(I don't recall for sure, but I think I got this from a post by another salon reader)

Free markets require the following conditions:

- Fair competition

- Equal knowledge of buyers and sellers

- No organization of sellers to inflate prices

- Both buyers and sellers are equally powerful

If the public understood that this is what makes a free market work and the role of the government is to help make this market work, think of all the things that could be accomplished. Here's a few examples:

- The revival of regulatory bodies such as the SEC

- Regulation of the mortgage industry

- Consumer protection laws to make sure there is equal knowledge of information (all you have to do to see how this has fallen apart is to look at banking fees, how much the industry makes off them, and how they do this by using fine print)

...

The incorrect viewpoint that Republicans put forward about the free market is that "free" = "deregulation". This is almost exactly the opposite of what a working free market looks like. In a completely deregulated market, businesses consolidate to create monopolies and reduce competition, the seller is able to hide costs and confuse buyers, and power tilts disproportionately towards sellers.

But, you say, Republicans say that deregulation is beneficial, creates more competition, improves quality, and drives down prices.

Do you see the bait and switch that I just did? I switched "deregulation" for "free market" in the above sentence.

This is the Republican argument. Deregulation = free market. Why do they argue this? For answers to that I'd suggest looking at who's making this argument and how much they are benefiting from it.

Deregulation does not drive down prices or improve quality, but free markets can. The issue is that it's proper regulation and the other conditions listed above, and not deregulation, that lead to free markets.

It's time to take the business argument back! As long as Republicans continue to better brand themselves as the party of business, Democrats will have a hard time making effective economic policy.

http://thereckoner.com/?p=56

-- akadjian

I'm not a farmer, but I do read most articles I come across concerning biofuels and ethanol from corn. So I was really surprised that this was the first time I had even heard mention of this in the context of more sustainable farming (yeah, I know that means I'm not so green and my news sources are maybe a little too mainstream media oriented). Still you'd think that even the mainstream media might have gotten around to mentioning the distinction between annual/perennial crops and the potential impact when it comes to trying to grow things on a massive scale like as feedstock for ethanol.

For others interested in a quick intro to the concept, the "perennial crops" heading in this link has a concise discussion of why a perennial like sugar cane has an edge over an annual crop like corn (I'm not vouching for the site, it's just the first relevant one that came up in google)

http://www.rogersandall.com/Notes_Science-News.php

At first I was a little concerned about whether the money I loaned out was likely to get repaid. But here is how it worked out for me so far:

Out of 26 loans ($25 each), 6 have been paid back (and of course reloaned). 19 loans are currently active, and 1 defaulted.

I might be boasting, but I guess it has just gone to my head a little. For me this is something that is easy to do and makes perfect sense - helping people who are willing to work hard and want a chance to do something to make their lives better. I truly do feel that these loans actually help real people make their lives better. I have loaned to a mix of individuals and collectives. The collectives sound like they are a bit less risky than loaning to individuals. Also I do pay attention to the ratings given to the local group that Kiva disburses the loan through.

Since I posted the link to the Science article that I think is the confusing one you mentioned, I figured I should respond to clarify why I posted it.

The idea of using a perennial plant instead of an annual plant as a feedstock for ethanol was what really caught my eye. Here were the points I thought most interesting:

• It seems like you could save massive amounts of resources (fuel burned by tractors to plow and plant) by growing a crop that does not need to be reseeded each year.

• If it keeps coming back each year it might be a plant that is well enough matched to the area that it requires less fertilizer and water than other plants you might use.

I also wondered about the statements that implied burning ethanol derived from sugar cane was cleaner than ethanol from corn. Ethanol of course looks the same no matter where it comes from, so the statement was sloppy. Maybe they meant that when you account for all of the carbon involved in the end-to-end process of producing and burning a gallon of ethanol, it emits less carbon if you use sugar.