I have several thoughts in response here.

1. Look at the reasons why wind and solar have seen increased adoption in recent years. I think you'll see two key factors. First we see increasing tax benefits and subsidies for clean energy. Second, you'll see a lot of this activity kicked off around '06 or '07, when natural gas and oil prices were soaring to record highs. Both of these are clear indications that wind and solar still struggle to be economic, even at the margins.

2. Keep in mind TFA is not talking about on a US only scale, but a global one. Increases in wind capacity in the US are completely dwarfed by the number or coal plants being brought online in China on a nearly weekly basis. In terms of green / fossil fuel ratio, I think we're more likely to be actually moving backwards on a global scale.

I'm not opposed to clean energy. But the authors of TFA article have their head in the clouds.

Um... no

Roughly 70% of the cost of just about anything you buy is labor.

I didn't read any further than this. If there aren't any economic barriers, then why does it need any sort of public backing or support. If wind and solar actually were an economic alternative to things like coal, then power companies would be switching without any other sort of incentive, simply to save money.

Now, one could certainly make the argument (though he doesn't) that fossil fuels produce negative externalities to society, and correcting for that clean energy is actually more economic in the long run for us all. However, correcting for market failures at a national political level is definitely a "barrier" in my mind, and even more so if he thinks we can expand this to a global scale.

^This

2 years ago my wife and I both had iPhone 3Gs, but couldn't stand using AT&T. We switched to Verizon when Motorola launched the Droid. For over a year I was content with mine, but she hated hers with a passion. We ordered her an iPhone 4 the day the pre-orders went up. After two days of playing around with it myself and remembering just how much more polished of an experience iOS is, I ordered one for myself too. It's unlikely either of us will try something else within the next two years or so.

I think that there's still a niche in in this market for something that's more polished than Android, but more open than iOS. None of these devices are going to be barn burners out of the gate, but if HP can establish itself there first, with time and patience I think they could grow to a genuine contender in this market space

Ah, sorry. Didn't look at the poster and thought I was replying to BobMcD.

Most of them, at least most of the effective ones, are also illegal, as they should be.

If that was supposed to be an argument for why we shouldn't oppose entrenched interests manipulating markets through government regulation, I find it unconvincing.

If anything I think it backs up my original point, market failures necessitate corrective action by the government in order to foster efficient competitive markets.

Now, that corrective action could as often be removing existing regulation (eg: allowing open access to larger portions of the wireless spectrum) as it is adding new regulation. But I find the premise that today's telcom environment should essentially remain the satus quo pretty shaky, to say the least.

Ok, I see what you're saying there. In principle, I agree with you here. Like I said before, I'm not opposed to large corporations simply because they are large corporations, nor because they are profitable.

What I oppose is when these companies use their size and resources to distort, what would otherwise be, efficient market outcomes through our legal and political process. In the case of net neutrality, it's companies manipulating regulators so that they benefit from government mandated limitations on competition, like a utility would, but without any of the restrictions on growth or anti-competitive behavior that utilities are usually subject to.

Thanks for the clarifications. TFA had me very confused.

What do you mean "giant corporation thing"? Can you expand on that? I don't oppose all large corporations. I would argue that much of the anger against companies like Walmart and Enron is very misplaced.

What I do oppose is corporations that exert an influence on our political and legal process that is disproportionate to their role in our society and economy (eg: Tyson foods, Comcast, and various members of the RIAA/MPAA). They use our legal process to distort their respective portions of our economy away from the competitive, positive-sum, mutually beneficial markets they should be, and towards entrenched, zero-sum games that disproportionately benefit themselves.