3 ms·

Tons of farm production is now going not into food, but into massive ethanol subsidies that are energy negative, damage cars and pollute more (ethanol generates

Tons of farm production is now going not into food, but into massive ethanol subsidies that are energy negative, damage cars and pollute more (ethanol generates smog, plus gas for tractors and equipment, plus fertilizer runoff creating massive dead zones in lakes and rivers and the Gulf) than gasoline does, and will ultimately have to go away in order for EVs to replace fuel engines (which they will now lobby against because it ruins their subsidized industry). There's probably some examples that more prove your point to some extent, this is definitely not one of them. My argument is that when governments try to manipulate or force market demand based on political priorities they tend to create problems. If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild.

KK7NIL 2y ago
1) ethbr1 brought up many other good examples 2) ethanol is less than 50% of corn production, which is in itself about 25% of the crops in the US. 3) > If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild. This is a bad faith comparison. Intel isn't asking for money because its top talent left to start an even more successful US based semiconductor manufacturer. Instead, the whole US semiconductor industry has been slowly off-shored after decades of US capital and talent doing the math and realizing that SW pays a lot better. Intel is simply the last holdout due to its vertical integration providing higher margins which allowed it to afford the higher US wages, until recently. If the US had started the CHIPS act 10 years ago when there were other US companies anywhere close to the leading edge (i.e. GlobalFoundry) then it wouldn't effectively be an Intel bailout, but that's not Intel's fault.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Minor observation that US ag subsidies send more to livestock than to ethanol.

KK7NIL 2y ago

1) ethbr1 brought up many other good examples 2) ethanol is less than 50% of corn production, which is in itself about 25% of the crops in the US. 3) > If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild. This is a bad faith comparison. Intel isn't asking for money because its top talent left to start an even more successful US based semiconductor manufacturer. Instead, the whole US semiconductor industry has been slowly off-shored after decades of US capital and talent doing the math and realizing that SW pays a lot better. Intel is simply the last holdout due to its vertical integration providing higher margins which allowed it to afford the higher US wages, until recently. If the US had started the CHIPS act 10 years ago when there were other US companies anywhere close to the leading edge (i.e. GlobalFoundry) then it wouldn't effectively be an Intel bailout, but that's not Intel's fault.

ethbr1 2y ago
Minor observation that US ag subsidies send more to livestock than to ethanol.