It’s not much different from the airline industry. You cannot wipe your ass without having an Federal inspector come in from downtown. No innovation is allowed, as it will not be approved by the man.

Funny how all this “lust for oil causes terrorism” talk and the whole SUV argument would be silly if some mis-informed “environmentalists” had not shut down growth in the nuclear power industry in the late 70’s. I guess it worked out good for them, as otherwise there’d be nothing to rant about to keep the bucks flowing in.

Also, good comments Mr. Fangsign! Abso_______ lutely.

Some of the obstacles to that larger market appear to be distribution infrastructure for the H & O2, and consumer fears of Hydrogen as a fuel…. Toyota “Hindenburg”, if you will.

This issue is counter to most of my positions with regard to government funding in what should normally be a market driven issue.

The great success of the automobile was due to it’s superiority to every other alternative, and the great benefit to individuals in their everyday life.

Fuel Cell powered vehicles do not seem to offer any direct benefit to consumers individually, but rather to society as a whole. So, fuel cell cars will not be widely accepted until they can compete directly with cost, reliability and convenience. It will be difficult to improve cost, reliability, and convenience until they are widely accepted by consumers.

Situations where societal needs are not met by a market driven by individuals meeting their own needs is exactly why government is sometimes necessary.

Many of your arguments about funding for hydrogen cells were the same that were made (or could have been made) for the so-called “Supercar” project that cost taxpayers $1.5 billion in the past 10 years, with no real results.

The Chicago Tribune did a three part series on the effort, which is online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/car/one/chi-startingup-special.special

Basically, the government teamed up with the Big Three and set a goal of an 80 mpg car. But the supervision, spending decisions, mistrust, and general ineptitude of the participants made it a waste.

Each of the Big Three decided on a hybrid car (to take diesel fuel), and planned to introduce it in the middle 2000s. Japan made a gasoline-electric hybrid and beat them by several years. And still there are no American hybrids out there, even as they become more economically viable.

[Incidentally, Toyota and Honda appear well-ahead of the Big Three in fuel cell research as well, as they are already leasing prototype fuel cell cars to California researchers and governments (http://www.hfcletter.com/letter/December02/features.html).]

Also, the idea that the market will force each of them to go forward in order to stay in business is wishful. Because fuel cells will require hydrogen refueling stations, the transition will be so gradual that if it ever happens it will give all of the market participants plenty of time to adjust.

It’s a billion dollars better spent elsewhere (or not even spent at all).

Did anyone notice Bush rolling out support for a “democratic Palestine” last night?
Did anyone notice that both Pelosi and Kennedy were asked, “have you seen any evidence that Iraq is linked to terrorist groups” and both responded, “I have seen nothing that links Iraq to the events of September 11th.” That leads me to believe that both of them have seen evidence that Iraq is linked to terror groups but they don’t want to admit it.

1) You are wrong in that the reason to oppose the funding is that there is no market for the hydrogen car - the reason to oppose the funding is because the free market can develop the hydrogen car more efficiently than government funded research.
a) There is clearly a market for a car that runs on water. It is cheaper to run and pollutes less. People do want it, which is why funding it is palatable to the masses.
b) The free market, however, will be able to develop the hydrogen car for cheaper because it will have an interest in outcome (i.e. profit motive). Every penny saved in researching efficiently is a penny earned by the company.

2) Despite the market for a hydrogen car, the main reason the car companies have not started producing one yet is the entry cost is too high. To develop a new technology like hydrogen power on a scale large enough to run a car takes a prohibitive amount of money. The research and development cost makes the first cars too expensive for the average consumers. The car companies therefore are not able to sell a ton of them and the overhead associated with each car made is then passed on to the few consumers who are purchasing them (Hollywood). R&D + overhead = way too expensive. Therefore car companies don’t get in while they are still making large profits on gas engine cars.

3) Bush’s plan can work if money is given to directly to the car companies in exchange for research associated with hydrogen power cars.
a) The profit motive is kept by having the free market run the research. A penny of federal money saved is still a penny earned for the car companies.
b) Lest you fear the companies taking federal money and not developing the H-car, free market competition will require that they actually see it through. If all the companies receive equal amounts of funding, and it is sizable enough to make it profitable to develop the car, they will all have to follow through. If they don’t and even one of the other companies does develop the car, the companies that don’t will be at a huge competitive disadvantage, and will probably go out of business. There is suddenly pressure to develop the car quickly that was never there before.

4) Finally, although government funding of free market enterprise is normally not desirable (because of the increased cost to achieve the same result) it may be in this case. Such an invention would lead to an unarguable public good, in terms of the security associated with becoming entirely self sufficient in our energy needs, the health benefits that might occur from lower pollution, and the economic advantages and possibilities that would come from such a ground breaking, and efficient energy source. Where society stands to benefit so much from its creation, it may justify the increased cost that would be associated with government funding rather than waiting on the free market.

Yes, the free market does things cheaper - always. But sometimes, very rare times, the benefit an invention to everybody is so great that it justifies the cost increase associate with government funding in order to speed up the free market’s development time.

http://www.marcmelzer.net/sotudg/

Democrats looked like complete morons. Unfortunatly, it was because Bush managed to beat them to the checkbook on most of the issues. They’re still trying to sell the “Tax cuts only for the Richest (X)%” argument. In this case, “X” was back to 1.

I had wondered why Locke was picked to give the response. I guess someone had to jump on the grenade.

1) Feeling Republican? Please.

2) Goosebumps during a political speech? Are you sure you don’t want Saddam the Airport Dick near your anium?

7) Coke, a software giant?

I think you just stayed up too late watching the speech. Maybe another cup of coffee would help…or a beer.

It is a very touchy feely review. You seem to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. The whole point was to make us feel goosebumps and end up liking Bush. You are right, Gerson is a genious.