The evidence is to the converse: starting large-scale corn-ethanol production drove prices up: go to http://www.wikinvest.com/commodity/Corn

I wasn't advocating ethanol as the path to energy independence. But it's already part of our energy mix, has been for at least a couple of decades, and by some measure reduces what would be even greater dependence on foreign oil. It also managed to be used for the past couple of decades without causing a global food crisis as Alon stated. The same criticisms you made against using corn for fuel can and have been made against using corn for food, especially for feeding cattle for beef. Also, I've yet to see any evidence that ending the production of ethanol for fuel will have any significant impact on food prices.

Corn-to-ethanol schemes rely upon tax incentives. The "green" aspect is a sham, as it takes lots of water, fertilizer, and energy to grow, harvest, transport, and ferment the corn. Agricultural production uses lots of herbicides and pesticides that are implicated in water-quality degradation. Whether there is a net energy gain is questionable.

In the meantime, ethanol-driven corn demand drives up the cost of corn as an input (animal feed, corn syrup) which rolls right through the grocery store as higher prices for almost all engineered food (i.e. bagged, boxed or canned goods with sweeteners added), beef, pork, and chicken.

If/when scientists produce a scalable cellulosic ethanol-production system, THEN it could lead to something like energy independence.

That's a bit of hyperbole. The US has been including ethanol as part of the gasoline mix in the gas used for automobiles for a number of years without creating a global food crisis.

No doubt this is true. But this view ignores one benefit of ethanol which is that it provides an alternative fuel source for foreign petroleum products. While it's not a major source of fuel, those measures that can help reduce our demand for foreign oil (ethanol, conservatation, etc.) can benefit the US, especially in the area of foreign relations with hostile states who control the petroleum we purchase.

I disagree almost completely. Most importantly, economic development can't just be about jobs for the educated. The majority of the people don't have college degrees. What are they supposed to do for a living?

The economic struggles of those who aren't part of the educated elite, and the resulting two tier society, will hold any city back. Not least of which because those people will oppose many progressive efforts at city betterment because they will rightly conclude there is nothing in it for them.

I've said it a million times, there can't be a prosperous Indianapolis, without a prosperous Indiana. CICP and others realize this, which is why all of their initiatives do double duty as both city and state initiatives. To the extent that rural areas and smaller manufacturing towns are able to share in economic success and see their economic success linked with the overall metropolitan economy of Indianapolis, that is a good thing.

As for the stadium and talent, that's Rosentraub's view and I don't rate it very highly. But, the revitalization of the south side of downtown was clearly done right. How many cities the city of Indy have an actual mall that isn't on the verge of death? Now Circle Centre has its challenges to be sure, but it's a very different situation than say what happened in Columbus.

The events business, enabled by the stadium, provides the extra support needed to keep these downtown entertainment ventures around. This has to have some civic benefit. I just had dinner with a guy in Palatine, Illinois who mentioned what a great time he had in Indy at a conference he attended there.

There's a long way to go with downtown Indy yet, but the Wholesale District was done right.