If by subsidize you mean 'tax less' then perhaps yes. But why such an apologist for the government on this issue? E85 was introduced in the 1990s and there were major refiners in that decade that experimented with blending ethanol as an oxygenator in gasoline. The only problem -- it frequently lead to vapor lock. Righteous thinking.
What are you referring to? I think I've made pretty clear by the thread title that I think ethanol is a terrible idea.
Yes Major. GPS and oil only exists because of subsidizes. Good grief.... wth does that even mean? their value is only because of a subsidy? Oils value is because it has enormous energy density.
Do you even know what a subsidy is or the history of either of these things? The entire oil industry is heavily subsidized. Even ignoring the traditional subsidies, the US government spends many, many billions of dollars to create stability in the Middle East primarily so that US companies can go make money on oil drilling. These companies wouldn't be drilling oil if not for the government paying for their security. The entire infrastructure of GPS is provided by the government - everything from the original research to the satellites to the launch vehicles to the maintenance of the network. The iPhone wouldn't have Google Maps if not for tons of government money. According to Commodore, this means that all of these things have no value whatsoever.
sure they have value, as ethanol does, just not at the inflated prices subsidies create Milk has value, but if you mandate everyone drink a glass a day, you'll inflate the price above it's market value. Same for ethanol mandates. You inflate the price of corn above its value by creating an artificial demand with other people's money via subsidies.
disagree, here's Reagan sounding like a member of the Tea Party at 5:15 <iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KDHoSl_PFTI#t=5m15s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
you don't understand what the word 'value' means. You think a GPS has no value because it was once subsidized? wtf? you think oil has no value if it wasn't subsidized? wtf?
That was the claim Commodore made that I responded to - perhaps you should pay more attention? the fallacy is debating the merits of ethanol period if it had value, you wouldn't need to subsidize it, people would pay for it BTW, GPS is still completely subsidized. Apple gets to use the GPS network that is provided and paid for by the US government and charge people for products that they otherwise couldn't offer. Virtually every piece of technology we buy is subsidized by the US government (GPS, internet, etc). We subsidize all sorts of things in this country, if we feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and if it creates new industries or inspires new technology. The idea that ethanol is bad because it's subsidized alone is silly - unless you're going to argue that for everything from oil to GPS. The reason ethanol is bad is because the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
And please feel free to expound on your claim that GPS doesn't only exist because of government subsidy. This should be entertaining.
The "tea party?" Don't make me laugh. Reagan said in the clip you posted that (paraphrasing) "government is not the solution to our problems -- government is the problem." He said the same thing at his first inaugural address in January, 1981. What is typically overlooked by your "tea party" is what he said next, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back." Hardly the words of someone dismissive of government, like the "tea party." Government spending? Reagan more than doubled defense spending in 5 years. I'll repeat that. He more than doubled defense spending from 1980 to 1985, with spending increasing from $142.6 billion to $286.8 billion. Simply a gigantic increase in government spending by a supposed opponent of government spending. The Federal budget deficit doubled during his time in office. Don't want to hear such things from me? How about that icon of liberalism, Jeb Bush: "Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground." http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/15/Why-Ronald-Reagan-Would-Not-Lead-Todays-GOP Want more? Here's a quote from President Ronald Reagan on September 3, 1981, and from the same source: “Collective bargaining…has played a major role in America's economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere.” As the former head of a labor union, the comment was hardly surprising, but might surprise members of the "tea party." Reagan was also an ardent follower of Franklin Roosevelt, voting for him 4 times. A quote from the same source: “F. D. R. was an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times.” Two more tidbits of information from The Fiscal Times: As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest state tax increase in history up to that time. It increased California taxes by a third, including an increase in the top income tax rate. There were other tax increases as well, which raised the top rate to 11 percent from 7 percent when he took office, a 57 percent increase. • Also as governor, Reagan signed into law California’s first law permitting legal abortion – at the behest of his two most conservative advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger. On other social issues as well, Gov. Reagan was far more progressive than his image. For example, he authorized conjugal visits for prisoners for the first time in the state and broadened environmental protection. Still enjoying that tea, Commodore?
I know where I worked there was pressure to keep selling the producers natural gas despite clear ineffectiveness. Late payments,etc. They are just farmers pitching in and setting up plants.
In an alternate universe, I can see us being glad for an ethanol fuel industry to provide domestic energy when perhaps our enemies abroad were able to cut us off. But, then the shale revolution happened and our options for a domestic source of emergency self-reliance got a lot better. I'm glad to see it go, but I'm not sure I'd say it was a terrible idea from the start. It caused problems and we ended up not needing it, but we could have needed it.
Hey it was sold as a good idea, but proved to be stupid. Get rid of any subsidy or requirements for ethanol.
I think there are still a lot of questions about fracking and resistance to it is rising as production is vastly growing. It is very possible that 10 years from now we could still see a need for biofuels like ethanol.
interesting tidbit as well, as this seems to be a common theme in the thread: Fracking was subsidized by the federal government as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States
