Entrepreneur’s Letter to Obama: Give Americans a Great Challenge to Pursue(technori.com)
technori.com
Entrepreneur’s Letter to Obama: Give Americans a Great Challenge to Pursue
http://technori.com/2013/01/3089-an-entrepreneurs-letter-to-president-obama-give-americans-a-great-challenge-to-pursue/
75 comments
Eliminate the need for a legislature by using technology to collect votes
Oh, please, no! California's government is a mess, thanks to all the propositions that have forced it legislature to do more while tying its hands on funding.
While I agree the idiots we have right now are far from ideal, falling back to the base common denominator is not the right solution. Representative democracies allow the representatives to make hard, unpopular choices, something the average citizen won't do.
It we want to dump the legislature in favor of pure democracy, we will need a better way to qualify who can vote. And I'm sure that wouldn't be used to disenfranchise some group of people[1].
I think before we consider dumping the legislature, we could play with different options. One I would like to see is having congressional seats divided up among parties by the percentage of the vote you get. So congress represents the entire country and the senate represents each state (or vice-versa).
1. I like the Starship Troopers method of qualification, though: serve your country (military or otherwise) for a minimum time period and you can vote.
Oh, please, no! California's government is a mess, thanks to all the propositions that have forced it legislature to do more while tying its hands on funding.
While I agree the idiots we have right now are far from ideal, falling back to the base common denominator is not the right solution. Representative democracies allow the representatives to make hard, unpopular choices, something the average citizen won't do.
It we want to dump the legislature in favor of pure democracy, we will need a better way to qualify who can vote. And I'm sure that wouldn't be used to disenfranchise some group of people[1].
I think before we consider dumping the legislature, we could play with different options. One I would like to see is having congressional seats divided up among parties by the percentage of the vote you get. So congress represents the entire country and the senate represents each state (or vice-versa).
1. I like the Starship Troopers method of qualification, though: serve your country (military or otherwise) for a minimum time period and you can vote.
Regarding direct democracy:
1) Let's be clear, California's politicians haven't done a great job except for propositions
2) I think direct democracy is a solvable problem. One really simple thing: don't use 50% as the threshhold. Something like 70-90% makes sense to me. Not claiming it is easy, or politically feasible, but if we are in the "what big dream could/should the government work towards in 10 years" category, it seems to fit.
Regarding serving for voting: I went to West Point then was in the Army. I like the book Starship Troopers. I think it is a terrible idea in practice. 1) The only thing this does for sure is increase the size of the public payroll. 2) No evidence to support it actually making the country better. 3) I feel like I help my country more working in the private sector than I ever did in the Army. (Anecdotal)
Regarding serving for voting: I went to West Point then was in the Army. I like the book Starship Troopers. I think it is a terrible idea in practice. 1) The only thing this does for sure is increase the size of the public payroll. 2) No evidence to support it actually making the country better. 3) I feel like I help my country more working in the private sector than I ever did in the Army. (Anecdotal)
A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem?
1) Eliminate the need for a legislature by using technology to collect votes.
I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general.
2) Do more for less - find a way to provide today's services for 1/10th the cost.
Sounds great but is a total fantasy. Wildly unrealistic goals are of no use to people that actually get things done.
1) Eliminate the need for a legislature by using technology to collect votes.
I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general.
2) Do more for less - find a way to provide today's services for 1/10th the cost.
Sounds great but is a total fantasy. Wildly unrealistic goals are of no use to people that actually get things done.
Yes it is boring, it is doable and it doesn't involve the country.
In the sixties getting a man to the moon was an acceptable challenge. More than 50 years later we shouldn't waste ten years of our countries best and most brilliant minds on something like merely better millage.
How a commercially viable replacement for oil, that can be made in the US in a way that doesn't produce CO2? That would do a lot to improve the world is a worthy goal.
In the sixties getting a man to the moon was an acceptable challenge. More than 50 years later we shouldn't waste ten years of our countries best and most brilliant minds on something like merely better millage.
How a commercially viable replacement for oil, that can be made in the US in a way that doesn't produce CO2? That would do a lot to improve the world is a worthy goal.
I think commercial viable replacement for oil is a great analogue to the moon mission.
1) It's a big goal, but one where the first steps are already being made, just as with the moon mission.
2) It has the potential to develop a ton of derivative technology that is widely applicable.
3) It has the potential to cement American's place for decades more, just like the rocket technology developed as a by-product of the space race did. It was hard to compete militarily with the country that could bomb you from space with ICBM's, and it'll be hard to compete economically that has a source of cheap, clean energy.
1) It's a big goal, but one where the first steps are already being made, just as with the moon mission.
2) It has the potential to develop a ton of derivative technology that is widely applicable.
3) It has the potential to cement American's place for decades more, just like the rocket technology developed as a by-product of the space race did. It was hard to compete militarily with the country that could bomb you from space with ICBM's, and it'll be hard to compete economically that has a source of cheap, clean energy.
http://www.hcssllc.com/
Done; next challenge?
Done; next challenge?
A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles. I am as big a fan as any of the moon landing but they didn't even send a geologist. A much better value is had with unmanned probes. Maybe it isn't as sexy but it is infinitely more sensible without a Sputnik type catalyst.
It wasn't supposed to be smart, it wasn't to gather scientific evidence, it wasn't to do any of these things.
It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism.
For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. Cutting the arabs out of the oil deal, saving humanity as we gather the resources needed for a final jump into our future as a spacefaring species -- that is a goal worth of us.
It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism.
For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. Cutting the arabs out of the oil deal, saving humanity as we gather the resources needed for a final jump into our future as a spacefaring species -- that is a goal worth of us.
>It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism. For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one.
I understand and it achieved its purpose (yay freedom) but now is different. Freedom has won, commies are laughed at, though mildly problematic, and the planet is one, sort of. The problems we face are less epic which makes them seem dull and we should be thankful for that.
I understand and it achieved its purpose (yay freedom) but now is different. Freedom has won, commies are laughed at, though mildly problematic, and the planet is one, sort of. The problems we face are less epic which makes them seem dull and we should be thankful for that.
The planet is split into essentially three groups: the western world, China and the arab world (Middle-east + large parts of Africa).
China isn't going to attack us, they make far more money trading with us.
The arabs on the other hand.
China isn't going to attack us, they make far more money trading with us.
The arabs on the other hand.
>A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles.
But wait, bicycles are more fuel-efficient than even the best cars -- that should imply that the Chinese will want to use them instead, right? Because the problem is as simple as discovering greater fuel efficiency?
Or is this the bizarro world you mocked where higher fuel efficiency is bad?
But wait, bicycles are more fuel-efficient than even the best cars -- that should imply that the Chinese will want to use them instead, right? Because the problem is as simple as discovering greater fuel efficiency?
Or is this the bizarro world you mocked where higher fuel efficiency is bad?
I'm sorry if I offended you with the bizarro comment on the other thread. I have nothing against you and I think we actually on the same side. I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and I understand it. What would you propose? Less efficiency to have more pollution per useful work?
I'm pretty sure I explained that other policies must complement efficiency improvements, specifically penalizing the bad-thing-you-want-to-reduce e.g. with a tax. So you can ease up on the faux-naive questions -- maybe read the rest of original post that upset your worldview about fuel efficiency.
The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
>Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher
Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place!
One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.
Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place!
One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.
such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place!
Love your work YodaBot!
Love your work YodaBot!
> A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy?
In 10 years? Extremely yawn-worthy. Tesla plans on building a 0 emissions, all-electric car and selling it around $20,000 in two years. Not 10 years with epic, huge pollution going everywhere.
> How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem?
How out of touch are you? Obviously emissions are a serious problem. That's why we shouldn't aspire as a country to be emitting gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses from our cars in 10 years.
In 10 years? Extremely yawn-worthy. Tesla plans on building a 0 emissions, all-electric car and selling it around $20,000 in two years. Not 10 years with epic, huge pollution going everywhere.
> How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem?
How out of touch are you? Obviously emissions are a serious problem. That's why we shouldn't aspire as a country to be emitting gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses from our cars in 10 years.
An electric car is essentially coal powered.
No, it's not. That doesn't make any sense at all, especially in the context of my example. Teslas that are charged with the SuperCharger system are solar powered. Teslas that are purchased in my province (Quebec) are Hydro powered. Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere.
> Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere.
Maybe you are referring to clean coal technology which I am dubious of, but I think it is unlikely that tranferring cheap electric power across great distance is more efficient.
Maybe you are referring to clean coal technology which I am dubious of, but I think it is unlikely that tranferring cheap electric power across great distance is more efficient.
Sometimes. It depends on what part of the world you're in.
If your statement is meant to imply that electric cars are a bad idea because they're "essentially coal powered", I disagree. Imagine if doctors applied that kind of logic: "We'll, you could quit smoking, but, I mean, you're still going to die eventually anyway."
If your statement is meant to imply that electric cars are a bad idea because they're "essentially coal powered", I disagree. Imagine if doctors applied that kind of logic: "We'll, you could quit smoking, but, I mean, you're still going to die eventually anyway."
I did not mean to imply that electric cars were a bad idea, a friend tried to buy a Tesla Roadster and I was excited to drive it. I just meant it will not be a panacea in two years or even ten, but almost certainly eventually.
>A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem?
Of course they are, but increasing efficiency is only loosely related to that, due to Jevons Effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Having more efficient (and probably phallic shaped) vehicles could reduce aggregate emissions ... or, more likely, the lower cost of driving could increase how often it's done.
Unless the newer efficiency is combined with laws that make emissions directly more costly, you're ultimately just bailing from one side of the pool to the other.
But then, if you're going to put those laws in place, then you don't need to reward any one specific technology's creation; you've already incentivized (sorry) any emission-reducing change in behavior, which is a far longer list than any bureaucrat or contest-creator can come up with. Unless, of course, you think that we're going to have separate contests for "make the average distance of worker from workplace less than one mile" or "make average driving distance less than 11k miles/person-year", etc etc etc.
Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship: it's a mentality that, stripped of misdirection, says "it's okay to be wasteful, as long as you're wasteful with efficient technology".
Of course they are, but increasing efficiency is only loosely related to that, due to Jevons Effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Having more efficient (and probably phallic shaped) vehicles could reduce aggregate emissions ... or, more likely, the lower cost of driving could increase how often it's done.
Unless the newer efficiency is combined with laws that make emissions directly more costly, you're ultimately just bailing from one side of the pool to the other.
But then, if you're going to put those laws in place, then you don't need to reward any one specific technology's creation; you've already incentivized (sorry) any emission-reducing change in behavior, which is a far longer list than any bureaucrat or contest-creator can come up with. Unless, of course, you think that we're going to have separate contests for "make the average distance of worker from workplace less than one mile" or "make average driving distance less than 11k miles/person-year", etc etc etc.
Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship: it's a mentality that, stripped of misdirection, says "it's okay to be wasteful, as long as you're wasteful with efficient technology".
>Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship
This is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. To a partisan all pragmatism is bad.
This is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. To a partisan all pragmatism is bad.
It's more like "feel-good being the enemy of the good". Without other good policies, a more efficient car has ~zero expected benefit. With the other good policies, the more efficient car is marginally relevant.
Pure, unadulterated feel-good-ism.
Pure, unadulterated feel-good-ism.
Better fuel efficiency is bad. Welcome to bizarro world!
The bizarro world where improved efficiency of coal use led to more coal use, rather than people miraculously keeping the same pattern of behavior despite the increased utility of using coal?
The bizarro world where nobody ever increases their fuel use in response to its greater effectiveness of use?
The bizarro world where people can feel like they've said something insightful simply because they're advocating greater fuel efficiency regardless of how poorly they understand the system in which it operates?
The bizarro world where nobody ever increases their fuel use in response to its greater effectiveness of use?
The bizarro world where people can feel like they've said something insightful simply because they're advocating greater fuel efficiency regardless of how poorly they understand the system in which it operates?
Apparently less efficiency would be better. I think we're done here.
If your goal is purely to reduce amount of oil being burned, then making it impractically expensive to use oil-burning machines works. Making them extremely inefficient is one way to go about this.
Making things inefficient is for corrupt officials.
You're certainly done thinking carefully about the issue, and have been for a while...
> I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general.
Careful. Around here that kind of talk will get you labeled a statist. In reality society is simple and self-governing, if only government gets out of the way! Also: ponies.
Careful. Around here that kind of talk will get you labeled a statist. In reality society is simple and self-governing, if only government gets out of the way! Also: ponies.
Defensive statist is defensive.
No. Society is complex and self-governing, which is why injecting government can only make anything more complicated and expensive.
While I agree with you to some extent I am not quite ready to be an anarchist, if only for my grandmother's sake. I do believe that the founders of this country deliberately designed it to be mostly gridlocked to try to avoid the worst parts of government.
I did not claim to endorse anarchism. The extent that government can be injected into society is limited by the cost of doing so. If government is everywhere (like it pretty much is or is expanding towards) then it will consume pretty much everything.
If you want to preserve "vital" functions of government, then you need to establish what those are and scrape off anything that is both an expense, and interfering with society.
If you want to preserve "vital" functions of government, then you need to establish what those are and scrape off anything that is both an expense, and interfering with society.
That's the middle school "checks and balances" view. There is a lot more to it than that. The U.S. government was a desperate reaction to the the ineffective government under the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the federalists would have made it even stronger if they thought the states would have ratified it.
Are you arguing my point or conceding it?
I'm disagreeing that the founders intended the government to be gridlocked.
Well I disagree with you there, I think it is quite apparent that is what they meant. I also believe that freedom of religion was meant to be used as a catchall freedom. It hasn't yet, but maybe it will later.
Ponies?
"Abraham Lincoln had a single-minded vision: Preserve the Union. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t really become great until he united America behind the cause of ending Fascism and Imperialism. John Kennedy asked us to put a man on the moon. Ronald Reagan was hell bent on winning the Cold War."
All of those examples are centered around war and/or homeland security and some of them don't have a lot to do with entrepreneurship. The beauty of the world we live in today is that we don't need a leader to supply us with a unified vision/direction; we have tons of companies simultaneously working very hard on innovating in a multitude of different areas.
There are a ton of problems to solve, so why focus on one?
All of those examples are centered around war and/or homeland security and some of them don't have a lot to do with entrepreneurship. The beauty of the world we live in today is that we don't need a leader to supply us with a unified vision/direction; we have tons of companies simultaneously working very hard on innovating in a multitude of different areas.
There are a ton of problems to solve, so why focus on one?
There are a ton of problems to solve, so why focus on one?
The idea, I suppose, is that by focusing on a single "big problem", we could make very rapid progress (instead of making slower progress on a bigger set of problems). At its height, the US was spending almost 1% of its GDP on the Apollo program. Now imagine we could all agree on some other goal that we would spend that much money on. The hard part would be choosing a good goal, and then convincing enough people that it's the "right one".
The idea, I suppose, is that by focusing on a single "big problem", we could make very rapid progress (instead of making slower progress on a bigger set of problems). At its height, the US was spending almost 1% of its GDP on the Apollo program. Now imagine we could all agree on some other goal that we would spend that much money on. The hard part would be choosing a good goal, and then convincing enough people that it's the "right one".
> Now imagine we could all agree on some other goal that we would spend that much money on.
Then create a kickstarter page and leave my paycheck alone. Just an idea.
Then create a kickstarter page and leave my paycheck alone. Just an idea.
Good point. Doesn't a unified vision/direction typically imply a huge problem to be solved? Even the space race was more a race against Communism than a common motivation to accomplish something great.
The ideal is to have no huge problems to solve. Humans being humans, without a common thing to scare us into working together, we'll all work on whatever we want.
That said, one might argue that we have huge problems we just haven't realized are huge problems yet. Climate change comes to mind.
The ideal is to have no huge problems to solve. Humans being humans, without a common thing to scare us into working together, we'll all work on whatever we want.
That said, one might argue that we have huge problems we just haven't realized are huge problems yet. Climate change comes to mind.
There are two problems with any automotive-based great challenges.
1. The accomplishment of the goal will almost certainly not result in any great swell of national pride. Defeating an enemy makes us believe we are great. Being the first to the moon makes us feel proud of our accomplishment. Driving a somewhat more efficient car does not give us that same sense of collective pride.
2. The government should not be directly doing R&D, market research, or advertizing for private industries. We got away with the moon landing because NASA is a government organization, the same is not true of the US auto industry. The auto bailout was unpopular, why would any sort of government/auto industry project be seen as anything other than meddling?
Instead, the government should focus on areas that are more directly under its purview: infrastructure, energy, military, education, public safety, etc.
What sorts of goals might we consider? I think these are better candidates:
Cure any form of cancer in the next 10 years.
Become #1 in international measures of 4th grade student performance in the next 10 years and 1st in 8th grade performance in 15 years.
Achieve the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any developed nation within 15 years.
1. The accomplishment of the goal will almost certainly not result in any great swell of national pride. Defeating an enemy makes us believe we are great. Being the first to the moon makes us feel proud of our accomplishment. Driving a somewhat more efficient car does not give us that same sense of collective pride.
2. The government should not be directly doing R&D, market research, or advertizing for private industries. We got away with the moon landing because NASA is a government organization, the same is not true of the US auto industry. The auto bailout was unpopular, why would any sort of government/auto industry project be seen as anything other than meddling?
Instead, the government should focus on areas that are more directly under its purview: infrastructure, energy, military, education, public safety, etc.
What sorts of goals might we consider? I think these are better candidates:
Cure any form of cancer in the next 10 years.
Become #1 in international measures of 4th grade student performance in the next 10 years and 1st in 8th grade performance in 15 years.
Achieve the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any developed nation within 15 years.
>Achieve the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any developed nation within 15 years.
The problem with this is that it's too broad. There are a million different ways to do it which are almost all trade offs of one thing or another, and the people who have to sacrifice for any given one will be fighting tooth and nail to make you choose a different one, so you spend all your time arguing with people and never accomplish anything.
Pick a specific goal. Build a working commercially viable fusion reactor. Take something like that and put moonshot resources behind it and it will happen.
The problem with this is that it's too broad. There are a million different ways to do it which are almost all trade offs of one thing or another, and the people who have to sacrifice for any given one will be fighting tooth and nail to make you choose a different one, so you spend all your time arguing with people and never accomplish anything.
Pick a specific goal. Build a working commercially viable fusion reactor. Take something like that and put moonshot resources behind it and it will happen.
Broad is different from general. I see breadth as a double edged sword. It does have the problems you mention. However, if the government could get sufficient buy-in, it helps because there are a large number of ways to improve per-capita CO2 emissions (e.g. improving housing insulation, increasing public transportation usage, development of CO2 scrubbing/sequestration technologies.)
I feel that the real killer of challenges is actually vagueness. "Improve health care" is vague because there is no well defined goal or target that we will be able to meet.
I feel that the real killer of challenges is actually vagueness. "Improve health care" is vague because there is no well defined goal or target that we will be able to meet.
Achieve the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any developed nation within 15 years.
Considering the amount of CO2 emissions from cars, here's a simple one: avoid using the car for personal reasons whenever possible. Use a bike, public transportation, your feet.
I, for one, would be very proud of my country if that became the norm for a significant number of people.
Considering the amount of CO2 emissions from cars, here's a simple one: avoid using the car for personal reasons whenever possible. Use a bike, public transportation, your feet.
I, for one, would be very proud of my country if that became the norm for a significant number of people.
Apart from the cure for cancer, I have one thing to say to all of these:
Booooooooring.
The goal has to be huge, extremely difficult to pull of, easy to measure and easy to rally around. It has to be something the tech geek and the redneck can agree would be awesome, something that screams USA is number one, something the entire country can take pride in.
Booooooooring.
The goal has to be huge, extremely difficult to pull of, easy to measure and easy to rally around. It has to be something the tech geek and the redneck can agree would be awesome, something that screams USA is number one, something the entire country can take pride in.
A 100 mpg car is highly constrained by the laws of physics to be crappy, or at least extremely unappealing.
A much better goal, in terms of usefulness, challenge, and well-defined-ness, would be to develop a self-driving car. This probably could have been done 20 years ago if we had started a Manhattan-style project. But I guess we'll just have to wait for Google.
A much better goal, in terms of usefulness, challenge, and well-defined-ness, would be to develop a self-driving car. This probably could have been done 20 years ago if we had started a Manhattan-style project. But I guess we'll just have to wait for Google.
Actually many other car manufacturers are making (perhaps more incremental) steps towards that goal too: http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/19/mercedes-and-other-carm...
These incremental advances have been appearing for at least 20 years, and eventually we will have self-driving cars even without an organized effort (either by the government or a company like Google with massive resources). But that's a very slow option.
I think we should get cheap internet to everyone. I really thought the plan to use television white space[0] was interesting. Funneling money into something like Google Fiber would also be amazing. Broadband, like the postal and telephone systems, should be available nearly everywhere to everyone at a reasonable price.
[0]: http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/google-wants-to-put-wireles...
[0]: http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/google-wants-to-put-wireles...
[deleted]
Sorry, but "Preserve the Union" is not any more concrete then "Energy Independence." In fact I can come up with quantifiers for both.
Manhattan project focused on climate change.
Pros: lots of disciplines to get involved, obvious ways for ordinary people to take part (monitoring and reducing home energy use), and a regulatory environment that is in need of reform (tragedy of the commons for pollution, carbon market). And obviously, a dire, human-race affecting need.
Pros: lots of disciplines to get involved, obvious ways for ordinary people to take part (monitoring and reducing home energy use), and a regulatory environment that is in need of reform (tragedy of the commons for pollution, carbon market). And obviously, a dire, human-race affecting need.
I've felt for years that we could do better with our mpg, and BMW's have been the only manufacturer to seem to be trying to achieve great mileage with traditional internal combustion engine technology. I'd love to see our country take on such a challenge. And I'd buy the car such a project produces.
The President of the United States (and I don't mean the current office-holder, I mean the office of the President) is uniquely incapable of being this person that you want.
They are the head of the Executive branch. They uphold the Constitution, specifically the laws passed by Congress.
In this conversation, the President can merely suggest goals to Congress.
Also, Congress is in no position to do what you ask, either: they make laws.
It should not be illegal to NOT pursue the Great Challenge you talk about. It should also not require taxing everyone. It should require motivating people to help.
If it's to succeed, it also needs to pay for itself, or be so self-evidently worthy that people donate to it enough money to keep it going.
In short: I don't think the Government can do you what you want.
Here's where I put my hope for the future:
http://www.planetaryresources.com
They are the head of the Executive branch. They uphold the Constitution, specifically the laws passed by Congress.
In this conversation, the President can merely suggest goals to Congress.
Also, Congress is in no position to do what you ask, either: they make laws.
It should not be illegal to NOT pursue the Great Challenge you talk about. It should also not require taxing everyone. It should require motivating people to help.
If it's to succeed, it also needs to pay for itself, or be so self-evidently worthy that people donate to it enough money to keep it going.
In short: I don't think the Government can do you what you want.
Here's where I put my hope for the future:
http://www.planetaryresources.com
The space race was funded with tax dollars and I doubt the fees charged for commercial launches ever paid a fraction of it.
and the great railroads first came from private industry as did the canals as did the airlines and so on and so on. The only reason the space race was done by government first is because they were more concerned with killing other people with the results.
Face it, government rarely does something first or best except when one government wants to eradicate another.
Face it, government rarely does something first or best except when one government wants to eradicate another.
The railroads were heavily subsidized and enabled by government. Without eminent domain authority and grants of government lands, the great railroads would never have happened. The first substantial airplane network in the U.S. was the Post Office's air mail service. Most of the existing U.S. airlines evolved from air mail contractors. Aircraft technology was heavily pushed forward by government spending in World War I and World War II. The first supersonic plane was a government project, as well as the first hypersonic plane.
In other areas: The transistor was invented by the research arm of a government-granted monopoly; nuclear technology was pioneered by a government weapons project; the double helix was discovered at a publicly-funded university; we're talking to each other over a network created as a department of defense program; much of the field of artificial intelligence was developed under the department of defense.
The U.S. government linked the pacific and atlantic oceans through the panama canal; the Army Corps of Engineers made the southwest habitable; the Army Corps of Engineers built and maintains the locks that makes the Mississippi easily navigable.
The 20th century is a triumph of the American model: government policy-making and funding/subsidization combined with implementation by independent public or private entities.
In other areas: The transistor was invented by the research arm of a government-granted monopoly; nuclear technology was pioneered by a government weapons project; the double helix was discovered at a publicly-funded university; we're talking to each other over a network created as a department of defense program; much of the field of artificial intelligence was developed under the department of defense.
The U.S. government linked the pacific and atlantic oceans through the panama canal; the Army Corps of Engineers made the southwest habitable; the Army Corps of Engineers built and maintains the locks that makes the Mississippi easily navigable.
The 20th century is a triumph of the American model: government policy-making and funding/subsidization combined with implementation by independent public or private entities.
Many of these examples are a stretch:
(1) The transistor/monopoly theory make no sense. The US government never granted AT&T a monopoly but broke it up in 1982 when they discovered it was a monopoly.
(2) I don't think the residents of New Orleans would agree that Army Corps of Engineers should be a model for anything.
I'm sure there are some truly great non-military US government accomplishments but I just can't think of any...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_ci...
(1) The transistor/monopoly theory make no sense. The US government never granted AT&T a monopoly but broke it up in 1982 when they discovered it was a monopoly.
(2) I don't think the residents of New Orleans would agree that Army Corps of Engineers should be a model for anything.
I'm sure there are some truly great non-military US government accomplishments but I just can't think of any...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_ci...
Yes, and I agree that it felt like a feel-good mission at the time.
Many people theorize, and I believe correctly, that it was entirely an aggressive posturing war between the US and USSR. We could just drop a nuke from space, with no launch to detect, so no way to retaliate in time - no mutually assured destruction, which was the only real defense either party had.
Don't get me wrong - I'm generally very liberal by US standards, and I think the Government should do a LOT more to "promote the general welfare". I just think that money doesn't care how you spend it, and governments can't set the kinds of goals that the OP proposes. Other than ending diseases, I suppose.
Many people theorize, and I believe correctly, that it was entirely an aggressive posturing war between the US and USSR. We could just drop a nuke from space, with no launch to detect, so no way to retaliate in time - no mutually assured destruction, which was the only real defense either party had.
Don't get me wrong - I'm generally very liberal by US standards, and I think the Government should do a LOT more to "promote the general welfare". I just think that money doesn't care how you spend it, and governments can't set the kinds of goals that the OP proposes. Other than ending diseases, I suppose.
So you need a war to unite the country?
How about the 'War On Corruption'™?
How about the 'War On Corruption'™?
Ridiculous. We do not need Obama to innovate. He is not a King, he is not supernatural, and his job is not to provide challenges for entrepreneurs.
Next generation energy (including storage and distribution). And the multiple, domestic career and educational tracks that go with this.
Unfortunately, the energy industry is currently held hostage.
Unfortunately, the energy industry is currently held hostage.
If I was The Decider in Chief, our big goal would be to build a car-free city:
http://www.carfree.com/
Fortunately, we do not have a decider in chief, and the US president is (emphatically!) not one. Everyone decides for themselves, and on the business arena, every business decides for itself.
If only there was a politician who had lofty goals.. like a Moon Base!
His examples are pretty flawed. A more direct example would be "Other presidents have gone to war, you should too". In addition to the war on terror and war on drugs, of course.
Here are two good/crazy government 10 year goals: 1) Eliminate the need for a legislature by using technology to collect votes. 2) Do more for less - find a way to provide today's services for 1/10th the cost. That way if you want to keep spending you can spend it on new stuff.