No mortal being knows tomorrow as well as he knows yesterday, but that doesn’t stop very many from predicting the future anyway—sometimes suggesting a measure of scientific precision by offering excruciating detail. Nobody knows what 2023’s GDP growth will be, nor what the temperature will be on Christmas Day in Chicago, but you can bet that plenty of people will be happy to throw some numbers at you.
Every time government officials choose to subsidize an industry or handicap another, they pretend to know more about the future than they really do. Economists call it “picking winners and losers,” and it notoriously flops. And why should we expect otherwise? People who invest their own money, and have every incentive to invest it well, frequently make mistakes. People who gamble with other people’s money and bear few if any consequences for error will surely make even more mistakes. This is not rocket science.
A century ago, Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society declared that “radio has no future,” just as the world went crazy for radios.
I don’t intend in this essay to produce a list of forecasting failures, whether from the government or the private sector. Volumes have already been written on the subject. My task is far more modest—namely, to share with readers one interesting example that occurred barely 200 years ago.
On Aug. 5, 1816, Sir John Barrow delivered the British Admiralty’s stunning verdict. Ronalds’s invention was “wholly unnecessary,” he said. His Majesty’s military would continue to communicate via semaphore (signal flags and the like), as it had for centuries.
That was temporarily bad news for Ronalds, but good news for the telegraph. If the British government had become involved and thrown public money at it, it might have jeopardized the future growth and competitiveness of an industry that took off on its own. Commercialization of the telegraph blossomed in the 1840s, in response to market demands instead of political decisions.
“Cave Johnson, the Postmaster General, argued that the use of the telegraph ’so powerful for good or evil, cannot with safety be left in the hands of private individuals uncontrolled.‘ Only the government, Johnson concluded, could be trusted to operate the telegraph in ’the public interest.’”
Johnson’s assessment proved dead wrong. After two years, Congress tired of the losses and privatized the line. Entrepreneurs figured out how to make it profitable and quickly turned the telegraph into a national, then international, enterprise.
Ronalds fared quite well in spite of the Admiralty’s judgment. He became a wealthy man and one of the world’s most respected scientists of the day. Known even in his lifetime as the “father of electric telegraphy,” he made immense contributions to civil and mechanical engineering, meteorology, and early camera technology. At the age of 82, he was knighted by Queen Victoria, in part for the invention the British Admiralty rejected more than a half century before.