I'm not a fan of ethanol subsidies personally. Funding for research into cellulosic ethanol, sure, but corn-based ethanol subsidies have more to do with the Iowa caucus than any real energy policy.

As for your analogy, you'd have to add in how most people need to burn a candle every day for their job, and candle prices skyrocketing to where it's putting strain on people's ability to buy food for their family.

Given that, I'd welcome the government using economic policy to try to help develop alternatives, like electric lightbulbs, even if I didn't believe that burning so many candles might wreck the world's climate.

You really should read some non-rightwing positions on oil drilling, because you really have to obfuscate the facts to get anyone to believe it's a solution.

There's 68 million acres leased to oil companies now for oil drilling, and they're not drilling. The lead time isn't the ridiculous timeframes that they've been feeding McCain, it's 7 years at least -- they've never gotten an offshore platform operational in less time than that. Even once it's online, it's barely a trickle of oil they could pump each day compared to world supply (because price is set on global supply and demand, not U.S. only), and might, at best, drop the price of gas would drop by $0.03...in 2030 once production had fully ramped up.

Don't believe me? Read this report from the Bush DOE on the topic.

As for speculation, that only recently became legal, through the "Enron-loophole", created by then-Senator Phil Gramm (who became McCain's chief economic adviser). If speculation is the main/only cause, then we should repeal the law that opened the loophole.

As for the recent drop in oil, again, only the Republican pundits claim that they're the ones who made price drop by talking about drilling. Most reports say it's the poor economic situation, and the fact that gasoline is finally starting to show price elasticity (in other words, people are using less because it's so expensive), that predicted demand is being downgraded slightly, resulting in a lower speculative price.

Even the White House refrained from taking credit for the drop in price, and pointed to the drop in demand as the primary cause, though they don't seem to be falling over themselves to take credit for the high prices and wrecked economy for some reason.

As for changing positions once in office, which President did that? The only one I've known who's gone from moderate to extreme partisan post-election is George W. Bush. Every other President has more or less stayed true to their campaign, or more commonly became more moderate once in office, like Bush's dad.

As for opposition to Healthcare, I expect it to come from the Republican party, but I expect them to realize, they oppose it at their own peril.

Not ethanol subsidies by themselves, but the major intervention in the market did break some things. Government action was pretty heavy handed here. The examples from your economist perspectives are bit more common sense related. I am referring more to outright market manipulation like demanding the switch to fuel alternatives that aren't ready yet. It is almost on par with demanding people switch from candlelight to light bulbs before the framework is even in place to have electricity for everyone. On top of already increasing problems with oil speculation and rising prices, we have made no solid moves towards providing our own oil while we end up making corn an energy commodity. Instead of seeking ways to increase supply of what is in demand, we start talking fluff about switching to alternatives that either don't work or don't exist in a functional capacity. How about working on that while actually providing what the market demands in the mean time? Even the mere mention of possibly attempting to drill for ourselves caused prices to temporarily drop while speculators worried. Attempts to force an inefficient fuel source into the mainstream causes even more problems. Farmers trying to collect the money being offered rotated out standard food crops like wheat and rice in favor of corn. Massive amounts of corn were allocated to ethanol production cutting into what used to be used to food and exporting. Natural causes wiped out another significant portion in Iowa. Now you've got the US, who is a major corn exporter in the world, unable to provide the exports it once handled. Food riots start breaking out around the world in areas where food prices are rising. While all this is happening, we are still required by law to produce even more of this stuff. So I don't expect prices to come down anytime soon. There is actually a good sift here on the subject.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ethanol-Silly-Senator-Corn-is-for-Food

As for the health care plans, I suppose we'll see when he actually moves to implement it. I doubt he will get a real universal plan through without opposition. Also, if past attempts by Democrats are any indication, the things he proposes in a moderate tone are only for election time. The real policies and tax plans shine through once they are elected.

Glad to hear you're staying clear of McCain. I understand why you're thinking both parties are the same, but I think you need to look at the diversity and moderation within the Democratic party (as well as examine the netroots and what they're about) before writing them off as antithetical. It's not like we're a bunch of dirty hippies, or communists or something.

As for economists calling for regulation of the market, here's an article from the economist, and another from the WSJ.

For health care, it's more doctors & some large businesses calling for it, but here's a non-partisan analysis of both healthcare plans. For economics, there's this site, and it's analysis of the universal health care plans around the world.

BTW, Obama's plan isn't to force everyone onto Medicare, it's to make Medicare available to everyone at a competitive price. He isn't even calling for a health insurance mandate for adults, just one for children.

To me, Obama's plan is essentially one I'd expect from the conservative party in the U.S., assuming they were moderates and not extremists.

As for ethanol subsidies, that's pretty darned silly to accuse that of having broken the market, when most of the strife is being caused by inflation, sagging wages, and investment companies overextending themselves in the unregulated mortgage-backed securities market. If you're just talking about food prices, they are high because diesel costs 4x what it used to, and because there were a lot of crop failures this year, not solely because the subsidy has diverted some corn to being used as automotive fuel.

Mostly I'm trying to point out that extremist conservative/libertarian economic philosophy is not one that all economists adopt, and that there's a whole school of thought out there that advocates a mix of free market and government solutions.

Thanks for the downvote quantumrougy. I can always count on you to perform predictably and bring the insults. Using your logic, concepts of protecting human life seem to escape you libs. This is why it is still a debate. Is it really all about a woman's right to choose when there is a seperate life growing inside her? When do we start to recogize that there is a baby in there? The issue gets clouded even further when someone murders a pregnant woman and charges come up for double homicide. Is it homicide now because she didn't choose to do it herself? I do agree it isn't some flippant decision woman make, but that doesn't make it right. You see things just as black and white as those "fat-headed cons" you love to hate, only from another extreme. Also, the question Obama was asked wasn't if he is for abortion or not. It was at what point does a baby get human rights, which he took the safe politcal road and didn't answer.

NetRunner, my choice never included McCain. I've never supported him and he is not even a true conservative. The closest to that I suppose was Ron Paul. A lot of Republicans probably won't even vote for McCain this election helping Obama to the win. In regards to the surge, Obama removed his previous statements of objection from his website. Changed his statements to acknowledge that violence had decreased. Used that to ramp up calls for troops to be moved to Afghanistan. Then finally said he would still be against the surge if he had the choice again just on principle of opposing Bush. I suppose "professing success" was not the way to put it. More like taking credit for success of things he has opposed and thought would fail.

Civil rights candidates have historically had a good crop of Republicans. It just seems that Republicans today are just as much for big government as the Democrats. Both sides of our craptacular two party system are becoming more and more alike in many ways. They pander and lie until they probably can't even remember what they stand for anymore. I also think that for all the anti-war blustering from the Democrats, they have no intention of taking any serious action. Obama will probably draw down troops, but not bring about a complete withdrawl. Hell, a big withdrawl is already being discussed by the oh so hated Bush administration as violence has substantially decreased, the Iraqi Army is mostly trained, and almost all of the 16 goals set for their government have been met.

As far as universal health care is concerned, I've been through the VA. If the government makes civilian health care anything like that we're boned. This is the way I see if from both my experience with a government controlled health care system, and hearing from relatives that have lived in both Canada and England. If you have the government take over the health care industry, you will cause a string of problems over time. The overall quality of doctors and care will start to decrease as it no longer pays to spend all that time and money on medical school. You will have incredibly long wait times for care. Right now you've got people coming in from Canada just so they can get treatment for something they'd be waiting endlessly for under a national healthcare system. Free hospitals crowd with people looking for attention over meaningless problems like stubbed toes and colds delaying people with real troubles. In a government controlled system, I was given improper vaccinations, put on waiting lists that were many months long, and could hardly ever see a doctor. A friend of mine can no longer move his right hand up and down after a doctor in a national healthcare system finally saw him for a broken arm a whole day after it had happend, then set it improperly. The short version is in my opinion that nationalized healthcare = turning hospitals into the DMV. If the system was instituted in a way that offers the option for people with no other choice, but leaves the private system in tact that might be better.

Also, I'd like to see which economists are calling for more government regulation of the market. Especially since this has always proven to cause problems in the past. Like what happened when they decided to promote corn based Ethanol, set production quotas, and subsidies. Whoops, we broke the market. *shrug*

Also, the "innovation" of the gasoline burning car came from the private sector, (and the ban on marijuana which makes good ethanol)... and Windows 95 came from the private sector, so i reckon you have to be careful when lauding the private sector's "innovations".

I think one could make a case for the gasoline fired internal combustion engine being been one of the most short-sighted and detrimental inventions of the last century...however its adoption is not a criticism of the free market, it is a criticism of our societal values--and a clear indicator of the extent of our current moral bankruptcy.

^i agree... except that artistic creativity is incompatible with the free market and needs protection. and there's many other caveats, like national defence. And who wants to live in a society that lets people die horribly just because they "chose" not to buy health insurance? etc.

Also, the "innovation" of the gasoline burning car came from the private sector, (and the ban on marijuana which makes good ethanol)... and Windows 95 came from the private sector, so i reckon you have to be careful when lauding the private sector's "innovations".

Ethanol is a government-subsidized racket. Subsidy addiction.

Climate change has been happening ever since there was a climate. Hucksters demanding more Big Government and higher taxes have latched onto weather, manufacturing a false crisis since all other attempts to seize power have been thwarted (so far). Power addiction.

There's an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil off US coasts and in ANWR, more oil than in the entire Middle East, which can be tapped and on the market in 2 to 8 years. But greenvangelicals and taxocrats aren't having any of that.

It's not an oil addiction, it's the people's addiction to Big Government to solve every problem great and small.

If you want more and cheaper oil, get government out of the way.
If you want alternative sources of energy, get government out of the way.

Stop letting the lunatics run the asylum.

Ethanol is the biggest Gaffe in the fuel industry in history. HUGE MISTAKE. Science does NOT support ethanol fuel.

The wrong thing to take away from this is that McCain being an idiot neo-con automatically makes the Democrats being the right answer. The fact is, both parties have blocked nuclear for thirty years, and the bulk of Democrats voted AGAINST drilling for the past ten. If they HAD voted back then, we would be experiencing lower prices NOW. You can't perpetually use the "we only take seriously immediate answers" strategy with peak oil around the corner and no practical immediate solution. Last time I checked, we still need gas, deisel, and jet fuel in the interim. It's kind of impossible to run an airplane on solar panels. Government's best idea this whole time? Appropriate money from its citizens and give that money to big corn companies under idealist socialist subsidy bills for ethanol. That made people less able to afford investments in alternatives, it raised the price of corn and everything that eats corn negating fuel savings, and lastly did nothing to reduce emissions since it takes almost as much energy to create ethanol as you get from it. BRILLIANT! And you idiots keep electing these people to intervene in the market. Why? Elect a libertarian or something this time for christ's sake, neither of these parties knows how to do anything but collude with big businesses and sling mud at each other for political power.

And even though I freaking hate McCain, the stupid lady in this video has no idea how markets work. The market is very emotional, it prices in what it thinks politicians are going to do in the future. Just the ANNOUNCEMENT of drilling would be enough to alleviate prices a certain amount, you don't necessarily have to wait years for an effect. And yes, stupid woman, that oil shouldn't necessarily go to Americans. It's called free trade. We import 70% of our oil right now, how would we like it if other countries nationalized theirs you stupid bitch? We'd have chaos. The way you win the global bidding contest for this finite resource is to preserve the value of your currency. You can't do that with a central bank, no gold standard, and bunch of spendthrift socialists under any part name who can't resist the temptation to inflate. Even now, they're trying to prop up an artificially high market (created by the central bank, btw) that needs to collapse and reallocate to something that's actually exportable (unlike housing and services), because that's the only thing a weak currency is good for. It's the equivalent of giving someone who's high more shots instead of letting them go through withdrawal. We're going to kill the patient (the dollar) with either option. Pick your poison, they'll both do it.

Wood, the fuel of the past future!

If using the entire empty land mass of the US to grow the trees & brush needed only produces 60% of the gasoline requirements, one wonders where the other 40% comes from. Better than corn-ethanol, but not even close to a solution.

I am determined to remain on the fence until more information is provided.

I salute your willingness to explore both sides of the man-made GW non-issue, but just as with the ethanol disaster foisted on the people, the Chicken Littles are trying to push through totalitarian legislation before anyone has a chance to question it. Framing the billions-year-old climate as a time-sensitive crisis should raise all kinds of common sense alarms.

It would be nice if the free market did the work via competition instead of government idiots subsidizing ethanol and other unworkables.

Jay Leno agrees and wants all the fuel sources to fight it out.

Bzzzt, Brazil is free from OPEC due to heavy use of ethanol, and while they did need to increase oil production too, that wasn't the biggest factor.

Brazil has 2/3 the population of the U.S., but produces less than 1/4 the oil we do, and they're independent.

My guess is in addition to ethanol, they also do more conservation than we do. Wouldn't be hard, we hardly do any of that, even with $4/gal gas.

*lies

I'm betting on electric, *promote. The full show is here, covering hydrogen, ethanol etc.

I'm not sure ethanol is the answer. I don't see a way of processing it without requisite CO2 byproduct. There WILL be a successor to petroleum and the sooner we get to it, the better. It should be another 10 year challenge like the moon program.
"We choose to go to alternative fuels. We choose to do this in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.