January 5, 2010
The Economics of the Microsoft Case
January 5, 2010
The Economics of Illegal Drugs
January 5, 2010
Intellectuals and Society
January 5, 2010
Thinking Outside the House
January 5, 2010
FP2P Watch
January 5, 2010
The Books I Wish My Colleagues Would Write
January 4, 2010
Predictably Irrational or Predictably Rational?
January 4, 2010
My Sowell-mate on the Knowledge-Power Discrepancy
January 4, 2010
FP2P Watch
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.