October 3, 2008
Is Ignorant Dogmatism Possible? I'm Afraid So.
October 3, 2008
The Lamps Are Going Out
October 3, 2008
What If the Median Voter Were a Failing Student?
October 3, 2008
Credit Default Swaps
October 3, 2008
How Government Used Fannie and Freddie
October 2, 2008
The International Angle
October 2, 2008
Cochrane and Rogoff on the PBS News Hour
October 2, 2008
Henry Waxman's Hearings
October 2, 2008
Economists' Bipartisan Bailout Opposition
that's awesome. Thanks. blogged.
What's government doing? How about funding the basic science research that makes rapid technological advances possible? How about funding the training of the scientists?
If you are looking for a "free market" success story, don't look at high technology--90% of the ride is central planning (NSF, NIH, etc). I'm not saying that government involvement was necessary, but it was there in fact.
Very cool. The best part about it: "The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made." If this is true, then we can stop global warming without having to lose much of our GDP, and we can stop mucking around in the Middle East for oil.
Let's all hope that this goes well and develops further. The article said that a factory about the size of Chicago would be required to meet America's demand for oil. Hopefully they will figure out how to make it more efficient.
Regarding Arnold's point about government, isn't this result exactly the point of gas and carbon taxes? The standard argument for such policies it that they spur innovation and encourage entrepreneurs to develop alternatives like this one.