The terawatt challenge (R. Smalley)

[The once and future king]

Not in any way a relevant answer. They decreased State power to maintain their parties power.

This is no way supports the assertartion you made.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Not in any way a relevant answer. They decreased State power to maintain their parties power.

This is no way supports the assertartion you made.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case "they" are not "the government". The agenda of a particular party is to maintain and expand power, and the agenda of the government in general is to maintain and expand power. These are not "absolute" laws - there will be cases where some power is released in order to gain an advantage later, or some cases where power is released through incompetences or misfortune. Likewise, there will occasionally be an individual or two that actually works from inside the system to reverse this trend.

[The once and future king]

So if they are not the government/state what is?

If you say it is immpossible that Thatcher or Reagan were reducing state power (because government ALLWAYS seeks to increase power) then by following your logic to its conclusion the same could be said of the libertarian party.

That or government dosnt ALLWAYS seek to increase its power.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So if they are not the government/state what is?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are agents. George W. Bush isn't the government of the USA.

[ QUOTE ]
If you say it is immpossible that Thatcher or Reagan were reducing state power (because government ALLWAYS seeks to increase power)

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that it is impossible. You're confusing tactics with strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
then by following your logic to its conclusion the same could be said of the libertarian party.

That or government dosnt ALLWAYS seek to increase its power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarians seek to limit the expansion of government power. I don't see how that indicates that government itself seeks the opposite. If Libertarians were elected in large numbers to government, they might be able to make some improvements. That still doesn't change the nature of government's need to seize power any more than building a dam changes the fundamental property of water to find the lowest level.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The agenda of a particular party is to maintain and expand power

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
and the agenda of the government in general is to maintain and expand power

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, they are crap at it. Government(s) in the democratic western world have less power than they have ever had historically. We would all be living under Saddam Husseins if what you say were true. Governments have evolved to keep in check the power mad derangements of the latest incumbent. Once a government leaves the path of pure exploitation it necessarily begins to give up power. The market on the other hand exists to exploit, it's why regulations are needed and fundemental necessities like energy should have a certain amount of government control.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then, they are crap at it. Government(s) in the democratic western world have less power than they have ever had historically. We would all be living under Saddam Husseins if what you say were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I didn't say they would always succeeed 100% at their goal. The populace does have some limit to their tolerance for government expansion, though that limit moves up and down over time. The existence of revolutions, government reforms, etc does not disprove the fact that governments (bureaucracies in general) seek to extend their own existence.

[ QUOTE ]
Once a government leaves the path of pure exploitation it necessarily begins to give up power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often a government will engage in reforms, giving up some power rather than facing collapse. This isn't inconsistent with anything I've said.

Sometimes a government fails; a new government will form and will consolidate as much power as possible - often this will be less power than the previous government (e.g. Russia).

[ QUOTE ]
The market on the other hand exists to exploit, it's why regulations are needed and fundemental necessities like energy should have a certain amount of government control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exploit? Necessities are too important to leave to the political whims of government control.

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

[ QUOTE ]




The future and our energy needs are far too important to put in the hands of central planners. Any kind of "apollo program" for energy will by definition hinder the free market.



natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the "if it wasn't for the apollo program we'd have colonized the moon already" argument?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not (which you seems to belive) think that we need government planners to state the goals and the means, I think we need government funds for reasearch in the energy field.
When and if the tech. we need is developed in the various universities and whatnot these techs can be brought to the market by companys and engineers trying to make a profit out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is not what most people are talking about when they call for an "apollo program" for energy research. They want a command and control approach to research AND development, and often they are also talking about full control of the whole energy economy including price controls and rationing and other interventions.

It is a far cry from simply calling for more raw funds for pure research.

So, while I oppose increasing research, that's still not nearly as bad as the usual nonsense proposed by peak oilers.

[ QUOTE ]
I am well aware that in some areas here I am being naive, but that doesn't stop me from beliving that if we leave the problem entirely to the market we will be in for a very rough ride.


[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said for relying on government. If we give the problem to venal stupid bureaucrats with no accountability, we're just asking for pain.

And I still don't see how government is equipped to solve any of these very real problems better than the market. You mentioned that the govt can take a longer view but I find that surprising considering how myopic our government usually is, being composed of people on 2 , 4, and 6, years terms and in positions wholly dependent on the current whim of the public. Frankly, I would even argue that our govt has a more short-term view than the market (as a general rule).

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Well this is not what most people are talking about

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but this is what I am talking about. And you keep on trying your usual guilt-by-association. Why do you constantly bring up what "other peak-oilers" say and want? And why do you only bring up the ones that call for a complete nationalization of the energy sector? It's not like there isn't a lot of people in the "peak oil movement" who realize that that would be foolish. If that really is the best argument you've got you have some thinking and studying to do, and if it's not, why constantly use it?

[ QUOTE ]
So, while I oppose increasing research

[/ QUOTE ]
And do you have any succes stories when the free market has solved gigantic problems, of the type that need primary reaserch? You have a lot of ideological rethoric, but are a bit thin on actual examples.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I would even argue that our govt has a more short-term view than the market (as a general rule).


[/ QUOTE ]
While it is true that governments are beeing increasingly short-sighted (can it be because we are having market forces that are driving them to become that, maybe?). It's not really true in all areas, is it? In some areas, military reaserch comes to mind, there are others, the timeframes are considerably longer.
So, I think you are wrong.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
And do you have any succes stories when the free market has solved gigantic problems, of the type that need primary reaserch? You have a lot of ideological rethoric, but are a bit thin on actual examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire.

The wheel.

Can any government top those?