Ethanol and Barack - The lie of the unintelligent

All you seem to hear about energy these days, is how ethanol is going to save the day followed my immeasurable cheering, and then somewhere in the background the sound of cash registers and economists calculating imminent inflation increases. Don't get me wrong ethanol itself is not a bad concept, but the use of corn based ethanol is for the lack of a better word, unintelligent.

What certain politicians fail to mention is that corn based ethanol is a net negative, and we have imposed a hefty tariff (54 cents a gallon) against Brazil's significantly cheaper sugar-based ethanol. Furthermore, the process of producing ethanol from corn actually wastes more fossil fuels than it saves. And even more interestingly, corn farming is expected to increase 10%, eliminating CO2 reducing forests. However, sugar-based ethanol is much more efficient to produce and results in less oil dependence. And guess what? We don't have to subsidize it. So to summarize, ethanol costs us in subsidies, inflation, and potential saving, and if that was not enough ethanol hurts the environment.

Now for the kicker, last year the Bush Administration attempted to remove the Ethanol Tariff, but it was blocked by a few mid-western Senators. And the leader of these senators..... One Barack Obama. But why stop there, Senator Obama is also in favor of farm subsidies , especially for corn farmers. So, Senator Obama supports protectionist domestic ethanol production , but wait, there is more . Not only does he support domestic ethanol production, but he supports reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2030 with a cap and trade policy and stricter emissions standards. Hmmm, he is in favor of oil using, pollution increasing and consumer killing ethanol, but he also wishes to reduce CO2 emmisions and stop "Global Warming." Interesting strategy he's got.

The definition of stupid: "lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity" - You decide.

Barack's Protectionist Plans

It is 2008 and the Populist voices continue to garner support. In this election it has found a strong ally in the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. Over and over, Barack Obama has criticized our current free trade policies and has claimed to advocate for the American worker, and I mean that singularly. Because protectionism does just that, it gives short term aid to the few at the expense of the many. The utilization of comparitive advantage has been proven to benefit the United States. All we have to do is look at NAFTA, which Obama has promised to repeal. Since NAFTA was ratified ten years ago, The U.S. economy has added 18 million new jobs, manufacturing output has increased by 41% (opposed to 31% in the previous ten years), and trade with Mexico has tripled.

It hard to understand why politicians such as Obama continue to advocate a strange breed of mercantilism. Will someone please get this guy some coffee because he needs to wake up to the real world, a world where competition reigns supreme, a world where America thrives under competition instead of shirking away from it.

When will candidates stop playing union games and stop advocating a dying breed? Our economy is streamlining and consumers are reaping the rewards of free trade and foreign production, yet the story of the unemployed North Carolina textile worker still captivates many, but I ask you this, who will speak for the consumer, the Wal-mart shopper, the poorest of the poor, when protectionism strips dollars away? A lot less elegant than the protectionist story, but a lot bigger impact.