a bad thing.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is a "college textbook challenge" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's his uber-strawman. Supposedly, since all of the innovations in the universe that you would ever find in a college textbook were (at least partially) funded by government money, we can conclude that without government, nothing good would ever happen. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Because government intervened and results were still obtained, government must be the ideal solution. QED.

I'm not really sure what the "challenge" part of it is.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the market allows for perfect distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "human interference" that messes things up, it's *coercive* interference. A truly free market is, by definition, one that is free from coercive interference. In such a scenario, resources flow to those who value them the most.

Coercive interference usually has (overtly, at least) good intentions, but is based on one party making value judgements for others about what is desirable and what isn't. This means that resources will not always be directed towards the most valued uses - in other words, the distribution optimality is reduced.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take this to be true, then any human interference could only lead to a negative impact on effeciency.

So:

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can be seen to be utterly false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you can't tell the difference between "most efficiently" and "perfect".

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the idea that I summerised an "arguement" could be construed as amusing.

The idea that the market allows for the most efficient distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

That's a pretty funny fyp. Economics isn't that far removed from astrology.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

pvn you are unquestionably right that once it's better for a company to produce other forms of energy they will. I can't argue the logic of the market.

What if by that time the pollution caused by shale oil burning (which would have been most efficent until recently) had caused massive negative externailities.

While it's correct that people will act efficently and invest in what they find important, it's a collective action problem here (again i know this is something that you have serious beef with). It is true that energy industries as a whole will continue to make a profit where they can, and when it's useful to them will work on other sources.

In your version of anachro captitalism, if i get it right, someone else should have property rights to clean air, and as energy producers worsen air quality they would have to pay for the rights to do so.

However in the world where we live, myself and everyone else would have to pay a great cost to get together and force energy companies to pay.

Essential in your schemata (sp) i believe that energy companies are stealing, insomuch, as they are using a resource (a non-polluted enviornment) that does not belong to them without paying for it. The typical arguement here is that if people value a clean enviornment they should organize and delinetate the rights to clean air, however i would argue that this organization is incredibly costly to the point of being nearly impossible.

I would agree with anachro capitalism if all rights could be perfectly delinetated, but since that is not possible, and the market neither accounts for, nor allows the trade or all valuable things, it remains imperfect.

So in this particular instance, i think that the status quo relies on an inordinate cost of organization, an inability to guarantee property rights over time, and profittering off a stolen resouce, not on the inherent value of R+D vs the status quo.

I personally think this can be rectafied (though imperfectly) by government interaction.

edit: I know one response is that government would not allocate reasources any better, but i don't think that's really true. In this case i think clean air has identifiably more net value then immediate cheap energy.
(Read i believe A>SQ)

The problem as i see it is organization + "air" delineating costs more then status quo

O + A > SQ

however government reduces the cost of organization to the point that i believe (and it's debateable)

O + A < SQ

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
What if by that time the pollution caused by shale oil burning (which would have been most efficent until recently) had caused massive negative externailities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Externalities are bogus concepts that are (mis)used to justify government intervention. The emotion they play on (that others' actions can have effects one's happiness without action from the one that is effected) is a real one, but their application is always arbitrary. Additionally, they assume to know the preferences of the individual that is affected by them, even though that individual has expressed no preference (i.e. he hasn't acted). See http://www.mises.org/story/1360 for more.

[ QUOTE ]
In your version of anachro captitalism, if i get it right, someone else should have property rights to clean air, and as energy producers worsen air quality they would have to pay for the rights to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. They would pay for damages they cause by allowing their pollution to invade your person and property. They gain no "right" to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
However in the world where we live, myself and everyone else would have to pay a great cost to get together and force energy companies to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that cost greater than the cost of allowing the pollution? If that cost is so great, it should be more than enough to discourage polluters.

[ QUOTE ]
Essential in your schemata (sp) i believe that energy companies are stealing, insomuch, as they are using a resource (a non-polluted enviornment) that does not belong to them without paying for it. The typical arguement here is that if people value a clean enviornment they should organize and delinetate the rights to clean air, however i would argue that this organization is incredibly costly to the point of being nearly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, then, would it be possible in a state system?

Note that class-action lawsuits are often massively expensive, much more expensive than any one member of the class would be able to afford, yet they are routine. Even individual lawsuits that cost more than the plantiff could ever afford are taken up by lawyers every day.

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with anachro capitalism if all rights could be perfectly delinetated, but since that is not possible, and the market neither accounts for, nor allows the trade or all valuable things, it remains imperfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this not possible? What trade is not allowed?

[ QUOTE ]
So in this particular instance, i think that the status quo relies on an inordinate cost of organization, an inability to guarantee property rights over time, and profittering off a stolen resouce, not on the inherent value of R+D vs the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. When you say "status quo" what exactly are you referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
I personally think this can be rectafied (though imperfectly) by government interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[ QUOTE ]
edit: I know one response is that government would not allocate reasources any better, but i don't think that's really true. In this case i think clean air has identifiably more net value then immediate cheap energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your valuation may not be the same as everyone else's. Also note that if producers of "cheap" but dirty energy are actually held accountable for their pollution and forced to pay for damages they cause, the price they are able to offer their energy at will have to reflect those costs - the supposed externality has been internalized.


[ QUOTE ]
(Read i believe A>SQ)

The problem as i see it is organization + "air" delineating costs more then status quo

O + A > SQ

however government reduces the cost of organization to the point that i believe (and it's debateable)

O + A < SQ

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's allow that government does enable organization costs to drop. What about the costs it imposes elsewhere?