Actually, i did a lot of research on those engines.

Truth is, they just don't work today because their acceleration rates are far to low.

Except... people who argue that really don't understand economics.

For the first by imposing the regulations all are you doing is shrinking the economy, and forcing companies to invest in R&D to get things back tot he baseline.  It's like if you banned full gas engines.  There would need to be new R&D to create better hybrid engines for a number of thigns incuding planes.  The economy would shrink.

For the second, employees monitoring company activites doesn't spur economic growth.  It just adds to costs, which makes the products cost more.  Monitors create no real economic value.

Plenty of governments made sure there was 100% state employment by giving jobs to every single person who wanted one even to the point of where some people would spend one day digging a hole, and spend the next day filling it up.

This didn't grow their economies at all.

I mean heck, Obama talked like that... yet suddenly when jobs were an issue he changes his tune.

Do not forget that many of the restraints that hurt MPG are caused by the government. They continually require changes in gasoline blend, prequisites of features to become road worthy, and restrict many types of vehicles.

A few examples:

1. Catalytic converters. They restrict the amount of air expelled by the motor, which causes  approximately a 10% loss in MPG.
2. Diesel regulations. Due to restrictive legislation by the US, we cannot use many diesel cars that Europe uses, such as the Ford Fiesta. It runs on diesel, and gets 65MPG. Due to said regulations, ours get about 39MPG. Additionally, before the govenment added restrictions (such as low-sulfur requirements), diesel was far more economical for the consumer, which gets far more gas efficiency per gallon for any vehicle (about 20%)... It would save us billions of barrels of oil a year.
3. Regulations/restrictions on creating new facilities for manufacturers. You can look at start-ups like Tesla, and understand that due to manufacturing restrictions in the US, additional capital is required for new product lines. This has a debilitating effect on new car innovations like the Aptera and aforementioned Tesla - both get >100 MPGe. All the while the government bails out failed companies like GM and their POS Volt hybrid. 

Again, regulations have had an adverse effect on efficency. Additionally, you can look at the cost to manufacture vehicles in the US, and labor costs that have made companies push bigger, less-efficient vehicles simply because they had to recoup union labor costs through trucks and SUVs. You can see this in the fact that non-union labor produces far more gas efficient vehicles through companies like Honda and Toyota. Even the US, now-defunct Saturn was doing a good job until they decided to kill them due to GM's bailout.

That was just an example of how it could create new jobs. If they are employing more people, those people have money to spend which spurs on the economy. 

There's no perfect solution to it all, there's positives and negatives to every method. Governments just go with the majority opinion, which is that of deregulation in the USA. Honestly don't want to go much further into this arguement as I normally just start convincing myself we're all doomed.

I think people are mixing issues here ...

Smog is harmful airborne polution that should be reduced, carbon dioxide is a harmless gas that is naturally occuring gas that plays almost no role in the climate of the earth. Politicians producing legislation to promote clean air is in the best interests of everyone, politicians producing legislation to limit carbon emmissions or create "green jobs" are creating a wealth transfer from average citizens to the corporations who financed their campaigns.

Not really doomed.  I mean global warming won't be the end of the world or anything.  Heck for countries like Canada and Russia it'd actually be a bonus.

Though yeah, the world is pretty screwed due to population growth and the emergence of developing countries.

China's economic development alone pretty much makes any global warming strategy a pipe dream.

Eh. I think that problem can be solved pretty easily. If we stopped giving food aid to Africa, Darwin would do the work for us. Additionally, if developing countries can jump some of the worst parts of industrialization through new advances in technology, it may not be as bad as you think.

I did a little research also.  Took me about a few seconds typing into Google and I came up with a few examples that show good acceleration.

A Fiero that gets 51 mpg and goes 0-60 in 6 secs.  Sounds like good enough acceleration to me.

http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/other-feature-cars/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/

This prototype goes 0-60 in 5 seconds.  "With a 10 gallon gas tank found on most vehicles, the “alé” can travel from Vancouver BC to San Francisco CA on one tank. Over 15 hours of driving without filling up." 

http://www.fuelvaporcar.com/html/the_car.html

http://www.carpictures.com/Fuel-Vapor-Technologies/Ale-92-mpg-and-0-60-in-under-5-seconds-2007-07EFB272705932

"With the increased fuel efficiency, there is a corresponding increase of power and torque. We have not conducted engine bench tests, but provide the results of 0-60 acceleration tests on a 1.4 litre Citroen BX RE:

0-60 in Seconds

Normal     with carburetor     with Carb Enh.        with
                 Enhancer                & Water Inj.         vaporizer
12              11                          10.5                         ~9

Another 0-60 test, this time with a 1989 Volkswagen Passat, 1.8 litre (1781cc), Single Point Fuel Injection (Bosch Multi-Jetronic):"

Normal      with 1                  with 2
                 vaporizer           vaporizers   
13.8            10.5                     10

http://www.lawbright.com/energy/vapor.htm

To point out the obvious, simply because something has been demonstrated in a prototype form does not mean that it is practical for widespread production ...

Look at the continuously variable transmission, it was first available in the late 1950s but due to a wide variety of issues never saw wide use; only recently, when technology has advanced enough to overcome most of these issues, has the CVT demonstrated significant value to the industry. Similarly, GM abandoned the EV1 because it cost nearly $90,000 to manufacture and GM realized that people were only willing to pay around $15,000 to $20,000 for it; and even its "successor" the Chevy Volt is remarkably unpopular even though it is about as low as GM can afford to sell it for.

Now, I don't know what the problem holding back this technology is and it could be anything from price, reliability, complexity or logistics; but if it was a viable approach, with the price of gas today you would see several car companies releasing cars using it or (if they were conspiring against you) you would see a cottage industry of modification kits from small companies.

So your proof that technology 50 and 70 years ago was held down, rather then didn't fit what people wanted and needed in a car is to show a prototype engine that isn't even fully pattented or ready for production and doesn't have a cost to it's name.

You really might wanna think about that arguement for a minute. 

Well that and the Smokey Engine.  Which never reached production because

A) The patent holders were never willing to make a deal.   Companies like GM did try and buy the engine

B) You have to tune up,  fix and replace your engine at a ridiculious rate.  What's the point of getting more miles per galong when you have to spend hundreds more on engine work?

C) Any slightest engine malfunction and the entire system goes dead on you, versus a normal engine that can run  fine when everythings not running right though with some decreased efficency.  (In the webpage you linked, while he was talking up the engine, he was honest enough to post the articles, which actually shows EXACTLY why it was never used.)

So yeah, why was an engine that needs to have tons of money spent maitnaining it and completey shuts down and strands someone when it has the slightest problem when the Patent holders weren't willing to sell unless given the moon?

The Smokey engine was never meant to be an engine for cars meant to get people through their day to day lives.  It was an engine meant for hobby drivers.  The only people who would of loved to see the Smokey engine replace regular engines are mechanics and tow truck drivers.

You MIGHT be able to get it to work today with computers and ceramics, but it'd be more expensive then full electric engines.