The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 284
The ethanol vs petroleum debate is far from over. You mentioned in your bio
that you had testified before congress...I assume you meant about your preference for ethanol...did you convince anyone of the benefits? One person who
did like your idea was President George W. Bush. But isn't he the one you journalists all made fun of because you considered HIM a "lightweight"?
As businessman, the thing that almost always takes precedence over any decision to make changes is to consider whether the "new way" is more cost effective and does it improve the product or service. When this is imposed on the
ethanol/petroleum debate, ethanol loses. It costs more to produce; is, and always has been, subsidized by the taxpayers; delivers LESS mileage than pure
gasoline and is not a good business model; otherwise, there would be a big
push to make your dream come true. This conclusion is in the two articles that
referenced.
In conclusion, I really don't care that you think of me as a “lightweight” - perhaps,
because of my writing skills?....but that is what YOU were trained to do.
Ben Franklin, writing in "Poor Richard’s Almanac" said: "The learned fool writes
his nonsense in better language than the unlearned; but still 'tis nonsense".
Did I pass your "guts" test? I trust you to post this and INCLUDE THE TWO
ARTICLES that I referenced.
Regards,
David
p.s. I was surprised that you, as a journalist, would have had typos in your response.
April 5, 2017
MARC RAUCH to DAVID:
On the contrary, David, I'm delighted that you replied. It gives me more content
to put online. I hope you had the chance to read our first exchange on TheAutoChannel.com and that you will read this updated version of "Ethanol Chronicles
- SPECIAL EDITION: David Are You There?"
