Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
Energetic Economics: An Alternative to the Usual Stimulus Packages
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


It’s become a ritual: The economy grows sluggish and politicians rush to “do something” about it. What they do almost never has a beneficial economic impact, as any reputable economist will tell you.

But what if lawmakers could guarantee that the price you pay to fill the tank of your car will go down, not up, in the years ahead? What if they could launch a new industry that creates more jobs for more Americans? What if this would produce environmental benefits, too? Would that not send a message to the markets? And would that not represent the kind of change so many politicians have been promising?

Here’s the deal: Everyone who is not an economic illiterate knows that competition leads to lower prices. But there is no competitive market in transportation fuels. In most parts of the country, you can buy gasoline or you can buy gasoline. And most cars can run on gasoline or gasoline.

It doesn’t have to be that way. There are alternative fuels. And there are automobiles built to burn them. But there is a chicken-and-egg dilemma: Why buy a car that can use alternative fuels if those fuels are not readily available at a local service station? Why devote a pump at a local service station to alternative fuels if there are few customers asking for them?

Elected officials could solve this problem with a stroke of the pen. An “open standards” fuel law would require that all new cars sold in the United States be Flexible Fuel Vehicles – able to run not just on gasoline, but also on a variety of alcohol-based fuels.

A car that is flexible fuel capable costs only about $100 more. But if you want to make this transition cost-neutral for the automobile companies, consider a tax break to reward them for making the transition as quickly as possible.

American companies would benefit most – they are ahead of the pack in their development of flexible fuel technologies. (For example, check out www.chevy.com to see how many Flexible Fuel Vehicles already are being manufactured by Chevrolet.)

Why not a tax break, too, for anyone who buys a new Flexible Fuel Vehicle? If people took advantage of the offer, that would energize the economy while also producing environmental benefits because new cars run cleaner than old cars and because ethanol – the most common alcohol fuel – burns cleaner than gasoline. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: fayettebill - Such manipulation...
--
...of the market in petrochemicals has been admitted - and condemned - in this discussion. Read L. Neil Smith's article (cited above) or look up the history of the Texas Railroad Commission (the cartelizing state government agency which preceded OPEC and upon whose operational methods the creation and operations of OPEC was based; this goes back considerably earlier than 1973).

As for "economic incentives [provided] to our domestic oil and gas producers," what do you mean "we," white man?

To the extent that government (state or federal) intervenes in the market to provide "economic incentives," these "incentives" do not truly reflect "economic" conditions but rather *POLITICAL* priorities, which run reliably to the detriment of economic functionality and even economic viability.

Government incentives are - designedly and purposefully - undertaken to get market actors to do things that real economic factors would discourage, even to the point of bankruptcy and destruction.

To that extent, such normative (or even dirigiste) "incentives" are pernicious.

Perhaps even describable as criminal.

--

Addendum to Free Markets? Oh really?
The discussion at NRO online is in the "Planet Gore" section.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.