the government should intervene more in transition to alternative fuels

"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. " con talks about getting that partnership in the passive voice. should the government be the initiator or the private sector? i argue, the government can catalyze change, causing change to occur sooner than later. it's not so much cause it helps the poor, it's cause it helps everyone. they spend money on an array of things helping the economy at large, instead of just fuel. the would cause overall wealth to be improved. to use con's measure of profit, saving money on fuel gives profit to teh ocnsumer, and to businesses at large when they make a sale. "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" we can think washington can do better because they are just acting as stimulants to change, causing the change that must occur, to occur faster. the private sector doesn't want to take the risks of choosing a technology which might not prove the most successful and perhaps before its time. but that doesn't mean we can't stimulate change to occur faster. "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." it's a boon to the economy because of the profit metric as discussed. there are savings to consumers, which is given to other segments. plus, the number one stimulant in an economy, is change, not necessarily more of the same. change means people are spending and companies are making money and everyone is getting ahead to their best ability. when i was saying it is bad to spend where the foreigners profit, i was mainly referrencing terrorism and economic dependence. if we sit on our hands, and do nothing to change, a trigger event could exacerbate this dependence and they could charge us whatever we want. plus, it is better to have the jobs and benefit here rather than elsewhere if possible. "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." that is what policy is, decision making for the populace at large. the free market left to its own devices is not necessarily the best indicator of what is "ideal". if the government is exacerbating changes that are going to occur anyway, there is savings and profit to be had. that's the whole point of what the free market wants anyways. the government is just helping the market along on its way.