Skip to comments.Cato Scholar Comments on New Energy Bill
Posted on 12/19/2007 10:12:53 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The energy bill to be signed by the president today is arguably the worst piece of energy legislation ever enacted into law. It will substantially increase the price of automobiles, increase highway fatalities, increase fuel prices, worsen air pollution, and force consumers to buy products (like super-efficient light bulbs) that they manifestly -- and for very good reason -- do not want to buy. It will transfer huge amounts of wealth from the consumer to the farm lobby in the course of promoting a dubious product -- ethanol -- that will make energy supplies less reliable and greenhouse gas emission higher than necessary.
” I once had a 1967 Ford Galaxy 500 with a 275 HP V8 engine. It got 18 mph. My new Escape only get 18 mph and is a dinky 3.0 V6. Where is the improvement? My 500 weighed over 4400 pounds and was a boat compared to my Escape. If you don’t force Detroit to make they better. They never will.”
You clearly haven’t realized it, but this example proves the ineffectiveness of the Government meddling in the automotive industry. Look at all the requirements placed upon auto manufacturers regarding emissions, gasoline, etc. between ‘67 and your new Escape.
It’s the same reason my 289 HiPo cranks out over 300 HP with a comparatively simple to maintain carbuerated engine, but to get 300 HP now, you have to be an engineer to maintain the car yourself, or pay out the nose to have it done for you.
Improvements in fuel economy will result in people driving more. Improvements in lighting efficiency will result in people using/wasting more light. In general, making something cheaper will cause people to use more. While improving energy efficiency may be good for other reasons, it will generally not be very good at reducing energy consumption.
Exactly. It’s human nature. I forget what my point is, but I agree with you 100%
Does that mean we end all farm subsidies?
I would certainly hope so. Subsidies lower the price of our food, inducing fatties (like me) to eat more.
You don’t understand how farm subsidies work.
There is a old saying that says never argue with fools........
Well spoken. Boondoggles are the most likely result of these mandates. A boondoggle is a wasted investment. The push in the 1990s for low earth satellite technology to provide high speed internet service was a boondoggle. Private industry makes wrong bets but private capital is at stake, not public tax dollars. Private industry boondoggles are terminated and future investors learn from the failures. Unfortunately, government boondoggles never end. Instead of terminating them, more tax revenue is directed towards them. Here are some government boondoggles:
- Social security: a generational Ponzi scheme
- Medicare: a generational Ponzi scheme
- Medicaid: creeping universal insurance
- Farm subsidies: the power of sparsely populated farm states in the US Senate
- Flood insurance: making the rest pay for risky home choices
- Space station: what has been accomplished other than to subsidize the Russian space program?
With this new energy bill, you can add ethanol mandates and bio fuel mandates. If the rats get their way, you can add renewable mandates.
How come? Are these subsidies that incentivize the farmers NOT to grow food?
OK, explain it to me, smartass.
That’s what I’m trying to get at. Who says some subsidies don’t incentivize farmers to grow more (and, therefore, cheaper) food for the domestic market? (Although I wouldn’t know it, judging by the prices for apples that I’ve seen up until recently.)
One truly grotesque example of the agricultural subsidies is to corn farmers. This makes it cheaper for manufacturers of soft drinks, candy, bread, etc. to use high-fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, which, due to its coming from a protected class of growers, has been made higher in price by this protectionism. If I understand correctly, HFCS contributes to obesity big-time and is pure poison for diabetics.
And I am aware that price supports are a form of subsidy in themselves, since they make their products more expensive than they’d otherwise be. Only we subsidize these farmers through our purchases rather than our taxes.
Have you read the links I provided to you? The data show that they increase prices for the domestic market.
*** DIE, CORPORATE SCUM!!! ***
-Most people prefer to have the option and availability of dimming their lights in their homes in the evening. Dimmer switches are very popular, especially in the living and dining rooms.
Dimmer switches don’t work on fluorescent light bulbs, in fact aren't allowed.
Anyone with half a brain understands this amenity.
-and anyone who isn't a socialist-busybody-control freak, agrees with the individual's right to continue to use incandescent light bulbs, if they so desire. Most people do desire that, for the express reasons I mentioned above. But you clearly don't understand that, and that makes YOU: A dumbass.
Mr. Taylor writes well about economics. The problem with this bill is that it is a central plan just like the kind the Soviet Politburo used to issue. We all know how successful the Soviet central plans were. This bill will lead to boondoggles and not solve any problems.
By definition, rats are economic midgets. I find it shocking that Bush and conservatives to supported this mess.