Will it help developing green energy faster? I’m trying to explain a friend why not, but I need some help.
He says that we have to listen to the scientists, and push the development of green energy.
If you sacrifice funding for something else, and funnel it towards “green technology” then green technology will probably develop faster than it would have otherwise. The question is, what was sacrificed for the sake of that development? What other development could have taken place, which would have fulfilled actual demands?
Will government funding of teleportation devices necessarily result in teleportation devices being invented?
By subsidizing such research, they have effectively, from the start, disabled the only mechanism that can rationally and productively direct such research: Profit & Loss.
How do they know what type of “green” energy is most economically beneficial as compared to the different alternatives? How can they possibly know what different technologies it is worth investing in? If they have already decided to get a free pass from the market test, what other test are they going to apply? The Obama test?
He doesn’t understand the economic problem here. It’s like saying that Electrical Engineers decide and coordinate the different products on the market; cell phones, ipods, TV sets, etc… No they don’t. They themselves are coordinated by the market. their mere existence depends on the consumers. Your friend is reversing the roll between producers and consumers.
No, but teleportation is probably impossible. Greener energy is.
It is also possible to put a load of sh_t in a box. I suggest we subsidize it.
They have advisors?
My friend says that the from horse-drawn wagons to cars and to the oil age happened because of government stimulus of the economy. Is this correct?
The problem with governmentally funded research lays in the fact that it is funded by depriving others of funds for which could be (or not) spent on other kinds of research. In essence, the government has to deprive other equally good projects of these funds by force, rather than it being left to investors to find the weaknesses in each project and making a final decision as to which project is the least weak. Thus, allocating funds for research to the most likely to be successful research project(s).
In contrast, when government takes over this front anything and everything in research gets funded. From measuring the methane output of cattle to atomic isomer explosives (hint: neither have yielded conclusive results), but none are guaranteed to yield economically viable results that which can be turned into a product or service or to yield a method or process to improve an existing one or many said products/services.
And worse so such research is funded regardless of failure or indications thereof, which leads to resource losses. Losses that could have been economized/minimized in a free market by various contractual agreements with investors (that if x condition/result of research is not yield, y remaining funds revert to investors plus/minus any contract penalties for unsatisfactory results and/or utter failure), but these are not economized and thus left to be. In itself this produces a climate where neither good nor bad research aims are distinguished by those who grant the government funds, they rather grant based on their own fancy or that of the fancy of others (in committees).
So in the end, governmentally funded research doesn’t mean a shortcut to Startrek with transporters, replicators, and warpdrive. Nor does it mean even moderate successes in technology discoveries and economizing methods/processes in existing technology. It means an arbitrary system is setup that disregards merit of research and maximizes losses from all research, good or bad. And to state otherwise is pure nonsense.
We have nuclear. Too dangerous to put in cars. Enviromorons hate it in power plants. We have solar. Too weak for cars unless you want to to go 1kph. Takes up too much space We have wind. Ditto. We have thermal. Can’t put that in cars. Limited sources. Huge initial cost.
What is there to research?
About four hours ago I was able to drive a hydrogen powered Honda, and it was actually pretty cool. The only problem is that each power station costs about $1 million to build, while the conversion process (electrolysis, AFAIK) isn’t as efficient as it probably should be.
EDIT: By four hours ago, I meant four years ago.
Really? Where did you come up with your probability statistics?
There’s no reason why there can’t be cars that use electric motors to fulfill the typical commuting needs of most Americans. The point is this needs to be left as a decision of demand by the market.
“Electric motors” is nothing. You still get electricity from a power plant.
Is it true that a communist world government will be established if the copenhagen treaty is signed, or is it a conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theory.
Nobody can seriously answer that.
Ask your friend what exactly needs to be invented. I doubt he even has an idea.
Very good answer! Thank you guys.
Any answers to this?