Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:52:49 PM
I was reading Walter William's
article on ethanol, and all the attached comments, and while all the criticisms about technical issues, costs, and so on are all perfectly valid, they all overlook one very simple argument against ethanol. If enough people wanted ethanol, it would be profitable to produce it.
Our current technology does make ethanol more expensive than gasoline, but that should not be an impediment. If the public at large were clamoring for ethanol, they would be willing to pay a premium for it, at least until the profits spurred innovation that made ethanol cost competitive, or even cheaper than gasoline. That is how the market works, if something is in demand, providers try to get it to them at a reasonable cost. If they want it badly enough, consumers even pay a premium to keep the good in circulation until prices can be reduced.
The fact that the government has to subsidize ethanol says one thing. People do not want ethanol badly enough for it to be cost effective.
In other words, though our government claims to be enacting the will of the people, in this case, it is actually circumventing the will of the people. The market expresses the popular will perfectly, and it says people don't want ethanol. As a few in the government don't think this is "the right" outcome, in other words, as they think
they know better than the general public, the government is now taking money from tax payers to subsidize something taxpayers don't want, as well as passing a law compelling producers to manufacture something consumers don't want and forcing consumers to buy something they would rather not buy.
In other words, the fact that ethanol requires subsidies and compulsion shows that rather than an expression of popular government, this is just another expression of governmental arrogance. Again, the government is saying that those who manage to hold elective office know better than the public at large what everyone should do
for their own good.
As I asked before, why do we assume holding office somehow confers greater wisdom on our law makers?