Comments on: On Non-Magical Government Investment

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:18:01 +0000

For their abolition, I mean?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:17:12 +0000

I assume Will is against the abolition of all oil and gas subsidies then?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:06:17 +0000

As you complained elsewhere in regard to government projects and private investment, we don't know what happened in the other universes where there was no bailout. If a high enough percent of those contain total financial armageddon, then I like where we are.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:18:01 +0000

For their abolition, I mean?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:17:12 +0000

I assume Will is against the abolition of all oil and gas subsidies then?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:06:17 +0000

By: GilM

GilM — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:31:16 +0000

Kealey also wrote a Cato opinion on the subject in 97:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6168

I think the case against government funding of even basic (non-defense) research is very strong.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:02:56 +0000

You don't even understand what money is. It is pointless to engage in discussions with someone who doesn't get something so basic.

By: Unit

Unit — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:07:43 +0000

Once you open the pandora's box of strings-attached to tax-payer funded research, you'll never get out of it. Question: what if some crucial research will only be pursued by people who are confident that they can keep their findings secret?

By: Steve C

Steve C — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:06:24 +0000

Well said

By: Steve C

Steve C — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:03:20 +0000

Nested sarcasm after an accusation of sarcasm – I salute you fine sir!

It's no wonder libertarians are so impotent on questions of military force: war by its nature is economically disastrous, any short-term economic efficiency calculation would argue heavily against it. Peace with Hitler and solidarity with the King are natural libertarian positions.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:11:22 +0000

Yes, but I wouldn't put it that way. The reason to have a carbon tax is not to level the playing field, but simply to account for the negative effects of carbon emissions in its price. Depending on the estimate of the size of the negative externality from a certain amount of carbon emissions, the optimal tax could be zero or a lot. But the important thing is to internalize the externality because it's the most efficient thing to do. Alternative energy sources will get a boost as a matter of course, and that's part of the improvement in efficiency.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:54:36 +0000

History has shown the long run cost of the revolutionary war were positive, and as time passes even more so.

History, and what is virtuous are written by those left over. Societies with memes that hamper and destroy economic efficiency ultimately succumb to history. You make an excellent point despite the sarcastic tone; in the long run virtue is indeed determined by the most economically efficient society.

By: Tom Jackson

Tom Jackson — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:28:13 +0000

Will,
Would it make sense to have no subsidies for wind, solar, etc., but have a modest carbon tax to make the playing field a little easier for alternative energy?

Tom

By: Michael Drake

Michael Drake — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:55:01 +0000

Dan, I completely agree that private businesses on average are more efficient than government. But then I think the (very simplified and subject to caveats, etc., etc.) thing to say is that (1) government shouldn't occupy the investment space in which private firms dare to tread, and (2) private firms generally leave empty the space of private goods. (And I think this space includes the vast transformative shifts in infrastructure needed to implement a “greener” economy.)