November 2007 Archives

This quote is becoming common: "The last time there was (insert problem here), there was a terrorist attack/war between Middle Eastern nations/a major Gulf hurricane."

But something is missing this time around. The following is a case in point.

According to this latest story on the holiday buying season, consumer confidence is at its lowest level since Hurricane Katrina. But where is Katrina now? Or where is the war in Lebanon that spiked gas prices the last time? Or the terrorist attack making everyone hesitant with the credit card like it did after 9/11?

Our problems today are market-driven, such as people selling loans to others who couldn't afford repayment, and our economy burning more fuel than our current supply and refinement capacity allow.

Capitalism is the fastest way to find a solution to a problem, so except for something unexpected, like a natural disaster or irrational outbreak of war, widespread bad times shouldn't happen when the market is working correctly.

Unfettered, it should have fixed this subprime loan issue, or high gas prices.

Someone should have been standing there with a profit-motivated way to get those houses back on the market or with the plan to get us off dependence of light, sweet crude.

But where are they?

So the question is: Is something broken with the market model? Or have we broken too many rules of the market to allow it to work correctly?

So I went from reading something on the "do-nothing" Congress this morning to this in the New York Times. Looks like Congress is trying to do something after all. But, the timing is a bit odd.

Full disclosure: I don't think corn-based ethanol is a good idea; it takes more traditional fuels to make the fuel at this point than it saves, and any money we will eventually save at the pump will be more than made up for at the grocery store (We eat corn, and so do the animals we eat. So if there is less corn to go around, because it's being diverted to some rich guy's SUV instead of mom's kitchen, I have a problem with that).

The article actually says ethanol would take a hit according to the terms of the bill proposed; it's not carbon-neutral enough to avoid getting lumped into the category of high carbon - and therefore heavily taxed - fuels.

So why would they do this when so many of the Senate's members are running for president in IOWA (where the primary gets earlier and earlier every election cycle; one day it'll be before the previous years' general election).

Our region, with so many nuclear power plants, and so much potential for biomass fuels (the Chesapeake's grasses are about the best, scientists have found) could really benefit from this, not saying anything about the children growing up in our county that might actually get to go to the beach in New Jersey instead of Shrewsbury (sea-level rise) when they have families of their own.

I think this is another case of the do-nothing Congress: Propose something very important when it is absolutely impossible for anyone with political sway (those running for president or backing a candidate) to even touch the "Yes" button because Iowa will send them packing.

Do-nothing label sticks. Although I hope I eat my words.