the government should intervene more in transition to alternative fuels

I'll start by listing instigators main points, provide a general conceptual introduction and then provide counter-arguments. Main arguments for:1) there is a catch-22 because fueling stations, vehicles and fuel must all exist together in order for alternative fuel commerce to take place. This requires a jump-start from government to get it started.2) the poor would benefit because alternative fuels are cheaper than petroleum based fuels. These poor would save money, spend it on other products, which would be a boon to the economy. 3) money spent on petroleum based fuels goes mainly to foreigners, which is a problem4) the government can invest in biofuel infrastructure which would produce the benefits of biofuels sooner than waiting for the rich to do it. Fundamentally, this is a question of economics, which is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Mans wants and desires are infinite, while resources are finite. Much of history has been centered around this problem. Instigator did not provide a framework by which to judge whether government intervention in this case would be considered a success or not. However, since this is a question of economics, I would suggest that such intervention is only warranted if it increases the overall wealth of the population. Instigator seems to be concerned for the poor, but does it make sense to subsidize biofuels in order to create a wealth-transfer from rich to poor? I would suggest not. With that background, I'll go through the Pro arguments one by one:1) Clearly there is not a catch-22 problem since this same scenario was true in the 1890's when the first automobiles were produced in the United States. This concern can be addressed easily by starting in localized areas, having biofuel manufacturers partner with automobile manufacturers, etc. 2) I partially addressed this in my opening statement. I don't believe intervention is justified as a form of wealth transfer, but only if overall wealth is improved. In order to address this concern, some background in economics is necessary. I'll start by defining the meaning of profit. In a free and open market, individuals exchange goods in order by improve their lives. After the completion of an exchange, both parties feel they have improved their situation, they would not take the time to make the exchange. I don't think we take enough time to dwell on the magic of this simple act, which occurs through-out the world millions of times a day. But what does it mean when a business facilitates these interactions and also has a profit left over? Not only did that business improve the lives of it's customers, but they did it efficiently enough that there were resources (ie profit) left over. So profit represents the conservation of resources AND the satisfaction of consumers.Instigator claims that biofuels are cheaper than petroleum based fuels. However, if you followed my points in the paragraph above, we know that this cannot be true. If entrepreneurs could create a biofuel that was cheaper than petroleum (for the same power output), then they would be doing that now. Instigator may claim that government could fill the gap of a biofuel company that would otherwise make a loss on it's own. In this case, the government subsidy is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from those taxed to those who participate in biofuels, either producer or consumer. Or instigator could argue that government is necessary to jump-start the industry until economies of scale can be reached. However, I can just as easily claim the assertion is false, since the question involves highly complex economic calculations which are routinely done by entrepreneurs and those entrepreneurs have largely chosen to ignore this opportunity. Why would we think that, for example, a Washington think-tank could achieve better results in these calculations? Also, business have shown that they are willing to invest huge sums in infrastructure in order to achieve future profits. A recent example of this occurred with cable companies, Verizon FiOS and most recently Google Fiber. Lastly, even if instigators assertion of saved fuel costs were true, I fail to see how this would be a boon to the economy. Jobs created in biofuels would simply pull resources from other areas. If consumers spend money on other goods, that simply means those businesses's will see increases sales while the petroleum industry sees a reduction. 3) Instigator's claims that money spent on foreign goods is bad is simply false. In economics, we have the law of comparative advantage:In an economic model, an agent has a comparative advantage over another in producing a particular good if he can produce that good at a lower costLower production costs result in lower consumer costs and higher profits, which improves the lives of everyone involved in those transactions. For example, at present time Asian markets have become extremely efficient at producing consumer goods. This efficiency means more Americans can afford, as an example, a home washer and dryer. It also means the Chinese can produce these goods while conserving resources better than other countries. While it is true that businesses in the United States may struggle to compete in that industry, the law of comparative advantage shows that there is always some other industry where we will be able to compete more efficiently. Entrepreneurs and workers who retool to match these efficiency changes do so in order to improve the lives of society in general. 4) Instigator may concede all my points above, but yet claim that Government intervention can create all this improved happiness sooner than the free market. This simply cannot be the case. Government has no resources of it's own. It must, by nature of being government, take some resources and apply those resources elsewhere. Can instigator show that there has been a net improvement in this case? That is, the lost opportunity X is of less value than the opportunity gained in biofuels? I would argue that this calculation is not even possible. It is only through free market exchange that we can see whether individuals value one good over another. Participating in a poll or voting cannot tell us this. The government may subsidize biofuels, but there is no way to determine what the lost opportunity cost is or whether lives have been improved in general. This is because taxation is not voluntary, and even if it was, the direct connection a consumer normally sees in an exchange is lost. In this case, instigator can only argue something like: "I don't care what others want. I know this is what is best for society". However, with this kind of thinking, economics has left the building, and decisions are no longer based on the ideal allocation of resources.