"Go ahead. Throw your vote away!"

You could always vote for a third-party idiot.

The government's roll is NOT to justify a business model and when they "Think" it can not work – to then socialize it.

We don't really live in a Free Market. And $300 million cash prizes are as silly as National Healthcare.

At the end of the day – if $100 dollars has to come out of my pocket to pay an insurance company or more taxes for insurance (or for that matter a premium for a hybrid car or to pay back prize money via taxes) – I am STILL $100 dollars lighter.

The government doesn't know what is best. They can't even balance their own accounts, you think they can justify a business model?

A great quote by Friedman http://marketpreview.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-money-is-spent.html

Really? 0%? Well, then it's still much better than government grants. I'm skeptical about the 0% probability of payout claim, considering that DARPA has actually awarded money for some of its prizes, like the "Grand Challenge" driverless car challenge.

"During the 17th and 18th centuries (and maybe before, but I don't quite remember), countries like England and France made much use of 'prizes' in their intellectual property regimes. US, on the other hand, instituted the patent system still used today."

Axel– England and France made strong shifts away from prizes towards government grants during that time frame, so I think the history is a little different from what you're imagining. There also were continued prizes in certain fields worldwide, such as aviation, that certainly seemed to spur innovation.

From 2006:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html

Presumably, McCain's description of a more efficient battery is vague enough to cover these carbon nanotube supercapacitors, but I wonder who'll get the $300,000,000? For that matter, I wonder who gets the patents now. I'm sure it's all just, right, proper and noble.

… offering prizes for technological advances seems like a much better approach than the status quo.

It could be better than awarding a monopoly of use of the technology. You get the prize, but the technology then is not patentable. Equivalently, the state announces before some invention that it will buy the patent at a fixed price. Since it needn't award the patent in the first place (and often shouldn't in my way of thinking), I see no fundamental problem with this offer. I'm not advocating it. I just don't think it's any worse than the status quo, the patent, and could be better.

But John McCain is still a shill for the corporative state.

It never ceases to amaze me that politicians, particularly leftist ones, believe that they can wave a magic wand and repeal the laws of physics, chemistry, and economics.

I agree also. I'd much rather see the government set up prizes (which will cost nothing if no progress is made) rather than doling out billions in subsidies to dubious projects (corn ethanol!). Which funding takes on a life of its own even if the projects are useless (or, as in the case of corn ethanol, actually harmful).

In Don's ideal libertarian world, the government would stay out of it entirely. But we don't live in that world. Given that the government has to do *something* or at least be seen as doing something, offering prizes for technological advances seems like a much better approach than the status quo.

Part of the reason, presumably, that scientists are already working diligently on energy breakthroughs is that they know any breakthrough they make can be patented …

Most scientists work for government or corporations and have signed away their patent rights.

Alexander Karsner, U.S. Department of Energy assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy, said Friday that while domestic battery supply was a concern, it shouldn't be overstated, in part because much of the research that created today's hybrid batteries originated in U.S. labs. [at U.S. taxpayer expense]

"Our challenge is to see that it is produced and deployed here so that it is available to us and our strategic interest," Karsner said. Domestic battery production "is an area that requires intensive … consistent interest, both throughout the remainder of this administration, and into the next."

Yes, but earlier in the report, this was noted:

U.S. automakers and battery companies lobbied Congress for a provision in last year's energy bill to provide loans and loan guarantees to firms that want to set up battery production. But Congress hasn't provided any money for the loans, and appears unlikely to pass many funding bills in the remainder of its term.

So Congress can mandate, but Congress can also refuse to accept any responsibility. It looks like the only guarantee coming out of this Congress is a guarantee to royally —- things up.

I'm sorry professor. I just couldn't help myself. Is it me or are the candidates getting ever more ridiculous with every election?

And Methinks summarizes the election nicely.