Big-Government Backfire

Statement

Big-Government Backfire

Funny how this story isn't big news. Maybe our newspaper editors were too embarassed that the Brits got the scoop.

The London Guardian reports:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%—far more than previously estimated—according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush...

It's hard to get past the stunning revelation that biofuels have caused a 75% increase in global food prices, doubtlessly driving millions to starvation. But once you get over that, ponder the last quoted sentence there: "Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush."

To avoid embarrassing President Bush?

Wait just one minute. Who was so crazy about biofuels in the first place? Was it the Republicans who the Left has spent the last several years bashing for being "inactive" on environmental issues? Or was it the Democratic National Committee that declared it would make "protecting the environment" the flagship issue of the party, and the push for biofuels as renewable energy a major part of it?

We could go back over the issue by quoting statements from party leaders on both sides, but you could just take it from the Democrats; they're still to this day proud of their role in pushing biofuels.

So even though the article quotes "senior development sources" believing (read: guessing) that the article wasn't published to "avoid embarrassing President Bush," realize that this belief (guess) is not, at least in the article, backed by any factual evidence. This is pure speculation on the part of "senior development sources" and logic has that the liberals would be more put off by the findings, than President Bush.

Besides the one on media spin, the big lesson here is that well-intentioned big-government solutions can backfire badly. In this case, well-meaning biofuel subsidies drove up the cost of food and aggravated the problem of world hunger, a problem that affects more people than war. If it wasn't for the biofuel subsidies, it wouldn't have been this way.

The lesson is the same as ever: get the government out of the market. It never makes it better. It always makes it worse. Get the government out of the market, and let things become affordable again.

Source