Is government policy bad for you?

Browsing news sites this morning, I came across these headlines:

• Senate Proposes Ethanol Incentives
• Ethanol to fuel record corn price
• Consumer Price Index up 0.4% in February
• Gas, food prices hit consumers
• CDC: Few Americans meet fruit, veggie guidelines
• Red fruit and vegetables are beneficial to health

My conclusion?  The Senate is not beneficial to your health.

See, economics is easy. 

Comments

[John Whitehead]

Awesome post!

[odograph]

Pretty cool, but the links need a little work.

Are ethanol subsidies another example of our all-carrot-no-stick energy policy? Sad that a debt-happy nation tries to spend its way out of this.

Your gas tax, were it possible, would be a good antidote, but we as a society are oh so far from there.

[Tim HaabT]

Hmmmm...that's strange. They all worked a little bit ago. Now I have to track them all down again.

[Mark C R UK]

You know - I am coming to the conclusion that rather than subsidies/incentives ...

The money would be better spent on new technologies to a)improve the energy balance and b)reduce the environmental footprint: of ethanol and other biofuels...

i.e. drive the development of the associated technologies that have further spin offs.

Alternatively - we're going to have this "yaaa boo" ethanol merry-go-round for all eternity!

Only this way are the farmers going to be kept happy and the activists too.

[Mark C R UK]

I know you're trying to prove the "six degrees of seperation" thingy.

But I don't get the last one - Red fruit and veggies??? And ethanol???

[odograph]

Mark, I posted a but when I stumbled across an article co-written by someone from the Cato Institute and someone from the Sierra Club(!):

http://odograph.com/?p=103

My take away, which I pretty much still believe, is that while research monies are a good risk, production subsidies are very bad.

It's unfortunate the degree to which our monies go to subsidizing production.

[J.S.]

I love it. Great line of reasoning and in fact, sadly true.

[Mark C R UK]

Well maybe leave plenty in the pot to help implementation of the energy projects also...?

By that I mean establish the genuine self-sufficiency of the projects themselves? i.e. to the point that they are cushioned from market or political "shocks"...

Or am I being incredibly naive here?

[joshua corning]

My take away, which I pretty much still believe, is that while research monies are a good risk, production subsidies are very bad.

5 bucks says odegraph's pay check is cut from grant money.

and another 5 bucks on the rational for ethanol subsidies coming from federally funded research.

[odograph]

LOL, I help sell Hummers!

(i'm a semi-retired engineer, now helping to build dealer websites of all types)

[odograph]

As I focus more seriously, aren't _production_ subsidies the lion's share of our ethanol cost? Did I hear something like $1.50 per gallon all-told, to corn farmers and ethanol blenders?

I would think that authentic research monies vanish into insignificant details under the current regime.

[JT]

This is great. Not to mention the amount of petroleum needs for the pesticides for the large corn crops in a part of the country where underground water reservoir is quickly drying up. But those things don't fit into the humor of the moment.

[Eric H]

Is government policy bad for you?

[tongueincheek]Well, duh.[/tongueincheek]

And this also says, "The Table lists 831 thousand people killed by free -- democratic -- governments, which should startle most readers."

Seriously, though, your post points out the fact that biomass fuels may imply a food/fuel tradeoff. The exceptions are for those biomass fuels that use waste such as fuel made from cellulose (chaff) or from algae grown in wastewater treatment ponds. We therefore have politicians and bureaucrats picking inefficient winners and demonstrating that private actors are not the only ones with bias and government failures also exist.

[Mark C R UK]

I have an issue with free-market economics taken to extreme.

There always has to be the unseen hand that ensures certain self-interests don't decimate others.

I see the usual biomass-detractors take up their short term viewpoint again.

Without any knowledge of the impact of forthcoming technological developments.

This is why I say the economists SHOULD talk to the scientists - so we avoid some of the conspiracy talk above!

[odograph]

BusinessWeek has an article online today, covering the same subjects:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070316_016207.htm

[odograph]

huh, try again

[Mark C R UK]

Yes but Odo... you realise that article is itself guity of short-termism...

No mention of Cellulosic ethanol... no mention of biobutanol...

Its too much about individual groups... like chicks in the nest - screaming "me too".
Lets go back to the diversion of funds to R&D? Like we mentioned above.

Incidentally, - the BBC are showing a three part series on "The Trap: what happened to our dreams of freedom" - all about economics and game theory.

Not bad for a tv documentary, which sometimes make outrageous claims. Some of the topics in this were interesting.

I'm seeing some parallels in this debate.

But does this "self-interest" make good policy? Especially in this area. I think not.

Both the for and against subsidies groups... always seem to neglect technical issues / future developments.