It's my opinion that bringing the government into the free market doesn't make much sense at all. Federal bailouts (Chrysler), subsidies, etc. don't make any sense to me. Just let the market work. If a company is really making such a crappy, unwanted product, let them deal with it. The government has put a lot of backing behind ethanol, and as a result the process hasn't improved at all and now corn prices have skyrocketed worldwide. And this is for a fuel that uses a key food ingredient, and it takes 1700 gallons of water and one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol itself. The government cannot manage an industry and doesn't have the slightest idea how to improve it.
If the government wants to get involved, give companies incentives to improve over the long run. Something like "If you can increase efficiency by X amount by 2015, the government will reward with with X amount of dollars." Ethanol production is going nowhere in this country in terms of efficiency because the companies don't really have the motive to improve. They know the government is behind them, what else do they need? So first and foremost, I'd let the market work. Bring back nuclear energy, have some environmental regulations, but blocking off safe sources of energy that are reliable is not smart at all.
The housing market is fine. Some will feel the pinch, unfortunately, but that is how things work. People have known for awhile that the housing market was going to correct; if you have the largest run-up in housing since the Great Depression you're bound to have a correction. End of story.
The global warming issue is turning into more than just an educational issue. The U.N. is using it as a tool to gain global government and use rich nations (i.e. the U.S.) to pay the poorer nations who know they can't cap industry emissions without completely destroying their economies. If global warming wasn't a political issue; fine. But it is a political issue and all it is going to cost us is more tax dollars. Politicians have proposed bills to cap emissions, tax carbon-outputting businesses, which would indirectly raise energy prices by a hefty amount for all Americans. Again, the government messing with industry and rising taxes on something the politicians
think is bad is not bound to turn out well. I'd prefer the industry experts, developers, etc. do what they feel is right rather than politicians in Washington. Instead of increasing government control and regulation to destroy coal energy, why not use incentives and let the companies have a chance? There are plenty of new and developing technologies that greatly increase the efficiency and cleanliness of coal mining. Give the market a chance and use government incentives if you really want quick results. Increasing regulation will only lead to more friction and higher costs for the business and consumer.
If the market goes the direction of environmentally-friendly, then I'm all for it. Companies like Chipotle and Whole Foods are creating markets largely based of their eco-friendly focus. Companies are doing what they can do and it certainly looks like a market is developing. But again, let the market do its thing. If solar is such a great thing, why does the government have to give massive refunds? Because solar panels are still very costly to produce and purchase. Personally, I feel if we brought back nuclear energy, cleaned up coal a bit, and let oil businesses develop eco-friendly technologies to extract shale and deep-sea oil, we'd be fine. Our economy would improve from the great influx of energy jobs, our energy prices would drop which would greatly lessen pressure on the consumer, and we'd actually have a diversified portfolio of energy here at home. All of those things can be done with a pretty small impact on the environment, and if the government were to use incentives the companies would be all the more motivated. I think that's the way to do things. Don't increase government control, let the markets work and the government encourage certain industries. See what the markets do best with. E85 would immediately sink if the government were to stop backing it. That's because it doesn't save any oil, is very expensive, and isn't as efficient as gasoline. Plus, you need a special vehicle to use the stuff.
I'm a small government guy. If we brought federal spending to where it was 10 years ago, we wouldn't need the income tax. Government programs continue to cost billions of taxpayer dollars yet the quality continues to sink further and further into a hole. Our K-12 education system is down in the dumps compared to the rest of the world, yet our college system brings in smart kids from all around the world. Why is that? Not many people ask that question. I feel it's largely because it's a system based on choice and the schools have competition to deal with. The quality of college education is very high because the schools have to compete to bring in students and have the more attractive product. Public schools don't have to deal with this, and that's why the quality of the education there continues to drop while the cost continues to rise. Free market and competition will drive costs down and drive the quality of a product up. Cut the size of government, lower taxes (which would stimulate the economy greatly) both on individuals and businesses, and I think the economy would do among the best it's ever done. Have you ever realized that there will be a time when a company reports great results because of a one-time lower tax rate? Think of what would happen if you lowered the corporate tax rate for good. If the government could successfully lower spending and lower taxes (which has rarely been the case), I think the economy would do very well. I don't feel government pressure helps industries and the way the government's been trying to push industries forward isn't working.
Tags:
coal, energy, free market, global warming, government, incentives, oil, regulation, tax
Posted at: 07:21 AM | Add Comment
| 
| 
del.icio.us