These Gas Prices Are Killing Me

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Oh, except for the fact that the internet was obscure and rarely used for over 30 years until it was turned over to the private sector, at which point it changed our lives permanently.And don't worry about that fact that private companies were investing in that technology prior to any govt involvement, and that's where the bureaucrats got the idea.

These two statements are contradictory. Why do you believe that government investing and attempting to advance a technology makes it impossible for private companies to do so. Why do you not see government simply as extremely well funded competition to the private sector? The government didn't "turn over" the internet to the private sector, the private sector could have developed the internet on its own at any time. No one was stopping them.The only thing stopping them, of course, was the fact that it's extremely difficult to invent and requires a lot of research and devoted scientists to develop. That's why the initial advances came from the Army and from workers at CERN.

Obviously, if it happened in the presence of government funding, that implies that there is no way it would've happened without govt funding.

But would it have happened sooner or later? The obvious answer, of course, is later. Why is this obvious? Because if it would have been invented in the private sector sooner, than it would have been invented in the private sector before it was developed thoroughly by several "centrally planned" (meaning funded by governments) agencies.

And just ignore the tens of thousands of errant investments through the years, because jumping onto the right bandwagon once in 100 years is a really good record.

I'm only following through with this one particular example because you brought it up.

If we didn't have wise bureaucrats leading us out of the darkness, we'd still be sitting in caves pounding rocks together.

Of course not. Though it's pretty clear from history that our gathering together into centrally controlled societies got us "out of those caves" much faster than we would have otherwise*.*The use of the term otherwise here is totally meaningless. There never was any greater power forcing humans to form governments and use central planning. The development of human history is controlled by the invisible hand. "Free markets" are what led us to form our current societies. This is why I never understand people who claim that fully libertarian societies are best. It is inconsistent to believe both that free market inevitably leads to the best solutions and that libertarian societies are the best solutions. If those were both true, than all societies would be 100% libertarian. Just food for thought.

[Don Giovanni 0]

the situation with energy is also incomparable to anything that has happened in the past. the switch from fossil fuels to renewable basically infinite energy is one of the most important things that can happen to life in this universe. im not trying to sound like some crazy person but thats just how it is. energy is essential to growing civilizations. using limited energy sources like we do leads to war and class divisions. add to that the fact that every indication tells us that our energy sources are running out eventually and harming our planet and this becomes a huge deal. add to that the fact that the ones controlling the oil and profiting from it are our enemies and you reach a point where its just idiotic to embrace gas in any way.we have alternate methods that work, the more initiative to get them going the better. the more research and money devoted to new energy technologies the better. there is no sense waiting for the economics or a disaster to force us to change things. this is where you are fundamentally wrong. not to mention that the economics dont change until enough research has been done to find viable alternatives. billions of dollars should be spent on this. trillions should be spent on this if needed. this is the most important thing we will ever do.

[SCYUKON 0]

the situation with energy is also incomparable to anything that has happened in the past. the switch from fossil fuels to renewable basically infinite energy is one of the most important things that can happen to life in this universe. im not trying to sound like some crazy person but thats just how it is. energy is essential to growing civilizations. using limited energy sources like we do leads to war and class divisions. add to that the fact that every indication tells us that our energy sources are running out eventually and harming our planet and this becomes a huge deal. add to that the fact that the ones controlling the oil and profiting from it are our enemies and you reach a point where its just idiotic to embrace gas in any way.we have alternate methods that work, the more initiative to get them going the better. the more research and money devoted to new energy technologies the better. there is no sense waiting for the economics or a disaster to force us to change things. this is where you are fundamentally wrong. not to mention that the economics dont change until enough research has been done to find viable alternatives. billions of dollars should be spent on this. trillions should be spent on this if needed. this is the most important thing we will ever do.

Well I must give you credit - you certainly are passionate. A bit dramatic, but hey I go there sometimes too.I wonder if the cavemen had this conversation:Moog: Me invent wheel!Bog: Me club you on head now, want wheelAg: No - someone put away wheel and ride dinosaur, or dinosaur get killed and used for oil one day!To say this is the most important thing we will ever do is a bit over the top. Mankind will continue to adjust and adapt to the challenges it faces, just as it always has. And if not, then the Aliens are gonna come kick our ass anyways so why worry about it all?Wow - this post feels like I have been eating shrooms or something but I haven't. Wow.

[strategy 4]

students at KU continue to vote in measures like "the university must be powered by x% renewable fuels" each year, with x increasing about 2-5% each go-around. it kinda makes me mad to see it, because it just increases the cost of running the university for no real benefit other than maybe feel-good equity. if the US were to suddenly universally implement the same policies that my university does, the only effect would be to shift the consumption abroad. even though I'm kind of crotchety on the topic of energy, I do look forward to the day when alternatives are more affordable. we're just not there yet.

[hblask 1]

These two statements are contradictory. Why do you believe that government investing and attempting to advance a technology makes it impossible for private companies to do so. Why do you not see government simply as extremely well funded competition to the private sector? The government didn't "turn over" the internet to the private sector, the private sector could have developed the internet on its own at any time. No one was stopping them.

I don't think you are thinking about this from a business perspective. Compare it to roads. Private roads would work fine in a free market, but they can't work now? Why? Because their competition is FREE. No business can compete with free. The govt's involvement slowed innovation to bureaucratic pace instead of free market pace. For 30 years, innovation was basically at a standstill. Finally, the govt let the private sector run it again, and it took off.

The only thing stopping them, of course, was the fact that it's extremely difficult to invent and requires a lot of research and devoted scientists to develop. That's why the initial advances came from the Army and from workers at CERN.

Every necessary advance was in place before the govt got involved, they just pulled the players together and immobilized the technology for 30 years.

But would it have happened sooner or later? The obvious answer, of course, is later. Why is this obvious? Because if it would have been invented in the private sector sooner, than it would have been invented in the private sector before it was developed thoroughly by several "centrally planned" (meaning funded by governments) agencies.

Not only is it not "obvious", it counterintuitive.

I'm only following through with this one particular example because you brought it up.

I actually was referring to the computer revolution in general, not the internet, and that was even more clearly private enterprise leading the way.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I don't think you are thinking about this from a business perspective. Compare it to roads. Private roads would work fine in a free market, but they can't work now? Why? Because their competition is FREE.

We've had this talk before I think. I'll just say that I disagree.

Because their competition is FREE.

I don't know, Microsoft seems to be doing a decent job at it. But point taken.

[hblask 1]

there is no sense waiting for the economics or a disaster to force us to change things.

This is where you are wrong. It is an indefensible statement.

[strategy 4]

hblask, I think you have grossly mischaracterized the nature and history of the internet. private industry played a part in making it what it is today, but we would not be at this juncture without an otherwise unattainable amount of support from the DoD and continuing financial aid from many nations. another instance of this might be something like space travel, which private industry wasn't able to tackle until the 00s.what are your thoughts on net neutrality?

[grimtaash 0]

I'm only following through with this one particular example because Don seems to miss something.This is what you are missing that the "economists" are saying. You are assuming we have the technology available to get rid of fossil fuels. To change from fossil fuels to renewable fuels, there is one improtant fact that cannot be overlooked. We CANNOT lose energy. Any process in which we lose energy or it costs more to produce the same is simply a failed idea. It's that simple. I'm confident that TYPE 1 intelligences would agree. You seem to think we have tech available now that can replace fossil fuels. You are wrong. We have some ideas that MAY work. We simply don't have it available at this time. You are thinking that we should automatically skip to "higher intelligence". Look at physics as an example. Einstien is one of the great scientific minds of all time. His ideas have led to what we now understand of physics. And what we know now are very advanced compared to what he gave us. Advances came immediately from his ideas, but it took decades to really move forward and come up with new ideas past that(string theory comes to mind). Right now, none of the "alternative" fuels actually replace fossil fuels. Untill they do, they are test ideas. What you are implying is more akin to going back in time and telling cavemen they have to stop using arrows and find another way to kill lunch. Over time we have found better ways to kill than bow and arrow. But if you take away bow and arrow before we find those other ways, we would have been pretty damn hungry. Probably even have died out.grim

[No_Neck 0]

I don't think you are thinking about this from a business perspective. Compare it to roads. Private roads would work fine in a free market, but they can't work now? Why? Because their competition is FREE. No business can compete with free.

do you honestly think that roads should be in the private sector or is this just a metaphor?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

do you honestly think that roads should be in the private sector or is this just a metaphor?

Henry isn't a political partisan but he is a Libertarian ideologue and there are very few things that he thinks are better in the public sector including roads.

[SlapStick 0]

These gas prices are making me thirsty!Sorry, I'm reminded of it everytime I see this thread. Had to get it out of me.

[hblask 1]

hblask, I think you have grossly mischaracterized the nature and history of the internet. private industry played a part in making it what it is today, but we would not be at this juncture without an otherwise unattainable amount of support from the DoD and continuing financial aid from many nations. another instance of this might be something like space travel, which private industry wasn't able to tackle until the 00s.what are your thoughts on net neutrality?

Once again, this is just another variation on the "pounding rocks" theory, that humanity doesn't advance from their caves unless led by wise bureaucrats. Companies were already working on internet-like advances before the govt took them over -- that's where the bureaucracy got the idea. At that point, innovation pretty much stopped for 30 years because private industry had no incentive to compete against the deep pockets of the federal government. Computers in general (as distinct from defining a networking protocol), unhindered by bureaucratic competition, continued at a rapid pace, and really were about 15 years ahead of the snail's pace of internet development. It wasn't until the govt got out of the way that the internet really became meaningful to our lives (I was first on it in 1984, and couldn't figure out why everyone didn't have it. Turns out the reason was because the govt wouldn't LET them).Space travel took a similar path. The private innovators did all the groundwork with engineering small rockets and getting them larger and larger. Finally, they were stable enough and large enough that the govt started to care, and they took over the technology. After one burst of putting together the existing pieces, the technology stagnated for about 35 years, until recently the X-prize re-spurred private innovation.Net neutrality is a difficult question in much the same way gay marriage is a tough question. In the absence of govt interference, it's not even a problem. But since govt has chosen to control 99.9% of communication in this country (as they do with marriages), suddenly we have competing interests fighting for their slice of the pie in an area that need not be controversial. Give us free communications and informed consent and the question of net neutrality goes away.

[hblask 1]

do you honestly think that roads should be in the private sector or is this just a metaphor?

Compare the lines at the DMV or most govt agencies to the lines at McDonalds or Macy's, and I think you'll have your answer.If you live in a big city, what is the biggest waste of time in your life? There's a good chance that it's sitting in traffic. This is the best we can do? To take money from less populous areas to build congested roads in populated areas?

[hblask 1]

Henry isn't a political partisan but he is a Libertarian ideologue and there are very few things that he thinks are better in the public sector including roads.

As opposed to statist ideologues who think bureaucrats have magical powers that allow them to magically divine the will of 300 million individuals and then magically cause it to be implemented efficiently? Um, yeah, I guess so.The difference is I have the results of a century of central planning experiments backing me up.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Compare the lines at the DMV or most govt agencies to the lines at McDonalds or Macy's, and I think you'll have your answer.If you live in a big city, what is the biggest waste of time in your life? There's a good chance that it's sitting in traffic. This is the best we can do? To take money from less populous areas to build congested roads in populated areas?

I think on this one that your example is probably off.I would bet that it's urban areas that subsidize rural ones when it comes to roads and highways.

[strategy's_touch 0]

that's a fine piece of spin. the internet did not reach the point of acceleration until private industry had fully understood the concept and uses of a PC. this was not because of government interference, but because it's a huge jump in technology and mindset to go from room-sized IBM mainframes to TCP/IP compatible PCs in every household. this isn't private industry vs. government, it's just a monumental engineering problem that was not effectively and efficiently solved until the late 80s and early 90s. academia and the military laid the groundwork for the internet and took steps toward making the physical side of it possible. governments today still have to make massive investments to keep the 'net running. I am not arguing that the net would be better if centrally planned in every aspect, but it IS to some degree. it's just an instance where an r&d project required greater funding and manpower than the private sector would have been willing to contribute, so government intervention was actually a positive accelerating force.

[hblask 1]

that's a fine piece of spin. the internet did not reach the point of acceleration until private industry had fully understood the concept and uses of a PC. this was not because of government interference, but because it's a huge jump in technology and mindset to go from room-sized IBM mainframes to TCP/IP compatible PCs in every household. this isn't private industry vs. government, it's just a monumental engineering problem that was not effectively and efficiently solved until the late 80s and early 90s.

You are just wrong here. I was on a high speed line in the mid 80s, the major problems had been solved then. The technology was there over a decade before the world knew about it. The only reason the rest of the world wasn't on it was because the govt wouldn't let them, again stifling innovation. Finally it was opened to public use and HTML was (privately) invented. If you think HTML was some kind of major breakthrough that wouldn't have happened in the absence of billions of dollars of govt "investment", you really don't know much about computers.

[No_Neck 0]

Compare the lines at the DMV or most govt agencies to the lines at McDonalds or Macy's, and I think you'll have your answer.If you live in a big city, what is the biggest waste of time in your life? There's a good chance that it's sitting in traffic. This is the best we can do? To take money from less populous areas to build congested roads in populated areas?

Macys or the DMV i think that is a pretty silly comparison IMO and a comparison you would be jumping all over someone else for making.I think that there would be many rural areas that would be accessible only via cow paths because the RIO just isn't there.

[hblask 1]

I think that there would be many rural areas that would be accessible only via cow paths because the RIO just isn't there.

I think that humans would be sitting in caves pounding rocks together if wise bureaucrats didn't tell them which technology is going to be most important in the future.Or your way of saying it was fine, too.

[Don Giovanni 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.htmlyay for coal! yay for efficiency!wait, is... it efficient to spill a billion gallons of sludge all over the place. hmm... i guess so. at least coal doesn't kill a few birds like wind mills do. yea, lets not lose faith in our bird friendly coal plants. after all it doesnt look like that sludge has reached the birds nests yet, its still got a few feet to go.

[hblask 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.htmlyay for coal! yay for efficiency!wait, is... it efficient to spill a billion gallons of sludge all over the place. hmm... i guess so. at least coal doesn't kill a few birds like wind mills do. yea, lets not lose faith in our bird friendly coal plants. after all it doesnt look like that sludge has reached the birds nests yet, its still got a few feet to go.

This is exactly why we can't let private corporations manage our energy supply, they'll just destroy the environment. We need the govt to run it so... wait, what?Oh, nvm.

[Don Giovanni 0]

This is exactly why we can't let private corporations manage our energy supply, they'll just destroy the environment. We need the govt to run it so... wait, what?Oh, nvm.

ive never said give the government control of anything, simply that they, and people in general should be focusing more on better energy sources, so i dont know what point you are trying to make.