False. Because to be economically viable, the alternatives need to be mechanically viable – that is, they must materially allow us to live the way we have been living in our automobile-dependent society without changing anything drastically – and they might or might not be mechanically viable in that sense, ever. Market demand cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry. If the survival of industrial civilization depended on the invention of a faster-than-light drive or a perpetual-motion machine, industrial civilization would die, that is all.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
False. Because to be economically viable, the alternatives need to be mechanically viable – that is, they must materially allow us to live the way we have been living in our automobile-dependent society without changing anything drastically – and they might or might not be mechanically viable in that sense, ever
[/QUOTE]
As you say…false. There is no reason they have to be exactly the same in all particulars, since when oil deposed the previous technologies it wasn’t exactly the same.
And the frantic chicken little fretting of the Peak Oil™ crowd can’t make the disaster they are all worried about a reality. There is nothing in either physics or chemistry that says we MUST use oil, and if we can’t then there are no alternatives…nothing except those fretful rantings by the Peak Oil crowd that is.
:rolleyes: Luckily it doesn’t depend on the invention of a fantasy technology, merely the development of technologies that already exist and are not in use merely because they cost a bit more than the current cost of oil.
-XT
Few who understand economics thinks an unregulated free market on every service/product is a good idea. Few who understand economics thinks an entirely government controlled market is a good thing. The op is a false dichotomy. Besides, no broad answer will ever be correct. Which is better all depends on the details of how much government regulation and, even more importantly, what type of government regulation is applied to free markets.
That being said:
Climate Change - Free market is not JUST about price. It’s about the price vs value of the product/service. Currently plenty of companies business plans hinge on selling green products which are more expensive than non-green alternatives, and a lot of those companies are doing well. Some consumers feel a green product increases the value enough to be worth the extra price.
Peak Oil - Recent past has already shown how the free market takes care of this. Gas prices go up, people drive less. More fuel efficient cars are sold and less gas guzzling SUVs are. Businesses see an opening for alternatives to oil and direct their development accordingly. All of which works far far better than government control of gas during Carter’s era did.
Religious Extremism - Not really an economic issue one way or another, although it has been noted that (reasonably) free trade between nations produces less violence and tends to make a nation take this stuff seriously instead of tacitly allowing it it. Businesses tend to not like unstable environments & religious extremism tends to make an unstable environment. Notice that pretty much every country considered to harbor terrorist is not a big player on the international trade scene, oil excepted which is a bit different because that tends to be a captive market. *
Nuclear Proliferation - Has nothing at all to do with economics and everything to do with self defense of nations. Indirectly though, free trade does tend to reduce violence between two cultures. Less violence between cultures means less feelings they must have nukes to defend themselves. Which in turn means less nuclear proliferation.
*Note: I realize the common claim that no two nations with McD’s has gone to war is wrong, but IN GENERAL, free trade causes more stable national relationships and less violence than most other methods of foreign policy ever could.