Comment: Rebuttal

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not hard to find examples (see in situ)


Regarding GM Ovonics: The key here is that we all know about the NiMH battery technology. We know how it works and what it is, but some patent troll is sitting on it for use in vehicles. In my previous post I was referring to technologies bought up and then HIDDEN from the public, which is entirely different. The former is suppressing *use*, which can be challenged in courts, while the latter is suppressing *knowledge*, which is what all the conspiracy theorists talk about.

First paragraph: You have no proof except allegations that automakers and oil companies have colluded to buoy oil prices by refusing to make higher mileage vehicles. In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite: gasoline was cheap (and it still is) which made the public want to buy bigger vehicles that used more of it. The automakers were not catering to the oil companies, rather they were responding to a public that wanted bigger vehicles and didn't care about gas prices.

Second paragraph: All speculation. Because the pace of new technology isn't advancing as fast as you think it should, you believe there must be something fishy going on behind the scenes to prevent advancement from actually happening. Nonsense.

Third and fourth paragraphs: You're darn right the public doesn't want them; that is basic free-market economics. There is a (still) cheaper and more convenient alternative available: the gasoline automobile. People will continue to NOT want electric cars until the gasoline car becomes both more expensive and less convenient to own than an electric. This is common sense. Do you claim that today's electric vehicles are already cheaper to buy and maintain, and are more convenient (wrt charging, cost of replacement parts, etc.) than gasoline vehicles? Of course they aren't. They WILL be someday, but not today. Companies like Ford, Chevy, Honda and Toyota can spend billions on advertising electric cars and they STILL would not sell because of basic economic theory. So your claim that they aren't selling because people don't know about them is false.

Regarding the Internet: Are you joking? Or maybe you're using the roundabout logic that since US universities (which were the first to be connected) received government funding, that automatically means the Internet is a result of government investment. The organizations which actually BUILT the internet, the IETF and the W3C and the companies which laid the telecommunications infrastructure, are completely privately funded by corporations. Government had a hand in it all via IANA and then ICANN, but only because government has a hand in almost everything these days. It is impossible to say whether or not the Internet would have emerged if denied any government assistance because we can't go back in time and test the theory. How convenient for us both. However, your claim that the Internet would certainly not exist today without government investment is false. Indeed, it is arguably because of that government investment that government is now trying to lay claim to it and control it via censorship bills like ACTA and CISPA.

The free-market is the only long-sighted system. Regulation invariably "fixes" some problem short term, only to distort and damage the market in the long term. It is at that time that those who installed the original regulations, advocate for MORE regulation to fix these new problems. And thus the cycle continues until the free-market is completely regulated away. Then things will be perfect, no?