Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181228)	2/6/2006 2:55:01 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How Brazil Broke Its Oil Habit online.wsj.com >> Government's Central Role May Prove Unpalatable to U.S. By DAVID LUHNOW Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL February 6, 2006 Brazil, once deeply dependent on Middle Eastern oil, has managed to do what President Bush has laid out as a goal for the U.S.: end its "addiction" to imported oil in part by using alternative fuels. But Brazil's experience shows that to successfully copy its example, the U.S. may have to make political choices that U.S. politicians have ducked in the past, including raising gasoline taxes, ending government support for crucial agricultural products such as sugar and corn, and opening protected agricultural markets. "To change a country's energy habits, you need determined public policies," says Eduardo Carvalho, head of the Sao Paulo state sugar-growers association that accounts for most of Brazil's ethanol output. Making ethanol a success in Brazil took determination that at times seemed foolhardy. The country launched its ethanol program in 1975, but it took until a few years ago for the fuel to become competitive with gasoline without government support. For many years, the international price of gasoline was so low compared to Brazil's home-grown ethanol that many Brazilians felt the project was a waste of time and taxpayer money. But the government stuck with it, using a mixture of industrial-policy tools to produce the fuel, reduce its cost and make it widely available. The government mandated that filling stations offer ethanol and ensured that consumers would buy it by ordering that it be significantly cheaper at the pump than gasoline -- making up the difference through subsidies. Eventually, demand for the new fuel allowed producers to invest in new technology that helped lower its price below that of gasoline. The government helped make ethanol affordable through free-market policies, too. Brazil's ethanol is made from sugar, which had been coddled with subsidies for decades. When the cost of the ethanol program became prohibitive in the early 1990s, Brazil slashed its subsidies and forced its farmers to become more productive to survive and thrive in a global market. Since growing the sugar represents by far the biggest cost in making Brazilian ethanol, trimming sugar prices was the key to making more affordable fuel. Transplanting those lessons from the sugar fields of Brazil to U.S. corn fields -- the source of most U.S.-made ethanol -- would be difficult. Consider the idea of a gasoline tax. While U.S.-made ethanol is becoming competitive with gasoline given high oil prices, and does enjoy tax breaks, any dip in oil prices could cause consumers and producers to abandon the fuel before technology has a chance to help lower its production cost. Over the years, U.S. presidents have become more wary of government mandates and overt industrial policies. Republican and Democratic presidents have paid dearly for raising gasoline taxes -- including Mr. Bush's father, who approved a small gasoline tax to help reduce the federal-budget deficit. Even certain free-market tools might have a hard time in Washington. A Brazil-inspired ethanol program would mean ending federal support for U.S. corn and sugar farmers. That would probably raise prices in the short run as less efficient U.S. producers failed, but eventually help lower the price of the crops as more-productive farmers stepped in, agricultural analysts say. For that scenario to unfold, the U.S. would have to slash farm subsidies that are protected by a powerful farm lobby and a majority in Congress. At the same time, to get the full benefit, the U.S. would have to open up its protected sugar and ethanol markets, which are blocked by restrictive tariffs and quotas. "A free market in something like sugar would definitely help lower prices eventually. But protections for the industry have been in place for decades," says Paul Drazek, a former trade adviser to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Opening up the ethanol market itself might make strategic sense for a government concerned that windfall oil revenues in the Middle East help bolster terrorist activities world-wide. "It makes no sense to tax ethanol coming in from friendly countries like Brazil when we do not tax oil imported from countries like Saudi Arabia," says Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington think tank that specializes in energy-security issues. Another possible role for U.S. politicians may be to ensure ethanol is widely distributed in gasoline stations that might be hostile to a rival product. In Brazil, the government simply ordered state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, to distribute the fuel. In the U.S., about 500 gas stations carry the fuel. Without competition from more filling stations carrying ethanol, distributors have little incentive to try to undercut gasoline prices, denting ethanol's attraction. Auto makers such as Ford Motor Co., which are ramping up production of flexible-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol or gasoline, say the government needs to offer bigger tax incentives for gas stations to offer ethanol. "We can produce the flex-fuel vehicles, but we can't do it all alone. We need government policy to do its part," says Curt Magleby, Ford's public-policy manager. Many critics of industrial policy argue such programs invariably become handouts to industries that should make the investments on their own. The U.S. has had a string of failures in this regard, including an effort to make gasoline from coal under President Carter, and a project to produce a nuclear breeder reactor under President Reagan. << Let’s talk biotech! The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181228)	2/6/2006 11:01:50 AM
From: steve dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"All we've done is attempt to prevent anyone from using violence and intimidation to advance their interests over those of other Iraqis" The Iraqis themselves are using violence and intimidation. All we have done is make it possible for the oppressed to be the opressors. Real progress.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181228)	2/7/2006 1:12:52 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I keep asking you to give us a pragmatic, realistic assessment of the likelihood of success for the currently defined Iraqi "mission," i.e.; "what is it that you've seen or read that makes you think that there is any REAL possibility that some form of beneficial democracy could exist in Iraq?" And you continue to answer with.....platitudes and slogans. Surely you can do better? Your latest post contains simplistic generalities. First you say that "democracy is a necessary condition for a civilized society." Where is that written? In societies torn by implacable hatreds and strife do you really think that empowering the faction with the most votes will create a "civilized society?" Or are you simply confusing "our way" with "the way?" Then you say that "[a]ll we should be truly concerned about it insuring that the democratic system is preserved no matter who is elected. Or really? If the Iraqis elected Saddam Hussein and he took office with the same goals and brutality we previously accused him of would you say that "all we should be truly concerned about is that the democratic system is preserved?" What if the duly elected Shiites take power and brutalize the Sunnis? No concerns right, after all as long as it's majority rule it must be right. Life's realities aren't structured by slogans written in stone. Every situation, every culture, and every society is different and unique. What works best will vary depending on a myriad of factors that change from one point in time to the next. If left to evolve, peoples and cultures will find the courage and the wisdom to arrive at workable solutions to their own problems. We can lead by example and sometimes we can help where needed but we can't socially and politically "engineer" societies to adopt and employ our views and our methods. But you can't seem to recognize that simple truth. And you're in deep denial when it comes to facing the FACTS AND REALITIES that destroy the underlying assumptions of your simplistic "give them democracy and they will change" mantra. The facts are that the majority Shiites will almost certainly use their democratically elected powers to impose their deeply held and intolerant religous views. And those goals have little to do with creating an enlightened society where women are treated with respect, where other sects are full class citizens with rights guaranteed by courts and an impartial police force, where the freedom to worship as one pleases is not constrained by the state and where the population strives to live in peace with its neighbors. You won't acknowledge that because you refuse to admit that intolerant majorities don't elect tolerant leaders to protect the rights of others, intolerant majorities elect intolerant leaders who will further their goals of suppressing those who worship, believe or look different. If you allowed yourself to understand that self evident fact you'd recognize the patently obvious danger of installing a democracy in a divided, intolerant society. But you could always fall back on the tired cry of the fearful. Oh, wait, you already did: "I guess you're more concerned with the 2,200 servicemen who have died performing their duties, and TOTALLY FORGET the 3,000 innocent people who died on 9/11. I guess you need to see even more carnage inflicted on our country then before you finally accept the fact that we're involved in a war with Al Qai'da and Islamo-Fascism. And we need to fight them wherever they are, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen.. and if necessary, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... It's not my fault that Al Qai'da invaded Iraq and joined forces with the Ba'thists and Sunnis. They are there and they will remain there if we opt to cut and run... And while you're counting bodies, why not start countying the number of dead Iraqis who have been slained by our enemy, Al Qai'da.. Or maybe you don't believe that Al Qai'da is our enemy... Maybe you want to take Zawahiri and Bin Laden up on that "truce", eh??" Before you get all jiggy about how we're fighting Al Queda in Iraq you might try answering my questions about how it's going over there. You might try explaining why it is that since our invasion the cancer cells of Al Queda terrorism seem to have gotten into the world's bloodstream and are now spreading undetected among the nations of the world. You might try explaining why the great benevolence you attribute to our efforts in Iraq seems to be viewed far differently by an incensed Muslim population which is driving moderate Muslims out of power. In other words, you might try questioning the simplistic, mistaken and dangerous assumptions you clutch to your heart like a worn picture of the faithless lover who jilted you. You might ask yourself what facts and realities you can muster to support theories and policies which have long since proven to be empty, unworkable and foolish. Maybe then you can start thinking with your head instead of your emotions. We owe that to the next family that buries a soldier, and the next, and the next. Ed