Inessentials

Let’s play a game. It’s called, “Find a reputable economist who thinks the gas tax holiday is a good idea.” Of course, the reason this game is fun is because you’ll have an awfully hard time finding one. Even television reporters have a hard time screwing this one up. Why? Well you can listen to an excellent explanation here.

Conservative economists, liberal economists (if that distinction even makes sense) - nobody thinks this is a good idea. And how do you make a bad idea worse? Thomas Friedman tells us how: spend all the time reaching consensus on a terrible idea while you fight over minor points on a good idea.

I consider myself a progressive when it comes to public policy, which means (in part) that when the government intervenes in any aspect of life, including the economy, that intervention should come after careful investigation of the potential ramifications of the policy by the most informed people available. I’m opposed to electing public officials who think that the government is in itself evil and therefore can be filled with incompetent cronies who will run their departments into the ground. I’m also opposed to shaping public policy based on what uniformed voters wrongly think is in their own best interest.

That’s also why, like most people concerned about environmental and economic issues, I thought the Bush Administration’s emphasis on ethanol production was a really bad idea from the start. Even at the time, it was pretty clear that biofuels have the advantage of having fewer start-up costs than wind or solar energy sources, but really, really terrible consequences on people who eat food. Which is most of us, I imagine. But since most Americans spend a very small percentage of their income (relatively) on food, it affects us less than most (as can be seen by the food riots around the world). Biofuels are a stop-gap solution at best, and only on a very small scale.

Let’s hope that good policy decisions wins out over political pandering.