Wow, he was right! China now puts out more CO2 than we do. Not to mention that this interview is one of the best he ever gave. The man understood energy.

Solar is the future. Unfortunately, all the major solar producers aren't being traded on the open market. Doggonit.

This is absolutely infuriating.

$1,000,000,000,000

We need government to force us into this market? Really, $1,000,000,000,000 and nobody would be interesting in tapping into that market if they were free to do so? $1,000,000,000,000 and nobody wants a slice of that pie?? Are you kidding me!

Oh thats right, forgot about all those oil subsidies and government regulations which are preventing people from entering this market! You're right Bill Clinton, you economic whiz, if only the government could enact some regulations forcing us into this $1,000,000,000,000 market that everyone is just so reluctant to enter, because then they would have to buy new pants because the old ones wouldn't fit because they would be stuffed with $100 bills!

I'm de-facto downvoting this because it makes me so angry!

If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about a trillion dollar industry. That's $1,000,000,000,000 -- unless you're British.

Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:

1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.


Sure, you could do that... if you wanted to turn back the clock 130 years and bring back unregulated monopolies. 'Cept now it would be energy instead of trains or steel.

I agree with you though that the subsidies oil companies get are ridiculous. I suppose the argument could be made about the "barriers to entry" into the energy market--that it's cheaper to subsidize current energy companies and try to get them to go green since all their infrastructure is already in place rather than try to slingshot new companies to the top. But given how much big oil has dragged its feet in exploring alternative energy, maybe we'll end up spending more in the long run, who knows.

^SDGundamX

Okay, lets use your example. When is the last time you road a train to travel between cities? How about to work?

Ever been to europe?

Before the ICC, the United States had the best rail system in the entire world. 10 years after government regulation prices rose by over 300%. Today the rail system has been almost completely replaced by commercial trucking. Why? Because initially there was no regulation on trucks and prices were extremely competitive. The result of government regulation has been an increase in prices, reduction in service, and a large increase in pollution due trucking overtaking the rail system.

I'll let Mark Twain summarize for me:
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Accidental comment upvote there...

Hey this was from 2002... Geebus... Man this is 6 years old. Could you imagine if we had listened to him?

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.

^SDGundamX

It is regulation, and regulation alone that have created "barriers to entry" into to alternative energy market. The threat of price controls and regulation is the only barrier preventing people from tapping into this $1,000,000,000,000 market. If it wasn't for government intervention, specially in the Department of Energy, we would probably have kicked out dependence on foreign oil by the 21st century.

I really think you need to look deeper into United States history. All the answers are there. I mean, honestly, both examples you provided (steel and railroad) have been complete disasters in government regulation. And before you respond to that...again...you should look into the history--I'm not just making these things up. I can write at least a couple pages on those two examples alone, and provide figures and numbers...but I implore you to look into it for yourself first.

Clinton is still the best candidate for US president - Bill not Hillary

The government can help create an industry in more ways than just restricting the competition. They can provide start-up grants, tax incentives, and scholarships in those research ares. To be honest that's what I thought he was implying.

^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.


Deregulation is what brought you the current financial crisis. Deregulation is what brought you Enron.

I think risk is the primary deterrent. It is the same logic behind becoming a scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

It is a fact we make a lot of money, but not everyone does it. There are more factors than simply 'this is in my best financial interests'. You are presenting things as they are absolute black and white, which they are decidedly not.

>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?


A good example of this would be:

MRI Industry
Microwave Industry
Cellular Communication Industry
Nuclear Energy Industry
Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
Genetic Engineering Industry

Basically anything except Railroad and Oil...

Hey wait... Those had incentives... Carnot is basically the founder of thermodynamics. And the British Government gave him tons of money to research steam engines. And research into the science of mining for oil is supported by the government, too. So yeah, I guess your question is silly. Regardless of the profits to be made governments have always provided incentives in one form or another to support industry, because ensuring a good economy is in their best interests.

Can I get an amen?

>> ^imstellar28:
^SDGundamX
It is regulation, and regulation alone that have created "barriers to entry" into to alternative energy market. The threat of price controls and regulation is the only barrier preventing people from tapping into this $1,000,000,000,000 market. If it wasn't for government intervention, specially in the Department of Energy, we would probably have kicked out dependence on foreign oil by the 21st century.
I really think you need to look deeper into United States history. All the answers are there. I mean, honestly, both examples you provided (steel and railroad) have been complete disasters in government regulation. And before you respond to that...again...you should look into the history--I'm not just making these things up. I can write at least a couple pages on those two examples alone, and provide figures and numbers...but I implore you to look into it for yourself first.


I was quibbling mainly with your blanket statement that no government regulation is a good idea. No government regulation at all--I'm talking zero interference, zero oversight--results in market imbalances such as a corporation that gets big enough being able to create either a vertical or horizontal monopoly that corners the market--something that happened with steel and train transportation in the U.S. in the past. Such monopolies actually wind up killing competition and stifling a free market, which is why government oversight to some extent is necessary to prevent their emergence.

Monopolies are not inherently bad, of course. They are absolutely necessary in certain instances, like utilities, to ensure a fair distribution of resources vital to survival such as electricity and water and to prevent the mass confusion and unrest that would result from every company attempting to lay its own electric or water lines. But utilities are heavily regulated and for good reason--in California we had rolling blackouts back in the 90s due to a deregulation of electric utilities that caused electric prices to go through the roof.

I'm not saying the government should set prices for all goods and services. I'm saying that in order to maintain a free market some government oversight and regulation is absolutely essential. How much oversight and regulation is necessary is what most people debate about. Few people believe in total laissez faire because I think history has shown it to result in market imbalances that wind up forcing government intervention to occur in the end anyway.

edit...
supplied wrong links - oops!

Ever been to europe?

Yes, they have socialism AND good mass transit systems. Better than the US, anyway.

Educated people who preach total deregulation are being willfully ignorant of externalities, monopolies, contract enforcement, copyright/patent enforcement, eminent domain, ignorance of most consumers, how little success in competition has to do with the price/quality of the product in many cases (advertising FTW), and how food labels could lie and get away with it.

Between two competitors in the same fixed market, advertising is basically a zero-sum game that wastes revenue and increases the price to consumers.

Pharma companies spend half their revenue on advertising to convince people to buy drugs that most of them don't need. If all the money were spent on research instead, all the drugs could be a lot cheaper. The US economy already produces much more than enough to satisfy the real needs of most people, and the rest of the economy revolves around brainwashing people into thinking they need things that they don't need through advertising.

You don't make money by providing the best or cheapest product to your customers, you make money by making them THINK that whether or not it involves actually doing it. Someone has to call advertisers on their bullshit. A typical corporate executive's only imperative is this: make a profit by any means necessary, even if it means lying to shareholders, customers, etc.

Most of the great advances in basic science did NOT come from anybody working for a company. Immediate get-rich schemes do not involve trying to understand the universe for the sake of understanding the universe. Newton was a professor, Darwin was an unemployed med school dropout who went with a ship captain to keep him company, Galileo was on state patronage, Einstein worked for the patent office, etc.

But I digress. The crux of the argument is externalities. Taxing negative externalizes and subsidizing positive externalizes are essential, as you'll see in any modern economics textbook. Otherwise we'd all kill each other with pollution and toxic waste, while neglecting to eradicate polio. If you've studied game theory at all (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma or the pollution game), you'll see that individual self interest often leads to an equilibrium that is bad for everybody. Government can adjust the payoff matrix so that the optimal (utilitarian) outcome is also an equilibrium for self-interested agents.

The reason private companies aren't mass-producing solar and wind power without subsidies is because it's still more expensive than oil and coal. Without government regulation, oil and coal would remain cheaper until we deplete the world's supply of oil and coal. If we deplete the world's entire supply of oil and coal, we'll breathe soot while Miami is underwater. Clinton's statement that massive amounts of wind/solar power would be in the interest of corporations only applies when governments tax fossil fuels or subsidize alternatives. The moral justification for taxation of negative externalities is basically the same as the moral justification for the government punishing somebody for beating up somebody else.

Well said jwray. I just can't get points like this through to my conservative family members. They think that deregulation and free market will solver everything, and they we don't need government meddling in anything. How much worse would we be if they got their wish?

I always fail to understand how someone can be against regulation (essentially everyone in industry on the honor system) and also against socialism (which if i'm not mistaken, would essentially equate to the honor system).

Maybe I'm confusing socialism with communism. But in that case, why deregulate but not communism instead of socialism. Regulations are rules that restrict businesses. We have rules that restrict the populace (ie. do not kill other people plzkthx). How is it bad to have similar rules for business?

Re: the video, I must say that Bill sounds excellent. He looks confused how to react at first (probably because he can think of a million ways to respond). This guy makes me hate the 22nd ammendment. So does Bush. Would love to see Bush running a third time here...

There is room for both sides of the coin. Without socialists to promote end user consideration and fairness, or without capitalists to promote dog eat dog competition and innovation, you will always end up with a hopelessly unbalanced system.

Too little capitalism, the government essentially controls everything and stifles investment/growth. There is little room for the entrepreneur in a solid socialist society.

Too little socialism and the corporations control the people. Then you see extreme prices on drugs (which could be subsidised for the greater good), high cost for medical care, companies that willfully break the law to improve their shareholders value because it is so competitive that one false move can see the whole house of cards collapse...

I think extremists to either view point will always be the ones that get it the most wrong. If you at least have 2 different viewpoints, hopefully there will be a middleground that satisfies most of the people most of the time.

^do any of you have any idea how hard it is to achieve a monopoly in a global market?

next to impossible. and the only thing preventing people from obtaining products from global markets is government interference (tariffs)

i'm going to make an assertion here, it is based on evidence (your posts above). nobody here has any idea why free markets work. this, i assert, is why all of you disagree with a free market system.

heres the problem you all have..you think that a free market is economic anarchy and its just not true. there is massive amounts of regulation and oversight, its just not from some small group of dictators (who as we've seen usually act in their own interests aka paulson who made 50 million last year). this is the beauty of free market theory...it intrinsically provides all of these things, and it provides regulation exactly where its needed and to the exact degree thats needed.

you all think that in the absence of government all that will be left is a bunch of greedy monopolies who are hiring slaves to fill their factories and churning out dangerous products which kill the consumer. thats just nonsense. do you know how many lives the FDA has cost? look it up for yourself. pick a regulation agency, look up its history and see just how much it has retarded growth and innovation, see how much it has raised prices and decreased quality, look it up for yourself.

natural selection works in a free market just like it does in evolution. who here believes in evolution, and who here believes jesus in the stars making sure wolves don't eat too many sheep, and that the sheep have enough grass to eat? if something as complex as life can be "regulated" without a government official--what makes you think an economic system can't?

the free market provides incentives and penalties to grow the supply of products in demand and retard the supply of products not in demand. prices are set by supply and demand, pure and simple. prices set to high or two low crash the market. this is what happened in the housing bubble--prices were set to high because some government official (the federal reserve) was arrogant enough to think he knew the best price. government officials don't set prices to what they should be, they set prices to what is the most favorable, and "number of homeowners" is a favorable statistic for getting reelected. this creates pressure on the federal reserve to artificially set prices which raises this statistic.

when nobody interferes, prices are set by the sum actions of hundreds of millions of people, dynamically, on a day-to-day basis. the alternative you all are calling for, is to give this power to single man. even if he was benevolent (which he surely inst, as he is motivated by self interest just like anyone else) how could he possibly analyze the data?

companies who supply dangerous products will go out of business. companies like enron who lie to their stockholders will be charged with fraud and sent to jail. prices of products which are in high demand (clean energy, food, medical care) will spur growth in those markets, creating a wide array of competitive pricing and choices for the consumer. prices of products which are no longer in demand will drop, and those industries will adapt by making production more cost effective or go out of business, paving the way for newer, better industries.

Dude. Switch to decaf.

My point was merely that governments have always provided incentives to fledgling industries. I also stated that I could not think of an industry, which did not receive incentives to start. You examples are not true: Rail and Oil, both received government funds when they began.

The point is fundamental research has always lead the way for industry. And fundamental research is almost always funded by governments. Taxpayers should want to do this, because fundamental research is high risk for any individual company, but spread out of the entire population it is low risk, with the same reward.

If the responsibility for coming up with new science was purely put on industry science would move very slowly, small improvements rather than big ones because they are lower risk.

If you disagree with that then you aren't reading my comments.

^I'm trying hard to even respond to your claim, because it is so unfounded its unbelievable. give me a second.

Here are your examples:
MRI Industry
Microwave Industry
Cellular Communication Industry
Nuclear Energy Industry
Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
Genetic Engineering Industry

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

Here is proof you are dead wrong on at least one of those:
The first Nuclear power plant took 18 months to build. After government regulation, Nuclear power plants now take 12 years to build.

Here is what you fail to realize, and why your thinking is so narrow. When the government subsidies the Nuclear Energy Industry--what happened to all the alternative energies that were just opening, that didn't receive subsides? What about the solar manufacturer who just got put out of business because he can't compete with a Nuclear Industry funded by taxpayers?

And when the government chooses the solution to demand, what you are left with is not the best product (i.e the product which survives the natural selection of the market by either being lower in cost or higher in quality) you are left with whatever solution some government official decided was best for you. How can you think that is the best way to develop new technologies?

I'm sorry but you don't understand anything about economics...money is not created out of thin air. When the government gives money to one industry, but not another it is playing favorites, it is choosing for the consumer what products they receive. Why do you think we have an oil based economy when 100 square miles (real number, calculate it or look it up yourself) of solar panels could power the entire country?

Every example, every example, was first developed at Universities or governmental research institutions. Perhaps it is not that I am an idiot, but that you are not listening to what I saying.

What I am exactly saying is -
The governments role in creating new technology is to fund research in specific and targeted areas. Which was my initial statement that there are more ways for a government to encourage a specific technology than subsidies.


An aside: you coming across differently than I think you are intending. If you goal is to be persuasive you can start be respecting the other persons point of view, listening and then thoughtfully raising counter examples.

^My goal is not to be persuasive (to you). My goal is to refute inaccurate statements which other people may come across and accept as fact. At the least, now they will be presented with both sides of the story and have to decide for themselves.

That said, what is your defense against my claim that incentives for one industry (nuclear) harm other alternatives which may be emerging, or emerge later (solar)?

Also, I am not arguing that incentives don't help the industry they are given to, although this is not always the case (you have to look at secondary or even tertiary effects). However, even if the regulation is beneficial at one point, history has shown that regulation ultimately ends up harming most industries (see rail, trucking, nuclear, etc)

MRI Industry:
Reflecting the fundamental importance and applicability of MRI in the medical field, Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging".

Microwave Industry & Cellular Communication Industry:
Maxwell, Hertz, and nearly half of all microwave parts that I can think of were first introduced at NIST... These two I am not going post supporting evidence for.


Nuclear Energy Industry:
Err... Quantum Mechanics- Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
He created it at the University of Leipzig. Funded by the German government.

Genetic Engineering Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

How can I prove something wouldn't exist if people hadn't invented it? The best I can say is it would not have been invented when it was. And scientist wouldn't research whatever they wanted without funding, which companies wouldn't and don't pay for because it is to financially risky. How do I know this? I am a scientist.

Another good example is your IPod and the colossal magnetoresistor in it's hard drive.

^no offense, but wikipedia pages are less than 3 pages. you think you can become an expert on the transistor or its history by reading 3 pages? how is that proof that incentives made them progress faster? wikipedia is not a sufficient source, and I doubt any source exists (how could you compare the progression of the transistor with and without government incentives if it wasn't developed in parallel--one with regulation and one without, with the exact market conditions. there is just no way to prove what you are saying is true. even if the government did fund these projects, how can you say they would not have been successful without funding? if it was a legitimately good idea, it would be profitable and many people would be interested in investing in it. many such examples abound on a local level every day.

you are a scientist. so can you humor me for a second, and try to think of any possible way you could generate funding to support your projects without government assistance?

also, you haven't addressed any of my points...

There is more to market motivation than simply 'is this profitable'. There is also when will this be profitable and how likely is it to be successful.

I don't know how to address your points, yet. But I do know that not publicly funding science is a very bad economic decision and that I have the knowledge to argue at this time.

^tell me why government funding is superior to private funding. tell me why forcing people to pay for projects they don't support is beneficial for anyone except the people who receive the money (i.e. you) ?

if you are a good scientist, I assume you are creative. are you telling me that the only solution you can come up with is to force people at gunpoint to give them money, in order to pay your salary?

Well you are being dramatic.

But I have already stated three times in my experience companies are not willing to assume the risks associated with developing new technology. It is too expensive and the pay off is too far in the future. This is why taxpayers assume the risk. Look at

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

You'll see relative to the size of the budget, science gets a small percentage, but in sheer terms of numbers it is too big of a financial burden for any company to bare. However, spread over the entire population of the US, lets say 3e8 and say we spend 500 million on science(I think it is less than this). That means $1.66 per taxpayer, assuming it is evenly distributed. When you look and see the amount of money technologies based off of fundamental research make, and their contribution to the economy, I think you would have to agree your money is well spent.

*Should be $76 a person.

And to Clinton's point, if you want to encourage economic growth in a particular technology one way I can think of to do it is to fund research in that area.

^what if I am a luddite? or amish? is that money well spent? im sorry but just because it is $1.66 per person (by the way this number is wrong the correct number is greater than $76 per person - $23 billion 2007 general science budget divided by 300 million people) doesn't make it permissible. If you are going to use numbers...use the correct numbers...

you are still evading all of my points.

I am answering the ones I know how to, which is what I said.

I don't know how to address your other points, yet.

And then I said: But I have already stated three times in my experience companies are not willing to assume the risks associated with developing new technology. It is too expensive and the pay off is too far in the future.

Unless you start reading what I am saying I am not going to respond anymore. It is true what you say about the budget, I was not including the NSF, NASA and some other institutions. $76 or $100 it is still money well spent.

^I am reading every word you are saying and addressing all the points I see. You underestimate science budgets by 4600% though. Perhaps that is one reason you think it is money well spent?

You are attempting to argue for government funding of science based on personal experience, but as a scientist you should know that 3 is a pretty statistically impoverished sample.

How can you judge whether companies are willing to take risk? Who would not be interested in a smaller computing alternative to vacuum tubes, or to a phone that you can utilize anywhere in the world, or to clean energy? Clearly these things will be in high demand, and some (remember theres 6 billion people) would be willing to take that risk.

In effect, you are telling me, and others, what products their money is "well spent" on...can you really argue for that? What if it was $1,000 or $10,000 would it still be well spent? At what monetary value does it no longer become well spent?

putting solar around the equator... bit stormy is some areas...

... man... what if Gore had won Florida...

you should know that 3 is a pretty statistically impoverished sample.

How many times do I need to write the same thing for you to read it, then? Just a bit of humor.

Those profits aren't "available", you have to fight long and hard for them against an entrenched, experience, wealthy, connected foe. Not only that, but to even start this battle you must convince investors, city councils, etc. that what is often a fairly unproven or novel idea will be a better investment in very financially tight times than putting in a coal or natural gas plant (made even harder given that the US grid system was designed for these nearby, constant power sources).

Anyhow, I don't want to start driving into the details... my response in a nutshell is the barriers from idea to operation are very significant, requiring tons of work from a good number of bright employees, which means tons of money just to get the ball rolling. In summary, Pres. Clinton is right when he notes that "we" paid a pile in taxes to get the energy industry going, and still pay a pile of money in taxes to keep putting lines up and updating systems; if we were serious about phasing into the new technology it is our responsibility as a community of citizens to make it happen, not the responsibility of the industry.



>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?

I always wonder if unregulated free market Libertarians adopt their positions because they are so easy to argue and difficult to refute. If we just let the rich folks decide, everything will work out, because what is good for the world is always profitable, right? I certainly don't get the sense that poor children would be well educated by an open and free market. Rich folks would have big hearts and offer great free education to even those who cannot afford it, because an educated population improves the economic prosperity of a nation in the long term and will eventually benefit my business, right? Sure.
I can't imagine an entire industry deciding that clean air 100 years from now is more important than profits today. Why would they do that? It is all so easy to argue, but until I see it working somewhere, I am suspicious and skeptical of those professing to know that unregulated free-market capitalism works best.

^of course you don't agree a free market is viable, because you have no idea what a free market is or how it works!

if I am wrong, explain to me how the "invisible hand" works.

i'm sorry but free market theory is not as simple as "its like a regular market except with no regulation" if thats all you know you don't know enough to be contributing anything to this discussion. its like saying evolution is just "survival of the fittest" yes both are true, but the reasons they are beautiful and elegant theories is the implications which can be drawn from these simplistic ideas.

do you believe in evolution? if so, how can you not believe in the free market? the two operate on the exact same principle. are you saying what was good enough to create human beings is not good enough to create ipods?

>> ^imstellar28:
^of course you don't agree a free market is viable, because you have no idea what a free market is or how it works!


I live in Indiana, and to me the United States is a community of people before its a free market. We have different levels of government to address problems in the community. Fossil fuel use has been a problem for some time now, and the way our community addresses community problems is with government involvement in some form, be it funding the private sector to build such-and-such water-treatment plant or establishing publicly financed schools or having centers for disease control.

Communities big and small have representatives who make decisions on the community's problems with the community needs in mind; the free market is a set of interconnected buyers and sellers who make decision from information pertaining to the likelihood of increasing shareholder wealth.

Now, your argument is that community decisions shouldn't influence the economy of the community if its a free market economy. My argument would be that the community comes first.

This is oversimplifying, but this is a message board for a David Letterman clip.

...

>> ^imstellar28:
^do you believe in evolution?... if so, how can you not believe in the free market? the two operate on the exact same principle. are you saying what was good enough to create human beings is not good enough to create ipods?


First off you should not drag biologist into this. It is my experience that they are a bawdy and obstinate lot, who do not take kindly to people using Darwin's name in vain.

Physicists on the other hand loves us some crazy.

Your IPod example is HORRENDOUS. Mark my words, absolutely NO, Zero, Zilcherony, private industry would put money into developing the colossal magnetoresistor(CMR), which is the technology that made the IPod possible.

This is really for several reasons:

Peter Grünberg is the most boring and difficult to understand man I have ever met in my entire life. An old professor of mine and a friend of his said to me once, "They should take his Nobel away for being so boring."(In the middle of a talk by Peter) The subject is really hard to understand and break down into something simple, unless you have years of useless knowledge (even then- I say, good luck to you sir).

Which brings me to final point: By funding research that is hard to translate and breakdown the "why" the government creates new technologies and jobs, and it throws a lot of money in a lot of directions hoping one of them will take off like CMR, and revolutionalize an industry and technology like the way CMR has. The result is relatively low financial risk for the population, with almost a guaranteed huge return.

And really dude, you totally need to watch how you come across or you will persuade NO ONE if you keep that up. Wait, I am arguing against you... You have an eloquent and persuasive style.

^bamdrew

what is a "community"? can I touch it? what does it look like? where does it live?

there is no such thing as a "community" only the individuals which it is made of. forsaking the individual for the community of individuals which comprise it makes no sense. at its heart, free market theory is rooted in individual rights.

how is anything you said a criticism of the free market? what is stopping a "community" of individuals from coming together to fund a waste treatment plant, or other non-profit organization?

as far as fossil fuels (pollution) what makes you think there is no free market solution? again...this is all stemming from your misunderstanding of what a free market is. I cannot walk down the street and toss a pile of garbage on your shirt can I? thus what makes you think that a power plant can do the same, by producing smog and other effluents which "dirty my shirt". this is a role of government--to prevent people from tossing garbage on each other--and it is completely compatible with the free market.

there are already free market solutions to pollution, solutions which would greatly reduce the current levels of pollution while at the same time increasing production...you just have never heard of them because you haven't looked.

as I've said, a free market is not economic anarchy so stop acting like it is.

^MycroftHomlz

I'm not really worried about my (alleged) arrogance, anyone who is capable of being persuaded will see this conversation for what it is. You have made several points, all of which I have refuted or you have failed to provide evidence for. I have made several points, none of which you have addressed. By now you have completely lost the point of this debate and are experiencing, from what your latest comment indicates, an emotional response to this discussion.

These ideas are unfamiliar. These ideas are revolutionary--just as Darwins's ideas were when the prevailing theory was creationism. I can understand why you are having such an emotional response to these ideas--they fly in the face of everything you have ever been told. What kind of reactions do you think Darwin received? I expect no different.

>> ^imstellar28:
^bamdrew
there are already free market solutions to pollution, solutions which would greatly reduce the current levels of pollution while at the same time increasing production...you just have never heard of them because you haven't looked.


Excellent... where can I buy one of these? Why aren't they more popular? I googled "free market solution to pollution" and got an episode of Libertarian-occasionally-funny-comedian/magician Penn-and-Teller's "Bullshit" in which they use an ex-GMA weatherman to contradict the general consensus of the world's scientific community and debunk a free-market solution to global warming (carbon credits).

Consider this... if the arguments you propose are really as extraordinary and easy to implement, why isn't everyone using them? There must be some nation operating under the system you are advocating, otherwise, we are all complete fucking morons, right? Which nation is implementing your wisdom?

^hueco_tanks

maybe you should try an education which extends past wikipedia or google?

by the way, what I was referring to was a direct tax on effluent, proposed by the 1976 Nobel prize winner in economics. But what does he know?

Heres how it works. Instead of making a 10 foot wide book of regulations (real number), why not charge a direct tax for effluent (particles scientifically classified as pollutants, and measured in say, particles per million)? In this way companies have a clear economic motivation to reduce pollution, and the "neighbor costs" of all the people who have to deal with the pollution are paid for? This way you don't inhibit any particular industry (nuclear, coal, oil) you just make them pay for the costs they (involuntary) impose on third parties via pollution.

Legally, it is no different than charging someone a "fine" for throwing garbage on someone else.

Consider this... if the arguments you propose are really as extraordinary and easy to implement, why isn't everyone using them?

How could we implement these ideas, if nobody believes them? Here we are on a board full of people who, on average, are probably better educated or connected than the general population and I think I've counted maybe a half dozen free market supporters if that--and of that half dozen, most aren't all the way. Evolutionary Theory is easily digestible and widely available yet 70% of Americans still believe in God...its the same thing. Its just the prevailing culture of our times.

I've been meaning to point this out, but isn't a bit ironic being on a website like this, arguing against a free market? this and digg are basically the only sources for news for me. clearly those posting here enjoy the nature of the website--yet all the videos are submitted by users, and are submitted to a process of "natural selection" whereabouts good videos are voted up and bad videos are kinda brushed aside. there is no single person dictating what news, or what clips are the best like there are on CNN or drudge report. this very website is a perfect example of how a "free market" can provide quality information--all without any central leadership dictating the content. because of this I am able to obtain relatively unbiased and diverse news--precisely because the users of this board hold so many different viewpoints and interests. if there was some sort of central leadership (like say, CNN) this wouldn't be true--there would be only one viewpoint, and all the content would reflect that. that is the beauty of the free market, and that is the beauty of videosift.

And one could say that the *promote function is like a government incentive.

Post cannot be self promoted by original submitter MycroftHomlz because MycroftHomlz does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

^stellar
I particularly like how you accuse me of being uneducated beyond Wikipedia or Google and go on to state "this and digg are basically the only sources for news for me.", suggesting that the news you get on Digg and the Sift are "relatively unbiased". Seriously? Don't get me wrong... I love them both, but Digg gets most of its news from HuffPost, and most of the news on the Sift is from Comedy Central. Perhaps you should consider other news alternatives occasionally, NPR and BBC for example... but wait... they are both publicly funded... d'oh!

Your basic premise is: If allowed to operate free from government regulation, free markets are the most efficient way to encourage brilliant ideas. People and corporations will operate in the best interests of the population because it is profitable, however... no one in the world tries because we are too stupid. Trust people not government... people are idiots. Brilliant.

^MycroftHomlz

you aren't part of any central leadership, you are just one among many consumers/producers, so any promotes you do are analogous to personal incentives, not governmental ones.

^hueco_tanks
I said I get my news from digg/videosift. As in, I stay up to date with what is happening in the world. News and education are very different things. News is supposed to be a report on events, not a classroom where the media is providing instruction on subjects.

You are correct in my basic premise. However, I'm not saying that people don't embrace the free market--they do...I am saying the freest markets are the most successful, as proven through copious volumes of history. People however, are afraid of free markets because they are afraid to "let go". Again, this goes back to my argument about evolution. People don't want to just "let go" they want to know that someone, somewhere is in control, that someone is looking out for them, that someone is going to help them when times are rough. They think that without some overlord, everything will descend into chaos but its just not true. It wasn't true for evolution, its not true for videosift, and its not true for free markets.

MycroftHolmz, I admire your persistence, but I think it should be obvious by now that no dialogue occur can when your opponent stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the valid points you've made--or seemingly purposely misinterprets them.

imstellar28, you haven't refuted anything. All I see in your posts are vague references to some information "out there" that supports your claims followed by condescending remarks. When people ask you to back up your claims with concrete facts and information you respond with insults. This leads me to believe that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You may in fact HAVE some idea but you come across as just blowing smoke to hide your ignorance.

And comparing the Sift to a free market is the most absurd analogy I may ever have heard. There is indeed a "central leadership dictating the content" called the admins who posted these rules about what can and can't be posted: http://www.videosift.com/faq-en.php#posting_guidelines. They also limit what can and cannot be said in the comments section and regulate sift members behavior in other ways, for instance banning those who downvote or discard vids recklessly.

^SDGundamX: its an analogy. I never said the two were identical, only that they were similar in concept. I realize there are some rules such as reckless downvoting, discarding, and obscene videos; which are enforced by admins. There are also rules in a free market dictated and enforced by "admins" (fraud, theft, vandalism, assault).

Do you disagree that videosift is similar to the free market in the following ways:
1. voters/submitters fill a similar role to consumers/producers. namely that submitters "produce" content by adding videos, and voters "consume" this content by viewing and judging it.
2, videos are subjected to a sort of "natural selection" whereby good videos are voted to the front page, and bad videos are sent to the personal queue. and that this process is similar to the way in which businesses succeed or fail.
3. submitters earn new privileges and rank based on how successfully they are at sifting videos, similar to how producers earn money and recognition based on how successfully they sell their products.

As far as this:
imstellar28, you haven't refuted anything. All I see in your posts are vague references to some information "out there" that supports your claims followed by condescending remarks.

Here is a partial list of things I refuted (which refutes what you just said):
1. I refuted the statement that incentives for the nuclear industries help spur alternative energy, by showing that incentives for one industry hurts other emerging industries which don't receive incentives. Industries, which in many instances would have been more favorable.
2. I refuted the claim that we only spent $1.66 per person, by showing via the 2007 federal budget the the number is actually greater then $76
3. I refuted the idea that pollution cannot be addressed in the free market by providing an example which does address it, namely the tax on effluent.
4. I refuted the evidence from "personal experience" by showing that drawing conclusions on a $23 billion dollar industry from a "personal study" with a sample size of 3 is statistically invalid.
5. I refuted the idea that monopolies in a free market are dangerous, by pointing out the fact that they are almost impossible to achieve in a global market.
6. I refuted the assertion that regulation in the rail industry has been beneficial by showing that prices rose by 300% after the creation and expansion of the ICC.
7. I refuted the notion that incentives are necessary for the creation of new markets, by pointing out that there is a large pool of potential investors, many of whom will be willing to take a risk in a market with high revenue potential, which is true for the solar market estimated at $1 trillion dollars.

^So perhaps my videosift analogy fell through, but how about this one: dating. Dating is in many ways a free market (aside from some age or same-sex restrictions). It is a system of voluntary cooperation, and everyone is free to choose.

Do you agree that dating is similar in concept to an economic market? Girls and guys "compete" with one another in order to "sell" their product (i.e. their personality, looks, skills, etc.) in order to "buy" some another product (companionship, marriage, sex, family etc.)

Now imagine someone is having a hard time finding a date, and this is leading to some severe unhappiness and misery. Should the government intervene to provide a sort of "welfare" i.e. provide a date for them?

What if someone is wildly successful, say a rock star, should the government intervene because they have too many dates...by taking some of his dates and giving it to the person who has none?

What about the best way to attract others..maybe developing personality is the best way, followed by getting into shape. Should the government provide subsidies to people struggling at dating to develop their personalities, or should they provide incentives for new ways to attract dates--such as learning a rare skill?

You can see how absurd this is with dating...why is it no less absurd with economics? Why is the voluntary choice I make about who I date treated, in principle, any different than the voluntary choice I make about the food I buy, the clothes I wear, or the type of transportation I use?

This is a very interesting debate, thanks guys, you're getting a bit bitchslappy now though.

As in many debates, you are both kinda right and you can't prove either way 100%.

Personally I know for a fact that humans don't behave as economists want them to, and freer markets would be terrible. Look what dark dirty shit companies try to get away with even INSIDE a heavily regulated industry like telco etc. But yes, on the flipside, I have seen governments wasting billions doing stuff that the private sector could do better.

However, when it comes down to it, I simply don't trust "the consumer" to buy the right shit, any more than i trust "the voter" to make an intelligent decision about the next president.

And I think fundamentally we are social apes, and the economic system should reflect and enhance that great fact, rather than pretending that a world of "healthy" competition would be a pleasant place.

>> ^MINK:
However, when it comes down to it, I simply don't trust "the consumer" to buy the right shit, any more than i trust "the voter" to make an intelligent decision about the next president.

You are very much correct here. I'm not big fan of the "american" dream aka a 3 bed 2 bath house in suburbia, 2 cars, a tv with living room set, a house full of knick knacks, and a fenced in backyard with a single decorative tree out front; but thats why I don't own a house, car, sofa, or tv.

However, that is a deficiency in philosophy rather than a deficiency in the market. We should address it by developing our philosophy, social structure, and culture--rather than trying to impose it via market controls.

As far as monopolies go, you might be surprised just who is advocating the regulation--it is almost never the consumer, and almost always the very big businesses you are talking about. I just added a video which talks about this.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> We should address it by developing our philosophy, social structure, and culture--rather than trying to impose it via market controls.

so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture. tell me how that works in a free market. I put my philosophy on ebay?

The way you gloss over essentially EVERYTHING HUMAN (i.e. philosophy, social structure and culture) is what astounds me about free market economists. They have a huge carpet to sweep things under which don't fit into their main numbercounting theory.

The soviets tried to sideline economic facts in order to sustain social programs. You want to sideline social facts in order to sustain an economic program.

Both systems fail to deliver, but at least the soviets were trying, as opposed to gleefully trusting corporations to provide our every need*

*philosophy, social structure and culture not included. your mileage may vary. read instructions before use. the manufacturer is not responsible for death caused by this product.

Adding video to channels (Philosophy) - requested by MINK.

>> ^MINK
so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture. tell me how that works in a free market.

Heres the prescription I would give to (begin to) cure the philosophical deficiency of 21st century culture:
"The Blind Watchmaker" my Richard Dawkins
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
"For The New Intellectual" by Ayn Rand
"The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand
"Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman
"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt
"The Art of Thinking" by Vincent Ruggiero
"The Nature of Consciousness" by Alan Watts

Two years ago I was just as against the free market as you or anyone else was. It was only possible for me to accept these ideas once I had changed my philosophical, societal, and cultural perspective. Philosophy is not bought or sold on ebay, it is taught in schools, in interactions with friends, and from parents.

These conversations are my attempt to share philosophy, maybe I'm not very successful...but I'm just some random guy I'm no Alan Watts.

Right, I get it, if only everyone in the world would read those books and agree with you, everything would be OK. Great system.

^You specifically asked for my source of free market philosophy:
so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture.

And I gave it to you. You don't have to agree with what they say, but those books are a good presentation of free market philosophy, and thats what you asked for.

--redacted miss-post--

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 7:01pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter MycroftHomlz.