Leapfrog

I just watched a news story on CNBC about the government investing in the build out of broadband in America. Of course there are billions of dollars involved. Yes, you may assume a few of those are yours. There’s also the promise of jobs. (All together now, Awwww. Jobs.)

Baloney.

Subsidizing a technology, in this case wire-based broadband communication, is always a bad idea. Forcing investment in one technology marries us to that technology and eliminates the possibility of developing better technology.

This principle is really obvious in developing countries. For instance, most of those countries don’t have land lines for telephone. It’s all cellular. The spouse got a kick in Guatemala over the tidbit that there are 13 million in that population and 10 million cell phones. That’s incredible saturation. It would never happen if their government had given a subsidy to land line users and developed an infrastructure to support land lines. Instead, the country leapfrogged past traditional communication and into cellular technology.

I think the legacy of allowing our government to create winners or losers by subsidizing one technology over another hurts us a lot. Think of the inefficiencies of ethanol, but all those new ethanol plants. Think of the sight and sound pollution of wind generated electricity but all those windmill farms.

What about running cars on filtered restaurant oil or other biodiesels? Algae? Hydrogen? Remember the trash compactor on the “Back to the Future” DeLorean?

The cost of these subsidies is more than today’s tax dollars. The practice also costs us in terms or tomorrow’s opportunities. Vote for people who understand the danger in subsidies. From TIF districts to ethanol plants the practice is costing America.