Could the end be near for ethanol? I hope so

[bull]

 
Then why did we create anti-trust laws a century ago?  That's just the govt restricting the free market. 

Creating laws is what it's supposed to be doing, not limiting valid choices and trying to implement/run programs already being handled by the free market. Limiting choices to only that which a government runs or allows (rather than what much of the public wants) sounds a lot like a monopoly does it not? The very thing anti trust laws are supposed to protect us from, right? Oh, I forgot, government-blessed monopolies are ok. Anyone with a gas powered classic car, boat, motorcycle, edger, leaf blower, etc., is having problems right now due to this lobbyist/government ethanol boondoggle that's been shoved down our throats. Sounds a lot like Obamacare BTW.

Also if you read my post above I think it's plain that I do not advocate a total absence of government, which is the corner you seem to want to paint me into. I advocate a balance and right now regarding this issue and others there is not much balance toward free market and consumer choice.

[Tilar]

The EPA is not changing much of anything. Instead of the new mandates they had planned on going into effect, they are actually going back to 2012 rates. Not much different than they are now.

[Mike DC]

Creating laws is what it's supposed to be doing, not limiting valid choices and trying to implement/run programs already being handled by the free market. Limiting choices to only that which a government runs or allows (rather than what much of the public wants) sounds a lot like a monopoly does it not? The very thing anti trust laws are supposed to protect us from, right? Oh, I forgot, government-blessed monopolies are ok. Anyone with a gas powered classic car, boat, motorcycle, edger, leaf blower, etc., is having problems right now due to this lobbyist/government ethanol boondoggle that's been shoved down our throats. Sounds a lot like Obamacare BTW.

Also if you read my post above I think it's plain that I do not advocate a total absence of government, which is the corner you seem to want to paint me into. I advocate a balance and right now regarding this issue and others there is not much balance toward free market and consumer choice.

I was responding to several posts with my question.


Of course I agree that a govt which serves as a henchman to aid an industry's monopoly is not a valid restriction of the free market.  And we have far too much of that. 

But at the same time, consumers having a choice between two products that both have artificially adjusted prices (govt subsidies & taxes) is not valid either.  People have a habit of crying for "free market" pure gasoline that our govt artificially renders to be a fraction of its realistic cost.  Neither ethanol nor gasoline itself is priced "fairly".  The govt is stepping in at numerous stages of the process with these substances to artificially alter their prices using taxpayer money. 

Is this a bad thing?  Not necessarily.  Many big industries cost society a lot of things indirectly.  Somebody has to step in and tax/regulate that stuff . . . which brings us all back to having public debates about what the correct price of something should be, instead of "letting the free market work."


I'm basically against putting ethanol in gasoline.  But I also don't think the issue is as simple as "tell the stupid incompetent govt to butt out!"

[FlatbackFanatic]

They're starting to sell E15 and E30 around here. (MN)

[bull]

I was responding to several posts with my question.


Of course I agree that a govt which serves as a henchman to aid an industry's monopoly is not a valid restriction of the free market.  And we have far too much of that.  

But at the same time, consumers having a choice between two products that both have artificially adjusted prices (govt subsidies & taxes) is not valid either.  People have a habit of crying for "free market" pure gasoline that our govt artificially renders to be a fraction of its realistic cost.  Neither ethanol nor gasoline itself is priced "fairly".  The govt is stepping in at numerous stages of the process with these substances to artificially alter their prices using taxpayer money.  

Is this a bad thing?  Not necessarily.  Many big industries cost society a lot of things indirectly.  Somebody has to step in and tax/regulate that stuff . . . which brings us all back to having public debates about what the correct price of something should be, instead of "letting the free market work."


I'm basically against putting ethanol in gasoline.  But I also don't think the issue is as simple as "tell the stupid incompetent govt to butt out!"

I understand the taxation and regulation part of it but it's gone well beyond that with this ethanol thing. Government will never "butt out" but you'd think at some point, maybe even accidentally, it would listen to reason rather than lobbyst salesmen. Some 90+ organizations like AAA continue to warn the government about not only E10 but the proposed E15 bump but instead of listening the EPA plugs its ears and yells "la la la!" We've got a problem and it's not just a screw your engine up problem but also a hearing problem from a government that is supposed to be for the people and by the people. On top of the law it passed requiring the current E10 blend the government is also spending $6 billion a year in subsidies to have the stuff mixed in. So yeah, not only does it force it to happen but it gives the crooks our money to make a product that screws up our property. That's what government seems to do best though; pour money it doesn't have into things that don't work.

[Ghoste]

I wonder if the EPA had existed in 1776 if they would have been granted such power.  They don't seem to have much check and balance in their mandate.

[Mike DC]

 
No way would the EPA have been like this.  Nor the DEA, the IRS, nor the DoE, or any number of other departments.  And our military would have scared them shitless at 1/4th of this size.  And they would have found the Federal Reserve very troubling as well. 

[JB400]

I believe the founding fathers would be highly disappointed in the way the U.S. is run today.  So much so, that I think the Constitution would have been scrapped or heavily modified to establish checks and balances on the EPA (and other gov. agencies).  I think the only one that would really enjoy himself in today's day and age is Benjamin Franklin.

As far as our energy needs, unfortunately, I think it'll end up being a regional thing.  I say the Midwest will end up mostly ethanol, while those on the coasts will probably be more reliant on hydrogen powered cars.  The central U.S. doesn't have the water resources to grow food, support a population, and also turn into fuel for cars.

Ghoste, your message box is full

[myk]

The Founding Fathers would shoot themselves with their own muskets.  I say muskets because along with the violation and habitual infringement of the 2nd Amendment, the modern version of government no longer represents the will of the people, nor does it allow the people to oppose it when and if it's deemed necessary.  The Founding Fathers fought, bled and died to create a nation that was not only independent but responsible to the common citizens that comprised of that nation, but not anymore.  Modern government will make sure that we all live the way they think we should; damn us all by taxation, fees or incarceration if we choose not to agree...

[charge69]

Unfortunately,  I agree with myk and fear the end of my beloved Republic is near. 4 years in the Marine Corps and 19 months in Vietnam for what ?  I grow more weary and embarrassed by what our government has become every day !!