In a message dated 3/24/00 3:52:11 PM Central Standard Time, rhanson@gmu.edu
writes:
> One project is to convince one relatively rich economy
> somewhere to completely open its borders to immigration,
> even setting up a loan program to pay for transportation
> costs. This might do more for the world's poor than most
> anything I can imagine. And that one country could
> benefit immensely.
While I think this a great idea, I think it falls into the "fat chance!"
category. Consider the constant battle required to ever so slowly inch
forward the cause of free trade in goods and services. With similar constant
effort, we may see the development of zones of more free immigration, such as
in the EU (albeit there at a high cost of buying into the EU paradigm of
monolithic, centralized economic regulation). Until Mexico achieves a more
robust and open civil society, we're unlikely to see NAFTA go that way to any
significant extent.
> Yet another project is to explore the vast untouched
> space of possible forms of government. Because democracy
> seems better than monarchy, people seem to have concluded
> that current forms of democracy are the best there is.
> In fact, we have barely dipped our toe into the ocean
> of possible forms of government. (For an example of
> a very different possible form, as me about "futarchy.")
OK - I'll bite: Tell me about "futarchy".
> Regarding specific technological innovations, I think the
> best way to promote them is two offer large prizes for
> specific achievements. I would like to see much larger
> prizes offered for progress toward nanotech assemblers,
> and for progress toward uploading of humans into computers.
As others have pointed out recently, technology prizes HAVE seemed to spur
innovation in the past. I'd like to see a real economic analysis and
rigorous historical study of the example with which I'm most familiar, the
aviation prizes in the 1920s and 30s. It would be interesting to see an
in-depth look to see how things like the Bendix and Scheider Trophies
actually worked to spur innovation. Was it the money? The fame? Some of
both?
> The big projects I think of as a waste are most space,
> medicine, and education, and parenting projects. These last
> three are feel good projects, but the sad truth is that
> medicine, education, and parenting don't actually do very
> much useful on the margin; we could cut way back on these
> without much harm. Space projects now also seem a waste to
> me; until costs are low enough to allow economies to
> flourish in space, it's just money down the drain.
I've read your analysis of the low marginal effect of spending on medicine
before and can only conclude that my economic illiteracy disables me from
appreciating the force of your conclusions. Perhaps on a gross societal
level spending on medicine has little marginal effect, but I know that I'd be
close to a cripple today without recent advances in orthopedic surgical
techniques. This has a high value to ME
As for current spending on space exploration and development, I reluctantly
agree that it is hard to justify specific expenditures in light of the
substantial improvements in capabilities that technology just a couple of
decades off (at most) promises. But over-all amounts spent on space
technology and exploration are relatively low on a societal scale, and at a
certain level, don't you think people should do things just because it's
COOL? To me, money spent on space exploration now is really more akin to
spending on the arts: How does an economist justify what we spend on symphony
orchestras or rap music CDs, for that matter?
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:26 MDT