Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
At some point, we would have developed the atomic bomb through luck and rare genius....but the $2 billion ($28 billion in '08 dollars) federal investment between 1939-44 certainty helped produce it in time to make a difference in WW II.
|
The ideas were already there, it was the matter of secrecy and production. There are already billions spent on alternative fuel research.
Using the same logic, why hasn't aids been cured or cancer? It certainly isn't a lack of funds.
Quote:
At some point, we would have competed successfully against the Soviets in the space race through luck and rare genius....but the $23 billion federal investment in the decade of the 60s certainly propelled the US ahead.
Scientific progress to support the national interest is absolutely based, in part, on need and money. Luck and rare genius is a luxury when time is not an issue.
|
The space race, was in the long run, a waste of much of that money. Its enormously expensive to build rockets and the like, it again, wasn't the science that was new here, it was the scale. We then did an amazing thing going to the moon, and then gave up on it as we 'won' the space race. We are now starting over, in early planning, 30 years later.
Mind you, I am not opposed to public funding of alternative energy, and the examples you gave were both public funding. It has nothing to do with the gas tax we are talking about, or gas in general, in fact its quite the opposite.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Ustwo, those other countries don't have the entrepreneurial tradition we do. Around here, if there is a market niche to be served, someone will serve it.
|
We are better at it than most places, but its still no guarantee of results in any given time frame. We still need our Wilbur and Orville here and maybe its 10 years maybe its 50. There is still an insane amount of money to be made, so I don't see that as being that much more of an incentive.
Quote:
|
I see no reason to continue enriching Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family by paying them for the right to pollute our air and use up our land in inefficient ways. The pricing mechanism is the ONLY form of social engineering I find acceptable, because it preserves people's freedom. No one is forced to do or not do anything; they simply have the right to choose whether or not to pay for their preferences.
|
Artificially putting something out of someones price range with taxes is no less totalitarian than banning it outright. I would support an outright ban of dealing with such governments at least thats honestly representing the issue. Higher taxes on ALL petroleum, foreign or domestic, enemy or friendly nation, is just taking a cut and making life harder on some people who can't afford it.