The best energy policy ever

[frizzfreeling]

Its called insurance. Sure, we could hope for the best and leave it to capitalism, but I personally would like to have some insurance. If oil hit $300 a barrel tomorrow, do you think hydrogen vehicles will suddenly show up at the local dealer the next day? No, because even though it became economical to go hydrogen, nobody can build the infrastructure in time to save the day. I would rather have our government spend money today on technology that isnt yet economical (insurance policy) so that it will be in X years, regardless of what happens with the price of oil.

Another thing the pure capitalists are missing is the fact that innovation takes time. Without the "unprofitable" government funding of alternative energy over decades, many of the key advances weve made wouldnt have materialized yet, simply because it isnt profitable for companies to research in fields with 40 or 50 year outlooks.

One thing capitalism doesnt take into account is HUMAN SUFFERING. Eventually we will have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. But by sticking to pure capitalism, there will inevitably be more suffering in the process. With government funding, on the other hand, there will be more waste and unprofitablility, but much less chance of suffering.

As a last note, lets say the U.S. government starting tomorrow invests $20 billion a year in alternative energy. When the energy crunch comes, all those countries that relied on capitalism to solve the problem will be behind the U.S. We will then have a tremendous economic advantage on these countries (such as china). We will be producing products cheaper using abundant energy while they are just beginning to invest in the "now profitable" infrastructure needed to create and transport this energy.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing the pure capitalists are missing is the fact that innovation takes time.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so do Ph.D.'s in physics. We are very very very short on those.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It *may* be true that certain things couldn't have happened without a government program (Apollo missions are a good example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this indicates that the project was a waste of money.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have our government spend money today on technology that isnt yet economical (insurance policy) so that it will be in X years, regardless of what happens with the price of oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what private industry does. Better than government.

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing the pure capitalists are missing is the fact that innovation takes time. Without the "unprofitable" government funding of alternative energy over decades, many of the key advances weve made wouldnt have materialized yet,

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]
simply because it isnt profitable for companies to research in fields with 40 or 50 year outlooks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is demonstrably false.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing capitalism doesnt take into account is HUMAN SUFFERING.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's flat out wrong. People hate suffering, and they are willing to spend their own money to reduce their suffering, therefore there is money to be made in providing goods and services that reduce suffering. In fact, human suffering is probably the number 1 driver of progress.

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually we will have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. But by sticking to pure capitalism, there will inevitably be more suffering in the process. With government funding, on the other hand, there will be more waste and unprofitablility, but much less chance of suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure that?

You seem to be assuming that unless nanny government steps in, people will just blindly keep using oil and never look at anything else until the last drop is extracted from the ground.

[ QUOTE ]
As a last note, lets say the U.S. government starting tomorrow invests $20 billion a year in alternative energy. When the energy crunch comes, all those countries that relied on capitalism to solve the problem will be behind the U.S. We will then have a tremendous economic advantage on these countries (such as china). We will be producing products cheaper using abundant energy while they are just beginning to invest in the "now profitable" infrastructure needed to create and transport this energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. China is relying solely on capitalism. Interesting.

Seriously, you are making a ton of incorrect assumptions.

First, you assume the $20 billion will actually be allocated intelligently.

Secondly, you assume that we will actually discover something. It's entirely possible that researchers will burn through the cash and find nothing. Of course, that's possible with private funding as well, but it's more likely with government funding since the money will be centrally directed.

Thirdly, you're assuming that the private sector will do no research on their own, because it's "unprofitable". Your definition of unprofitable is wrong.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this indicates that the project was a waste of money.

[/ QUOTE ]
why?

[frizzfreeling]

Enough with the anarcho-capitalism, pvn. And whats with the people spending their money to alleviate their own suffering? How do poor people fit in your world, if at all? If im poor and I get sick, do I rely on the charity of others to get enough money to see a doctor. Thats socialism, not capitalism. According to pure capitalism, if im poor and cant afford a doctor or medication, I die.

By the same token, if gasoline just hit $20 a gallon and I cant afford a new "state of the art" $100,000 fuel cell vehicle and the $19 a gallon equiv price of fuel to run it, im screwed. But not just me! Most of the population is in the same predicament. Yeah great, oil prices have made fuel cell vehicles economical, but only in relation TO OIL PRICES, which are sky high already. OR....I could live in a country whose government spent money on innovation and infrastructure over the preceeding 30 years, making fuel cell vehicles as affordable as a 2005 model gasoline engine vehicle and aready have the pipelines and solar stations and wind turbines in place. Sure, a lot of what my government spent is wasted, but it turned out better in the long run. A moderately cushioned transition, instead of one made up of spasms dictated by the price of a commodity which comes from a very unpredictable part of the world.

[frizzfreeling]

You seem to be assuming that unless nanny government steps in, people will just blindly keep using oil and never look at anything else until the last drop is extracted from the ground

Well, not to the last drop, but yes thats about right. People tend to do a lot "blindly" until reality smacks them in the face. Just look how many bankruptcies there are each year! Common sense will keep just about anybody from getting so far into debt that they have to claim bankruptcy, but yet millions do.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Enough with the anarcho-capitalism, pvn. And whats with the people spending their money to alleviate their own suffering? How do poor people fit in your world, if at all? If im poor and I get sick, do I rely on the charity of others to get enough money to see a doctor. Thats socialism, not capitalism. According to pure capitalism, if im poor and cant afford a doctor or medication, I die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's exactly right. In pure capitalism, people are prohibited from contributing to chairity.

Accepting chairity from others is NOT socialism. The donors give *voluntarily*.

[ QUOTE ]
By the same token, if gasoline just hit $20 a gallon and I cant afford a new "state of the art" $100,000 fuel cell vehicle and the $19 a gallon equiv price of fuel to run it, im screwed. But not just me! Most of the population is in the same predicament. Yeah great, oil prices have made fuel cell vehicles economical, but only in relation TO OIL PRICES, which are sky high already. OR....I could live in a country whose government spent money on innovation and infrastructure over the preceeding 30 years, making fuel cell vehicles as affordable as a 2005 model gasoline engine vehicle and aready have the pipelines and solar stations and wind turbines in place. Sure, a lot of what my government spent is wasted, but it turned out better in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So in your wacko scenario, when gas hits $20/gal tomorrow, what's the government going to do? Wow, what a system.

Oh, are you suggesting a more gradual runup to $20/gal gas? And you think nobody will notice that prices are rising? People have *already* noticed and are *already* doing something about it. "The government" solution will take *longer*, be *crappier* and *more* expensive.

[ QUOTE ]
A moderately cushioned transition, instead of one made up of spasms dictated by the price of a commodity which comes from a very unpredictable part of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is government going to make things more predictable?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, not to the last drop, but yes thats about right. People tend to do a lot "blindly" until reality smacks them in the face. Just look how many bankruptcies there are each year! Common sense will keep just about anybody from getting so far into debt that they have to claim bankruptcy, but yet millions do.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should just nationalize all spending and have the government ration out food, housing, transportation and entertainment vouchers. That way nobody can spend more than you think they should. No more than two doughnuts a week, fatty!

[tolbiny]

Oil won't hit 300$ a barrel tomorrow- Market Prices don't simply increase 600% overnight- and if they did the market would react- if prices hit 20$ a gallon for gas tomorrow people would still have other options- biking, telecommuting, mass transit. The reason so many people have cars now is that oil prices have been very low for decades. In the last 5 years we have seen a rise, and surprise surprise new technology has hit the market with better feul economy. Relying on the Government to do the research for us is using an ill suited cruch. They have no real incentive to work efficiently, and they generally lack the true expertise.