jeaton wrote: oltmannd wrote:Yes, it should burst. We're choosing to pump the Ogalala aquifer dry instead of pumping Saudi oil wells dry. Great choice.The Ogalala aquifer was being pumped dry long before ethanol was being used for anything but a stiff drink.
oltmannd wrote:Yes, it should burst. We're choosing to pump the Ogalala aquifer dry instead of pumping Saudi oil wells dry. Great choice.
The Ogalala aquifer was being pumped dry long before ethanol was being used for anything but a stiff drink.
OK. I should have added "faster".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeaton wrote:By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. An I wrong?
By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. An I wrong?
It seems to me if farmers divert more and more land to the corn (cash) crop, the supply of wheat is jeopardized, so the price goes up.
jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. Am I wrong?
By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. Am I wrong?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. Am I wrong?The explanation tossed around, is that so many farmers are planting corn now, instead of wheat.(?) I have a hard time believing that.
Well, here's one of many articles...
www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070331/BUSINESS06/703310405
rsovitzky wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. Am I wrong?The explanation tossed around, is that so many farmers are planting corn now, instead of wheat.(?) I have a hard time believing that.Well, here's one of many articles...www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070331/BUSINESS06/703310405
rsovitzky wrote: jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. An I wrong?It seems to me if farmers divert more and more land to the corn (cash) crop, the supply of wheat is jeopardized, so the price goes up.
jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. An I wrong?
The quantity and quality of the Canadian, Argentinian and Australian harvests would have a much larger effect.
Wheat prices followed the shortages in other countries, and record setting harvest in the states and Canada in 2007. Demand was at a premium, and we had the supply. Where wheat is grown, corn yields are generally low (Dryland yields tend to be 110 bushels per acre, where in Iowa, we get 170+ bushels per acre based on the 10-year average). If you are dryland farming, you need to estimate the income per acre based on futures of both commodities, and estimated yields. Usually with the added cost of irrigation for corn, it is best to stay with wheat. In the High Plains, Sorghum is chosen over corn in non-irrigated acres because of the lower cost of production, and higher yields. So the added cost versus the added yield just don't work out, even at today's bids of $5.38 for May delivery in KS for example.
selector wrote:Depends. Which gets the freebies....the subsidies?
Depends on who the farmer is. If you are the guy buying up other farms all over the place, then yes, you collect the money. If you farm 500 to 1,000 acres on your own, and work full time, it is doubtful they will see much if anything these days.
I would much prefer to see many of the farm subsidy programs be changed to reflect actual farmers, and not corporate owners, along with price ceilings and floors. I would also change the policies to protect "heritage farms", those which have been handed down generation to generation. But, in those instances, they hold very little influence with Congress, which makes the rules.
nanaimo73 wrote: rsovitzky wrote: jeaton wrote: By the way, some interesting points about grain prices and food prices and the cause for the increases. I think cash prices for wheat have gone through the roof. I can't see a connection between that and ethanol production. An I wrong?It seems to me if farmers divert more and more land to the corn (cash) crop, the supply of wheat is jeopardized, so the price goes up.The quantity and quality of the Canadian, Argentinian and Australian harvests would have a much larger effect.
Dale, I thought I had read that Canadian farmers had a bin busting season in 2007.
jeaton wrote: solzrules wrote: Yes. It should burst, but I don't think it will. It is a government mandate, and that is what created the demand in the begining. It sure wasn't the market. This mandate is seriously screwing with our economy in all kinds of idiotic ways, and it will not go away anytime soon. The housing market, which in the last 3 or 4 years has been completely unrealistic, finally took a dump because reality caught up with people. You can't charge 1 million bucks for a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in CA when people are not earning the wage to pay for it. Creative financial loans prolonged the correction, but the correction arrived all the same. Now just imagine what would happen if big ol hill got her way and froze forclosures? How many banks would continue to loan money when they have no hope of recouping cost if the loan defaults? Our government is preparing to tinker with our economy in an effort to make everyone happy and the result will be mass misery. Ethanol is a perfect example of that, and you watch-the mortgage industry will be the next disaster. Instead of letting the market work itself out, we'll have barackohillarain solving all of our problems - by creating new ones. Are you saying the housing thing was caused by government mandates?
solzrules wrote: Yes. It should burst, but I don't think it will. It is a government mandate, and that is what created the demand in the begining. It sure wasn't the market. This mandate is seriously screwing with our economy in all kinds of idiotic ways, and it will not go away anytime soon. The housing market, which in the last 3 or 4 years has been completely unrealistic, finally took a dump because reality caught up with people. You can't charge 1 million bucks for a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in CA when people are not earning the wage to pay for it. Creative financial loans prolonged the correction, but the correction arrived all the same. Now just imagine what would happen if big ol hill got her way and froze forclosures? How many banks would continue to loan money when they have no hope of recouping cost if the loan defaults? Our government is preparing to tinker with our economy in an effort to make everyone happy and the result will be mass misery. Ethanol is a perfect example of that, and you watch-the mortgage industry will be the next disaster. Instead of letting the market work itself out, we'll have barackohillarain solving all of our problems - by creating new ones.
Yes. It should burst, but I don't think it will. It is a government mandate, and that is what created the demand in the begining. It sure wasn't the market. This mandate is seriously screwing with our economy in all kinds of idiotic ways, and it will not go away anytime soon. The housing market, which in the last 3 or 4 years has been completely unrealistic, finally took a dump because reality caught up with people. You can't charge 1 million bucks for a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in CA when people are not earning the wage to pay for it. Creative financial loans prolonged the correction, but the correction arrived all the same. Now just imagine what would happen if big ol hill got her way and froze forclosures? How many banks would continue to loan money when they have no hope of recouping cost if the loan defaults? Our government is preparing to tinker with our economy in an effort to make everyone happy and the result will be mass misery. Ethanol is a perfect example of that, and you watch-the mortgage industry will be the next disaster. Instead of letting the market work itself out, we'll have barackohillarain solving all of our problems - by creating new ones.
Are you saying the housing thing was caused by government mandates?
Nope. If the gov gets involved then we'll have a REAL mess. Right now it is just a fiasco.
And how many banks would contunue to loan maney when they have no hope of recouping the cost if the loan defaults? Seems to me that up until a few months ago, their weren't many banks that even gave that any thought.
Actually, a home will go into foreclosure so that the bank might recoup SOME of its costs. That is the reason behind forclosures. If Hillary freezes forclosures (as she as proposed to do) what bank will loan money when there is NO hope of ever recouping the costs?
As for ethanol - it is a fictional market; if there was no government mandate, there would be no market. Its really as simple as that. Here's another whopper of simplicity - if we start making our fuel from corn, then one could expect the price of corn to increase. This it has done, and will continue to do, as long as we continue to mandate the use of corn for fuel.
For all two of the conservatives out there (seems like that's about it these days) this is just one gigantic mistake. The government mandates the use of ethanol in fuel, and the industry expands to fill this need. Suddenly there are a lot of people out there who are relying on that mandate for their livelihoods - farmers, elevators, railroads, ethanol distillers, etc. IF we ever pull our heads out of our rear ends and figure out that ethanol really doesn't serve a purpouse other than to make a few environmentalists feel good about themselves at the expense of everyone else, than we have a the problem of trying to turn off the spigot of government money to an entire group of industries from which the cry will immediately arise that people will lose their jobs. BECAUSE there is the threat of job loss, the mandate will now become a special interest in the political realm and as such be the adopted cause of every politician looking for an easy way to get votes.
We ALWAYS give ourselves way too much credit when it comes to thinking that we are in control of this whole affair. The truth is anything but.
solzrules wrote: jeaton wrote: solzrules wrote: Yes. It should burst, but I don't think it will. It is a government mandate, and that is what created the demand in the begining. It sure wasn't the market. This mandate is seriously screwing with our economy in all kinds of idiotic ways, and it will not go away anytime soon. The housing market, which in the last 3 or 4 years has been completely unrealistic, finally took a dump because reality caught up with people. You can't charge 1 million bucks for a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in CA when people are not earning the wage to pay for it. Creative financial loans prolonged the correction, but the correction arrived all the same. Now just imagine what would happen if big ol hill got her way and froze forclosures? How many banks would continue to loan money when they have no hope of recouping cost if the loan defaults? Our government is preparing to tinker with our economy in an effort to make everyone happy and the result will be mass misery. Ethanol is a perfect example of that, and you watch-the mortgage industry will be the next disaster. Instead of letting the market work itself out, we'll have barackohillarain solving all of our problems - by creating new ones. Are you saying the housing thing was caused by government mandates?Nope. If the gov gets involved then we'll have a REAL mess. Right now it is just a fiasco.
President Wiliam J. Clinton pushed, at the behest of his friend Sandy Weil, for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act -- Depression era legislation generally designed to keep speculative pressure out of things like the mortgage industry. After Clinton signed the bill, days later his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin resigned and accepted a job as Weil's chief sidekick at Citigroup. Just a coincidence. Weil of course wanted to take Citigroup into higher risk, higher yield investments than was permitted under G-S, where banks had been restricted from such "investments".
And, this was underscored by a continuing pressure that banks, under G-S, were "discriminating" against unqualified buyers and that lending policies needed to be egalitarian. Banks were hit with lawsuits citing discrimination even as their lending policies showed the prudence of the legitimate business purpose of using financial qualifications.
The subprime "mess" was all politics from the start. Weil is a big contributor to a certain candidate even today. Many of the same politicians who voted for the mess have plenty of ideas of what to vote for to fix the mess, and are receiving contributions from the same folks that benefitted from the Glass-Steagall repeal ....
There is an interesting overlap in that many of the same people voted for ethanol subsidies on the basis of global warming, etc. etc....
MichaelSol wrote: solzrules wrote: jeaton wrote: solzrules wrote: Yes. It should burst, but I don't think it will. It is a government mandate, and that is what created the demand in the begining. It sure wasn't the market. This mandate is seriously screwing with our economy in all kinds of idiotic ways, and it will not go away anytime soon. The housing market, which in the last 3 or 4 years has been completely unrealistic, finally took a dump because reality caught up with people. You can't charge 1 million bucks for a 2 bedroom 1 bath house in CA when people are not earning the wage to pay for it. Creative financial loans prolonged the correction, but the correction arrived all the same. Now just imagine what would happen if big ol hill got her way and froze forclosures? How many banks would continue to loan money when they have no hope of recouping cost if the loan defaults? Our government is preparing to tinker with our economy in an effort to make everyone happy and the result will be mass misery. Ethanol is a perfect example of that, and you watch-the mortgage industry will be the next disaster. Instead of letting the market work itself out, we'll have barackohillarain solving all of our problems - by creating new ones. Are you saying the housing thing was caused by government mandates?Nope. If the gov gets involved then we'll have a REAL mess. Right now it is just a fiasco.President Wiliam J. Clinton pushed, at the behest of his friend Sandy Weil, for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act -- Depression era legislation generally designed to keep speculative pressure out of things like the mortgage industry. After Clinton signed the bill, days later his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin resigned and accepted a job as Weil's chief sidekick at Citigroup. Just a coincidence. Weil of course wanted to take Citigroup into higher risk, higher yield investments than was permitted under G-S, where banks had been restricted from such "investments".And, this was underscored by a continuing pressure that banks, under G-S, were "discriminating" against unqualified buyers and that lending policies needed to be egalitarian. Banks were hit with lawsuits citing discrimination even as their lending policies showed the prudence of the legitimate business purpose of using financial qualifications. The subprime "mess" was all politics from the start. Weil is a big contributor to a certain candidate even today. Many of the same politicians who voted for the mess have plenty of ideas of what to vote for to fix the mess, and are receiving contributions from the same folks that benefitted from the Glass-Steagull repeal .... There is an interesting overlap in that many of the same people voted for ethanol subsidies on the basis of global warming, etc. etc....
The subprime "mess" was all politics from the start. Weil is a big contributor to a certain candidate even today. Many of the same politicians who voted for the mess have plenty of ideas of what to vote for to fix the mess, and are receiving contributions from the same folks that benefitted from the Glass-Steagull repeal ....
The government has played a big role in this subprime debacle. The obvious aspect of that role is the Fed policy keeping the interest rates too low for too long.
But there is one other very interesting aspect of the subprime crisis that seems to be completely missing from all the popular news coverage. Michael Sol has referred to it above. I am not aware of many details, but it seems that there was a sort of affordable housing political activism inspired government pressure on lenders to relax their loan qualification criteria because such requirements were seen as discrimination against financially disadvantaged borrowers. In other words, prospective homebuyers who were turned down for loans because they could not afford them or had bad credit were seen as victims of discrimination by lenders who had power over them. And the government wanted to end this form of discrimination.
So many of those unqualified homebuyers were given loans that they are unable to pay back. Part of the leniency in loan qualification was a very low down payment requirement. Now, with falling values, many of those unqualified buyers who cannot afford payments, are also finding the value has dropped below what they owe. And since many of them have little or no money into the house as a down payment, they simply mail the keys back to the lender and walk away, leaving one more empty house to add to the supply of unsold homes and further depress the everybody else's home values.
Now, in the greatest irony of all, these unqualified buyers who were artificially cast as victims if they were denied loans, are now cast as super victims because they are losing their homes due to predatory lending practice of the lender who had power over them. It is the lender's fault because they made a loan that the borrower was not qualified for. So if the lender is prudent, they are seen as discriminating against the disadvantaged. If the lender is not prudent, they are seen as predators against the disadvantaged.
At this time, congress, the candidates, and the news media are setting the stage for an even greater government involvement in the subprime crisis. The classic personal tragedy of losing one's home is being used to emotionally feed the call for a Katrina-like response from the government. This of course, will be a pretext to get the government more involved with private housing just like their expanding involvement in the energy business.
Bucyrus wrote: Now, in the greatest irony of all, these unqualified buyers who were artificially cast as victims if they were denied loans, are now cast as super victims because they are losing their homes due to predatory lending practice of the lender who had power over them. It is the lender's fault because they made a loan that the borrower was not qualified for. So if the lender is prudent, they are seen as discriminating against the disadvantaged. If the lender is not prudent, they are seen as predators against the disadvantaged. At this time, congress, the candidates, and the news media are setting the stage for an even greater government involvement in the subprime crisis. The classic personal tragedy of losing one's home is being used to emotionally feed the call for a Katrina-like response from the government. This of course, will be a pretext to get the government more involved with private housing just like their expanding involvement in the energy business.
And the same thing is going to happen when the "Ethanol Crisis" hits. In the name of all sorts of baloney, the government subsidies are having ramifications in all directions and when the piper is called to pay, when Congress can no longer justify the subsidy based on current studies showing that it takes more fuel in the long run to produce ethanol than it produces in terms of energy, several commodity prices are going to crash because of production overhangs, and the same people that loudly proclaimed ethanol, and got votes, will loudly proclaim that they have the solution -- more regulation of the markets to "control" such wild fluctuations. And get the votes of the very victims they created in the first place.
Plato said this would happen. That fully democratic governments would not find a cause they could not use government money to promote, and upon the crash, a solution to the problem they created that involves ... more government money.
Paint me cynical.
I have said in this forum before, in the largely the same words, that the more "problems" the populace demands that it's government solve, the more power and self preservation does the government accrue to itself in its alacrity. Beware what you ask for.
You will be assimilated.
Is it just me, or does it seem as if we have an enormous amount of problems on our plates right now?
During the 70's I was pretty oblivious to the energy problems, inflation (stagflation), and other problems. During the 80's my first mortgage was at whopping 12% interest rate and as rates fell (currently I pay 5.5%) it seemed like frosting on the cake. The 90's saw enormous growth in the economy and markets with the tech bubble bringing us back to reality. The early 2000's were tough with 911 and the economic downturn...but right now, it just seems as if everything is pointed in the wrong direction.
Michael, thanks for pointing out the WJ Clinton/Sandy Weil/Robert Rubin connection. I never realized that occured. This subprime mortgage situation is a mess it will take years to dig out of. With high energy costs, the loss of manufacturing (my largest customer today gave it's 60 day notice today with 440 jobs gone forever), the dollar at low levels, and banks/financials starting to get sick on the feast of the past 10 years...is it any wonder we are in the mess we are in?
Throw in the war in Iraq, budget deficits, health care issues, Medicare projected shortfalls, Social Security, et al...who would want to be President?
Sorry for ranting.
ed
Yes, the ethanol bubble should burst, but I fear it won't.
It is certainly technically feasible, but people will be very unhappy with the consequences. I've been living with "E-10" for more than twenty years, and it's just under 90% rotgut-grade gasoline, ten percent ethanol and, in the summer, a bit of frapped air. Our engines do not knock thanks in part to the near ubiquitousness of fuel injection in our motor vehicles, but I definitely have tested and found that I get less mileage in winter than in spring or summer. [I have allowed for urban vs. Interstate miles and what kind of accessories I use (basically how much I run the compressor; that's the biggest fuel-gulper).]
I'm fine with hybrids and electric, but when most of the nation or even the major Midwestern states are confronted by E-85, the citizens won't like the outcome. Been awhile since anyone's reminded us that corn squeezin's has a different volatility rate than distilled gasoline; a flex-fuel Ford Taurus is fine, but you'll flex to a far less efficient fuel, and that it would have to cost about 60 percent the cost of gasoline by volume, or less, to be ecomically worthwhile. It can't, naturally -- it will take a heck of a lot of jury-rigging by means of federal subsidy to make it look competitive per mpg in ordinary cars, trucks and SUV's.
But IMO this whole ethanol mess is the result of some well-minded liberals and a couple of pushy conservation groups jerking enough Senators around to make their point.
Does Congress give us what we want? Or what lobbyists want us to want?
Even worse again IMHO this is yet another interest group playing footsie with free-enterprise on the premise that because they'd been to law school and are smarter than the average bear (debatable), they can determine people's moods and attitudes better than the automakers and the big oil companies can (ludicrous), so as to mis-assign TONS of money to the wrong idea. We borrow all those extra billions now, and even if we could afford such again IMO and experience it would better go to Amtrak or some kind of rail renewal, also bringing our electric-transmissions grids up to date. Also fine with wind fans (unlike the Veep IIRC), and I wouldn't blanch at the idea of subsidizing more research about plug-ins (if for no other reason than giving GM a national monopoly on the technology).
You want to know the supreme lunacy? For many, many years (fifties if not earlier), congress has set up programs thru the USDA to subsidize corn-fed cattle. This American would like to be a corn-fed Midwesterner. Cob corn was almost impossible to find this past summer; in recent years at the harvest peak, it could be had five to seven for a dollar at the supermarkets. We are one of three nations in the world, the other two being Canada and Argentina, whose pampas (prairies) are enough to ensure that enough food is produced that we don't have to worry about protein intake. Now, whether we can continue to munch on corn-fed beef is another matter. The corn-fed variety is much less tough than the grass-fed variety but more inefficient and expensive because grass-to-graze costs very little in upkeep, whereas farmers and agribusiness for years have been "bribed" via subsidies to grow corn, then have cattle fed with it. Does this mean Congress will have to use subsidies to OUTBID corn-fed cattle agribusiness to boost corn production toward fuel and thus (artificially) into the ream of big oil?
I'm not writing this post because I can't give up that one foodstuff. I'm writing it because ethanol is an inherently inefficient fuel and people will not like the consequences. I don't mind eating tougher steak, and perhaps I'll have to; because despite recent performance, the USA can't go on exporting food with this kind of shunt toward making grain alcohol via corn instead of for corn-subsidized-cattle, and just plain to eat. In essence the Midwest is being asked to squander its birthright to feed everyone's cars. It might work, but it costs too much, and even if E-85 will be marketed mainly in the Midwestern states, we'll be able to swap notes with friends with other regions and realize what a "crock" it is to heavily subsidize corn-to-fuel.
By the way if you want to know more about the heinousness of federal agricultural support, read the first chapter of the late Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet.
Good grief, eveything turns into a rant about this volatile topic (in both senses of the word.) Sorry for the smoke and fire.
MichaelSol wrote: Plato said this would happen. That fully democratic governments would not find a cause they could not use government money to promote, and upon the crash, a solution to the problem they created that involves ... more government money. Paint me cynical.
I've said for years "there is no problem so bad today, that the government can't make even worst tomorrow."
Their first knee jerk reaction it to throw money [they don't have] at it. Then assemble a panel of people; with I'm smarter than you papers, to study it. Then throw even more money when the first billon didn't help. Education is a prime example of it.
inch
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
....Talk about throwing billions at "it", we'll we've been doing a pretty good job of just that lately...{where we probably don't belong}.
Quentin
selector wrote: I have said in this forum before, in the largely the same words, that the more "problems" the populace demands that it's government solve, the more power and self preservation does the government accrue to itself in its alacrity. Beware what you ask for.You will be assimilated.
And this leads to the government developing a variety of crises in order to serve itself in the name of solving those crises. Government feeds on problems and thereby expands its power. And the more powerful it gets, the more freedom and property it takes away from its citizens. Pretty soon it starts mandating how much water you can use, how much you can heat your home, how far you can drive your car each month, or even what kind of light bulbs you must use.
It starts with a group releasing a study that shows that Americans are getting fatter, poorer, more stressed, sleep deprived, gouged by corporations, more at risk for allergies, delayed by traffic, or some other form of victimization. The group sends the study to TV news, and they (without realizing the role they play) cement the victimization by informing the would-be victims of it. Part of this process of creating victims is the implication that victims have a right to not be victimized, so they naturally turn to government for the solution. Therefore, afflicted with a grievance and armed with a right of relief, the victims besiege congress and demand redress. In response, congress creates a program with the presented intention to make victims whole again. Of course the real intention is to make the government bigger; a process that began with the study produced by a group.
We do indeed seem to have a lot of problems on our plate, but they are not just landing there by normal circumstances. Rather, the problems are being served up intentionally with ulterior motives. And those problems will pale compared to the problems that will flow from demanding that the government solve them.
MP173 wrote: Is it just me, or does it seem as if we have an enormous amount of problems on our plates right now?During the 70's I was pretty oblivious to the energy problems, inflation (stagflation), and other problems. During the 80's my first mortgage was at whopping 12% interest rate and as rates fell (currently I pay 5.5%) it seemed like frosting on the cake. The 90's saw enormous growth in the economy and markets with the tech bubble bringing us back to reality. The early 2000's were tough with 911 and the economic downturn...but right now, it just seems as if everything is pointed in the wrong direction.ed
No matter how dark some things appear on the horizon, you have to put it in perspective-things get better. My mother's fear, was that her children would someday die in a nuclear holocaust in WW III. Try to explain that to your kids, and all you get is a blank stare.
My observation, is that those under about 40-45 years old have never really been through an economic downturn. That's the folks who are going to feel some pain. When I drive my 9 year old van into the parking lot at work, I look at all the $600 a month pickup payments all parked in a row. I can only shake my head in wonder.
The antidote, for me at least, is to remain optimistic, and to find interests that can make me forget about realities for a while. For me, it's books and railroads.
Does this qualify as a anti-rant?
Cheers!
-Norris
Ethanol really is a scam. We're taking inefficient food crops and producing welfare checks for the Corn Belt states. If you really want the stuff, import it from Brazil where they can produce it far cheaper with sugar cane, which the US tariffs at .50 cents per gallon to keep out competition.
But hey, if you were wise enough to invest in agriculture firms, fertilizer companies or transports the last few years you made a lot of money.
Ham Radio wrote: Ethanol really is a scam. We're taking inefficient food crops and producing welfare checks for the Corn Belt states. If you really want the stuff, import it from Brazil where they can produce it far cheaper with sugar cane, which the US tariffs at .50 cents per gallon to keep out competition.But hey, if you were wise enough to invest in agriculture firms, fertilizer companies or transports the last few years you made a lot of money.
Ethanol really is a scam. We're taking inefficient food crops and producing welfare checks for the Corn Belt states.
If you really want the stuff, import it from Brazil where they can produce it far cheaper with sugar cane, which the US tariffs at .50 cents per gallon to keep out competition.
Ethanol added $47.6 billion to the GNP in 2007. The industry generated a surplus of $1.2 billion for the Federal treasury in 2007. After subsidies and tax credits, small producer credits, but not including USDA programs and payments (they would exist if there was no ethanol industry).
Imported goods such as Brazilian ethanol will not come close to that factor. Locally, a smaller plant spends about $56.1 million in goods and services from local sources on continued operations. Ethanol from Brazil? $0 This economic activity adds jobs, both locally and nationally, and are usually above the local median income for the area. In that spending, transportation is not the top of the list. Nor does this consider fertililzer or other Ag inputs.
And, believe it or not, if there was no ethanol industry today, farmers would still be spending for seed, fertilizer, and related goods and services. That is because, they will still grow corn, ,soybeans, millet, sorghum, and wheat!
Ham Radio wrote: Ethanol really is a scam. We're taking inefficient food crops and producing welfare checks for the Corn Belt states. If you really want the stuff, import it from Brazil where they can produce it far cheaper with sugar cane, which the US tariffs at .50 cents per gallon to keep out competition. But hey, if you were wise enough to invest in agriculture firms, fertilizer companies or transports the last few years you made a lot of money.
Your logic is so flawed on this post that I don't even know where to begin.
Then again....weren't you the fellow who posted here two weeks ago that tanker cars had individual GPS transponders on them????
TroutBrookJunction wrote:The arrogance of these Liberal (in general) and Republican farm state politicians is astounding. We are subsidizing these people. The ethanol argument is so flawed as to not even merit a debate. At least we know that people are out there turning off lights for an hour tonight to save mother earth. Let the free market work its wonder on this scam.http://www.startribune.com/business/17072036.html
Again, it appears you mix two different issuses. You do not separate the Farm Bill, with it's flaws, from the ethanol industry.
How many times must I say the two are separate issues? Why cannot the people on this board understand that simple concept? Call your school and demand a refund on your education, it is obvious it did you no good.
TroutBrookJunction wrote:At least we know that people are out there turning off lights for an hour tonight to save mother earth.
I have all my lights on, and have the heat up to 72° tonight in honor of those dingbats. You must be friends of Kelarson and Joe Fehr. You exhibit the same logic patterns.
RRKen wrote: TroutBrookJunction wrote:At least we know that people are out there turning off lights for an hour tonight to save mother earth. I have all my lights on, and have the heat up to 72° tonight in honor of those dingbats. You must be friends of Kelarson and Joe Fehr. You exhibit the same logic patterns.
Modelcar wrote: ....Talk about throwing billions at "it", we'll we've been doing a pretty good job of just that lately...{where we probably don't belong}.
I do so agree with you with a capital "I." And more than just American $$$ . . .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.