Economics

4. Something like "fast-track authority" always depends on how you view something, along with your political opinions. If there was a trade that would help small businesses by supplying them more efficiently, then "fast-track authority" could be good or bad for those people depending on whether legislature would allow it or not. When i first heard "fast-track authority" the first thing that came to mind was the emergency law that Hitler used to gain power, and while the emergency law has little, if any, relevance to "fast-track authority" it somewhat forebodes a possibility of our president wanting more and more individual power. This could lead to situations that wouldn't be favorable, but it's also an extreme possibility. Either way, i think the "fast-track authority" is a good thing as long as it's used responsibly and sparingly.

[5]

We see creative destruction all around us—in order to build new roads, we must first remove the trees and displace earth, but the result is faster transportation for humankind. This is, no doubt, a benefit to us, but if we continue to chop down trees without forethought, we will soon live in a world where trees are extinct (and trees—like small businesses—are good for this Earth on which we live). Instead, we plant trees to conserve our environment and the existence of trees in general. Creative destruction undeniably has benefits for us all, but it should be balanced with at least a teaspoon of conservation. Wal-Mart offers a variety of goods at low prices, which is good for the low-income consumer. Does that mean, then, that the world should be pockmarked with Wal-Marts and nothing else? That would eliminate one of the greatest features of our capitalist economy: competition. In a similar vein, the Western culture looks to “Westernize” the world and develop “primitive” nations—where, indeed, they do more harm than good. This drive for culture homogenization is also creative destruction. To achieve a cultural equilibrium, many cultures must be swallowed. We must ask ourselves if this is for the best, for different cultures can specialize in different fields—another economically sound idea. They can specialize best by using their own means to produce their own goods, perhaps with a few enhancements the Western world can offer (knowing that these cultures could also add a few enhancements to the Western world, as well).

By having gasoline blended with ethanol cost 5.4 cents less than regular gasoline per gallon, the United States government missed the opportunity to rake in an extra 7.1 billion dollars by 1997. The reasoning for this program is that ethanol is thought by some to be better for the environment than gasoline and that it may lower the dependence on foreign oil. Neither of those reasons is solid according to that same 1997 study. I believe that if more people chose the less expensive fuel it would in fact lower the dependency on foreign oil even if it didn’t show immediate, large-scale improvements in the environment. While it’s hard for me to justify losing 7.1 billion dollars in tax revenues, I’m sure that overtime the United States people need to switch to a new form of fuel, and ethanol may be the way to go. However, with more research funding and incentive for consumers to by hybrid cars, it seems like that is much more likely to become mainstream. We would still use gasoline but it would cost much less at the pump so that more money could go to the US government.

i think it is definitely desirable for a country to have this. There are some issues in which a majority does not agree with an issue, but through a lot of confrontation with this issue, and if it is obvious that this will help towards the common good, this is when fast-track authority. One might believe that this idea leads to dictatorship. I do not believe this, because there are cases in which a majority is ignorant of a certain issue, and where it is obvious to the leader that it should be passed. In this case, fast-track authority is necessary.

Ethanol, a corn-based gasoline additive with putative environmental benefits, can be more efficient than gasoline. However, studies show that ethanol evaporates faster and it contributes to ozone problems in hot temperatures. The ethanol tax subsidy increases the demand for corn, which puts money in farmers’ pockets, but farmers are less than 3% of the population, and fewer are corn farmers. Ethanol is used by polititions in the mid-west to get voters. “Ethanol is not a case of a powerful special interest pounding the rest of us into submission. If squeezing favors out of the political process were simply a matter of brute strength, then those of us who can’t tell a heifer from a steer should be kicking the farmers around. Indeed, American’s right-handed voters could band together and demand tax breaks at the expense of the lefties. But that’s not what happens.”
When it comes to ethanol I think that we should use it and use it because it can be helpful to the environment. I don’t think that the entire world should use ethanol because that would through our economy into shambles.

2
The ethanol controversy is an interesting one. Research has shown that ethanol doesn't have much of a positive impact on the environment and it might actually make air pollution worse and may contribute to problems in the ozone layer. The ethanol program is good in Iowa because it helps farmers sell corn and I thought it was interesting how Bill Bradley changed his opinion to help his chances in Iowa but he still lost the nomination to Al Gore.

1
An example of paying to be small in interest group politics would be if I were interviewing to be Upper School Director at Mounds Park Academy. Let's say I used to be a lobbyist and I was lobbying our state legislature to eliminate speech, debate, and student congress from all Minnesota high schools. Knowing that MPA has historically had a successful program in those areas I would change my opinion for an interview and explain how great I thought speech, debate, and student congress were in high schools and how they nee2d to be promoted.

Question 2

Charles Wheelan talks about the subsidies payed to corn farmers who's corn goes to the production of ethanol. Since the majority of scientific studies show that ethanol does not help with the pollution issue and may even make it worse I don't think we should put so much money behind it. And because such a small percent of ethanol is used in gasoline, our dependency on foreign oil is hardly reduced. It seems really odd to me that we spend so much money on things like new weapon development and ridiculous subsidies that we could be using for scientific research for disease prevention or new sources of energy. I would personally prefer that we took the tax money that we use to pay subsidies and use it to fund research for new sources of energy like hydrogen that would be phenomenally better for the environment and decrease our dependency on foreign oil by a very large amount. But until ethanol proves to be the best and cleanest source of fuel, I think all subsidies should be stopped. It seems ridiculous to put so much money behind something that we are so unsure of. I hope that this comes to the attention of the public so that like the mohair subsidy it can be seen that this is too uncertain to be paid so much money.

In response to question four I hesitantly agree that presidents should be granted "fast-track authority". I am hesitant to say this because at I completely disdainthe fact of giving so much power and voice to only one person as I first read this section. However, after taking a step back and thinking for a minute I do not think this concept is a negative one. Assuming that whatever trade agreement being proposed has been justly researched by the presidential commitee and that it has good reason I think this fast authority can definitely cut out the problem Wheelan was speaking of when discussing the government's subsidies of so many groups. It is hard with so many specialzed needs expressed to keep the government spending steady and have enough for other necessities. Although it does not leave room for amendments, this may be a good thing in this case so that certain legislators aren't merely looking for political gain by adding special interest groups. I think Wheelan sums it up best when he states, "The fast-track process forces politicians who talk the talk of free trade to walk the walk, too."

Using partially ethanol based fuel for our cars is without question the environmentally concious thing to do; however, right now, the economically smart thing to do is not use fuels based from corn. The refinement process for turning corn into fuel for our cars actually ends up costing more money then what they can sell it for so the economic solution to this problem is not to use ethanol. In the years to come the price of oil will rise as the supply of oil diminishes meaning that in the future it might be more cost effective to use ethonal based fuels than oil based fuels. Right now it is smart economically to not use ethonal, but with the rising price of oil that could change within the next decade.