OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created.

I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

[Will]

Renegade 13 said:
Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And farmers and ranchers already get huge subsidies. Slight adjustments to these would more than offset additional costs.

Renegade 13 said:
I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Renegade 13 said:
That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

Economics 101, Renegade
You are wrong on one point though. While the economy in that case would not be a laissez-faire free market captialist economy, it is still a free market, and it is still capitalism. Socialism implies that at least some part of the economy is planned (presumably by everyone, but the government is a 'good enough' substitution). Canada has this in its health care system; entirely government owned, paid for by taxes, free to the people. And yes, that has problems. But if you think that any government intervention in economic issues makes the economy not capitalist, or socialist, then there is not a single capitalist economy on this planet. That would require no zoning laws, no emissions laws, no controls on banking, no oversight of accounting practices, no tax deductions or exemptions of any sort, and so on, and so on. We learned a long time ago that pure captialism, or pure socialism, or pure communism, is a bad idea. So, any economy in the world worth speaking of combines elements of all forms. These taxes would just be another form of it.

And you have missed my point entirely for the reason the tarrifs are valid. They are not a policy tool to force other countries to do as the US. And frankly, most countries don't need any encouragement, and will end up doing something similar regardless of US actions. The tarrif is meant to allow fair competition between US and foreign firms. For example, take steel. If it is estimated that the new taxes directly cause steel made in the US to be $10 more expensive per ton, then US steel is at a disadvantage to say, Chinese steel. But! If the US put a tariff on steel coming from China, to the amount of $10 per ton, then the two can compete evenly in the market. The tariff isn't forcing China to adopt the same policies at all, but it does force domestic buyers of steel to buy based on the controllable costs of producing the steel only. Otherwise, US producers would be saddled with the double burden of increased costs and cheaper competitors. The tariff doesn't apply to countries with similar policies because those policies result in the same costs for producers in that country, so no adjustment is required. The other government already took care of it.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now?

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
Per-capita. It would be silly to look at total dollar amount going to a given area, you need to see how many people it is being spent on. If you just look at total amount, then yes, I could see where you get the idea that rural taxes pay for urban mass transit. But it's simply false, taxes from urban areas subsidize development in suburban and rural areas, not the other way around. And yes, while some things like major roads and military bases are for the benefit of all, the economy of the area immediately surrounding the (often rural) area gets a huge boost out of it.

Point taken. Of course, before being sure of the fact, I'd want to take a look at the actual numbers for my specific province and area, but you may be right.

Now, an "arrogant" way of forcing policy change would involve telling the other government they need to adopt certain changes, implement a tariff on their products that is very much in excess of the difference of costs based on the policy difference (take the above example, and make the tariff $100 instead of $10), threaten to put an embargo into effect, and 'accidentally' blow up a building during a training exercise. We're not talking about that though, are we now?

Well, my experience with US tariffs isn't exactly what you'd describe as positive. The US tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber and pointless, politically motivated bans on Canadian beef both had rather negative effects on me. The lumber tariffs were supposedly since our lumber was subsidized more than American lumber (which international committee's have repeatedly shown to be false and the tariffs illegal), yet the tariffs remain to today. And the illegal duties taken by American companies ($5 Billion worth) hasn't been returned to it's rightful owners.

In other words, my experience with American tariffs is that they are heavy-handed, intended to give American businesses an advantage domestically, and most of all politically motivated.

Of course, if it was a fair system of tariffs etc, and if the US wouldn't mind having tariffs imposed on them for having less advanced environmental policies than oher countries, then sure, go for it. Doubt your gov't would appreciate it though!

Thermodyne said:
The way I see it, much of the world has a lot of catching up to do on environmental issues.

I find this hard to believe, since the US has consistently decided against international treaties requiring a lowering of greenhousee gases. Yup, but it's the rest of the world that needs to catch up with the US...

Where the heck are you going to get the energy to till, plant, harvest, ferment, and refine the alky? Do you have any idea how much carbon is vented by an acre of tilled land? Do you have any idea how many regulated chemicals are needed to grow a crop like hybrid corn?

This carbon expenditure needs to be balanced against the equivalent amount of carbon emitted by traditional fuels. Not to mention the fact that once alcohol fuels become commonplace, they would replace the traditional fuels that are used to till the soil, plant, harvest, etc the ethanol, thus giving you a net emission close to zero.

Save that for someone who doesn't know better. You do not need a big Cummings Turbo powered 4x4 to get around in when the weather is bad. Hey, I feel your need, but I don’t buy the reason. I’ve got my full size Chevy 4x4 sitting out back. Biggest engine I could get in a half ton at the time. Heavy duty everything. But I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid to work everyday. And I’ve got a little 44 jeep that will go through any snow and muck that the truck will, on a quarter of the gas. Those big pickups could easily be replaced with smaller more fuel efficient 4x4’s. I have yet to see a farm that didn’t have tractors, wagons, and heavy trucks, what do you really need a big pick up for. Around here every farmer has several. The tax laws encouraged them to buy them. They ride around in them with 40 or 50 pounds of junk in the back and brag about how little fuel they use.


I won’t get into the rural vs. urban thing. I type way to slow for that. I will say that most big cities have a net loss on revenues. As do the rural areas. The revenue hogs are the outer suburbs where development has outrun infrastructure.

Oh, and while we are on the subject…….I thought that up there in the far north, people just got snowed in for the winter. That’s why all the birthdays are in the early summer

Point taken, most rural people do not need a big truck. For them, it is a luxury. And again I agree, no one needs a huge, powerful 4x4. It too is a luxury. But as you seem to agree, and drawing from my own experience, a 4x4 vehicle of some sort is necessary on a, for example, ranch. Yep, every ranch/farm has tractors, wagons, etc. Trucks are kinda useful though to haul those wagons when loaded with hay or something. Especially if it's muddy and slippery.

To be honest, if every farmer or rancher around your area can afford several heavy trucks...well they're a lot richer than almost all the ranchers or farmers around here

Yep, people do get snowed in for the winter. Doesn't mean you can stop feeding the cows.

I'll conceed that heavy trucks are not necessary, but some sort of 4x4 vehicle is.