It’s Like Free Money!

In my travels, I made a friend in Matthew Lesko, and you won;t know the name, but if you had a sleepless night or two in the heydey of infomercials, you might remember a guy in a question mark suit, talking about all the free money you could get just by taking advantage of government programs.

IT’S LIKE FREE MONEY! That is his trademark. He has helped some people along the way, got some grief for it, a lot of it from jealous media snipes who lacked his genius.

But here’s a secret that even Matthew Lesko hasn’t told you.

The biggest winner from government incentive programs that support the bioeconomy? In a new study from Charles River & Associates, the public is the one gaining the most and, thereby, government. The summary is here. Full report here.

But, you too. Raise your glass, I salute you. You’re making a fortune off the bioeconomy, even noiw. And tyou could make more, because for every dollar in public incentive offered to the bioeconomy, the return is in the $4-$6 range. It’s a Gevo study, so if you doubt the applicability to the entire ATJ landscape, by all means deply Gevo tech. Or, think broader. Your call.

Is that good? Well, contrast it with this report from the state of Louisana, which is a hive of intelligence and chutzpah and probably does as well as anyone, that returns on incentives range in the 40 cents to a dollar range. Movie incentives? 39 cents is the average return, says here.

Bonanza, that’s probably a good term for it, because you’d be hard pressedf to get a 6-to-1 return on gold mining, even in the days of the Klondike and the Comstock Lode.

Turns out, better to support Comstock Fuels than the Comstock Lode.

Why, you might ask? Well, bioeconomy ventures work in many ways. They support local economies through job creartion, operators and buioers. They support regional economies through supporting farm prices. They support state economies because states are supported, as former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has been intent on explaining to me over the years, to a great extent by real estate taxes. Land doesn’t vote, but land pays.

The benefits do not stop at jobs and taxes. What do states support with their revenue base? For one, education. People that study at home often study the majors that are important at home, as in agricultural science and economics. People with skills most valuable at home tend to stay home, and the more skilled they become, the less likely they are to move to the big smoke where their skills and experience is of less value. The extended family helps raise, educate and enthrall the next generation. Society wins in many ways that cannot be measured in money. 

That’s something that we don’t talk much about when we say “social sustainability” even when we talk about it at all. For too many people, sustainability is about emissions, for others, it is the dollars that keeps enterprises going for the long term. When we talke about social sustainability, often this is a code for making society more egalitarian and neutral when it comes to gender, creed and so forth. Worthy goals, but not the only ones. Keeping the family together, keeping it prosperous enough to find the pursuit of happiness an easier task.

Yet, even if you could care a fig about rural communities, lfollow he money, or follow the emissions.

What can states do to bathe themselves in the benefits. Soap themselves with dollars, wash their emissions away, spritz the familes back together again? 

So, establish more incentives, those of you in a position to do so.

It’s, like, free money.