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-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....
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.
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.
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....
Of course, if we get a Democrat in the White House expect a whole new slew of regulations that could cause the financial services industry to dramatically change, especially if we get a de facto reimposition of the terms of the Glass-Steagall Act. (Mind you, I think the best solution is to drop income taxes on interest from passbook savings and checking accounts and reduce capital gains taxes on investments in equities to 10% or under; that would result in a HUGE inflow of money into our financial system.)
But getting back on topic, I think ethanol is here to stay. However, with the likely chance that much of the ethanol produced may come from switchgrass and the processing of oil-laden algae, most of the facilities to ship out ethanol will probably be either along the coastline or in the southern states, where commercial switchgrass growing will be more common.
I hope I won't be seen as a contributor to the demise of a good discussion, but this Earth Hour thing....what's up with that? What change of behaviour does it promise for the last workaholic on a Saturday to turn out the lights when she leaves? All of them, this time? If they had turned down 40% of their usage during the first four hours of the working day, and found a way to make do, that would have been a meaningful exercise. Saturday night, when all the suburban bar-b-ques are fired up....gee...I dunno.
It's like that diet programme that sells you their own brand of chocolate bars and shakes. Where's the change of behaviour, including thinking? You mean, I can still have all the chocolate bars I want, as long as I pay exhorbitant prices for your own particular kind? Cool! And you said shakes, too? Man, I'm in heaven. I want a tray of 'em.
Why not all night...why just an hour?
Murphy Siding wrote: The figure bandied about in our part of the world, is that the amount the farmer is paid for the corn in a box of cornflakes has doubled. The farmer used to get 5 cents for that much corn, now he gets 10 cents. If your cornflakes went up more than 5 cents per box, there's probably another reason. I would guess that reason is the price of diesel fuel
In Novenber 2006, the price for a bushel of corn was $3.50...now it is $5.60 per the same source
http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/
http://cs.trains.com/forums/965393/ShowPost.aspx
Solzrules was right, this time.
Convicted One wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: The figure bandied about in our part of the world, is that the amount the farmer is paid for the corn in a box of cornflakes has doubled. The farmer used to get 5 cents for that much corn, now he gets 10 cents. If your cornflakes went up more than 5 cents per box, there's probably another reason. I would guess that reason is the price of diesel fuel In Novenber 2006, the price for a bushel of corn was $3.50...now it is $5.60 per the same sourcehttp://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/ http://cs.trains.com/forums/965393/ShowPost.aspxSolzrules was right, this time.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote:I'm not sure I understand the correlation between Solzrules being right, and you quoting me above?
One is not necessarily conditioned upon the other. He is capable of being right despite of my offering to you hard figures to bolster your earlier estimation.
Convicted One wrote: Murphy Siding wrote:I'm not sure I understand the correlation between Solzrules being right, and you quoting me above? One is not necessarily conditioned upon the other. He is capable of being right despite of my offering to you hard figures to bolster your earlier estimation.
YES! I alway knew I was amazing!!!!
Now why doesn't my wife agree with me?
selector wrote: I hope I won't be seen as a contributor to the demise of a good discussion, but this Earth Hour thing....what's up with that? What change of behaviour does it promise for the last workaholic on a Saturday to turn out the lights when she leaves? All of them, this time? If they had turned down 40% of their usage during the first four hours of the working day, and found a way to make do, that would have been a meaningful exercise. Saturday night, when all the suburban bar-b-ques are fired up....gee...I dunno.It's like that diet programme that sells you their own brand of chocolate bars and shakes. Where's the change of behaviour, including thinking? You mean, I can still have all the chocolate bars I want, as long as I pay exhorbitant prices for your own particular kind? Cool! And you said shakes, too? Man, I'm in heaven. I want a tray of 'em.Why not all night...why just an hour?
I have a couple of thoughts about the Earth Hour. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has defined the problem of climate change and its very specific remedy, and that remedy calls for extreme sacrifice in our lifestyles. Meanwhile most of the political class, news media, and pop culture are spreading the word that we can solve the problem by doing things such as providing our own grocery bags, switching light bulbs, keeping our tires inflated, using less air conditioning, and a whole lot of other diddly little things that will not require any real sacrifice at all. One of these two solutions has got to be a lie because one calls for profound sacrifice while the other calls for practically none.
I figure that the U.N. is overstating the problem and its remedy in order to dramatize how bad the crisis is. I also think that the point of telling us to do a whole lot of little things is not to actually solve the problem, but rather, to get everybody to participate in painless little remedies and thus get them thinking that they are solving the problem. If everybody thinks they are solving the problem, then surly they will believe there is a problem. It is self-participatory indoctrination. And if people believe there is a problem, they will not resist all the new carbon taxes and regulations that will soon pour forth predicated on climate change. The lights out for an hour was just one more of those "little things" that will help us get out minds right.
That part of the psychology is okay, Bucyrus, but for someone a little more critical in the way they assess such "inverventions", as I am wont to be, the price of gas these days will tell the same people much more. Peacenicks holding rallies for peace when there's a real war going on that is claiming active participants is really of little practical value. Sure we all need to get along, conserve, eat less, exercise more...yada yada...and the message in all its guises is useful in some way. But the thinking class, which comprises about 94% of all Americans and Canadians, is surely going to feel awkward reaching for the same light switch it reaches for every Saturday, or worse, Friday, and express to neighbours that they did it to make a difference. The lights do go out, and the chocolate bar really is less deleterious, but....what has changed in terms of responsibility and overt practise?
Perhaps I am being churlish, and conflating two different things. I will grant that young persons, those under 11 or 12 maybe, will be taken up in the spirit of the exercise and we will have done some good in the end. It's just that they don't buy the gas....today.
-Crandell
solzrules wrote: YES! I alway knew I was amazing!!!!Now why doesn't my wife agree with me?
That's not in her job description.
"If it would raise the price of corn a dollar a bushell, politicians in Iowa would legalize genocide."
An observer in Iowa related this concerning subsidized grain sales to the command and control workers paradise of the Soviet Union over 30 years ago. We feed them, they play nice. We will save on our military expeditures. Our farmers and rural communities will prosper. The oberver related more.
The Soviets did not play nice in Afganistan. The residue of that action continues.
The plug was pulled on Soviet grain sales. Rural America and support industries crashed. Payment in Kind (PIK) was to cost the taxpayers nothing extra. Farmers would get certificates for surplus grain already purchased.
Bail out on top of subsidy hit the ag support sector like a bomb. Federal bailout made fallow fields needing no related business support. Rural banks failed. The railroads picked some business off the subsidy.
PIK certificates were good anywhere. Farmers in the central corn belt sold PIK certificates for redemtion on the fringes. Grain that otherwise would move for export down subsidized barge canals (inland rivers) now left from say Ohio by rail to eastern ports. Corn sold for more on the fringe and the cost of moving paper, PIK certificates was not that great for redemtion at the higher price.
If there is an ethanol bust and bail out, could something similar result in a distruption of the system that would benefit rail transport?
This is my first response to a forum: Having been a farmer years ago, and an Agricultural
Education Instructor for 14 years, I present my qualifications for an informed comment up front.
One: Growing wheat and corn is like comparing apples and oranges. Or an E-7 and an F-7.
(mandatory train content, ok) There is market and price influence, but not a direct cause
and effect link between the two.
Two: Most of the 10 million bushels of corn grown in the US goes into animal feed, not
corn flakes. Again, market influence, but no direct link between corn prices and corn flake
prices.
Three: Ease up on the farmers will ya? In 1959 my dad received $1.50 per bushel for wheat
and paid $2500 for a new Ford. In 1969 I received $1.55 a bushel and couldn't afford a new
Mustang for $4000. Diesel fuel was 17 Cents/gallon then. Now corn is around $4.50 a bushel,
diesel fuel $3.50 or more, and a new mustang is over $20,000. You do the math, Corn is a
bargain compared to anything else.
Four: Those of you who blame the meddling government are the closest to right. I'd gladly
give up any farm subsidy, gov' t help, etc. for market driven $6.00 bushel corn.
Mark
ndbprr wrote:Railroads were moving the corn before ethanol. They were just moving it in covered hoppers to ports rather then tank cars from ethanol plants.
Most of what we hauled prior to 1999, went to Processors in Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Eddyville, IA and Blair, NE. To Chicken Farmers in all over Arkansas and Missouri. To Mexico, Arizona, and Texas as cattle feed. What was left went to Export in the Gulf.
Since most cars are leased the railroads will probably still move the goods. In fact they would probably get more car loadings since the corn occupies more space then the ethanol.
Cars that haul DDGs are 6000 to 6300 cuft, far too big for whole grain corn. 3000 bushels fit nice in a 5000 cuft covered hopper, which are built for that kind of tonnage. You see corn is denser than DDGs.
Bottom line there will be minimal effect on the railroads.
No. Consider that once the corn has been processed, the remainder, DDGs, is also moved by rail. So for every tank car, you have three or four covered hoppers. And some plants are moving CO2 by rail as well.
Every railroad I know has invested a lot of money on increased capacity to handle ethanol and DDGs shippments. And they depend on that business to recover the spending.
The cost of fertilizer has tripled. You cannot get a corn head unless you ordered a year and a half ago, most of them are being exported. Same goes for a Deere tractor, or harvestor. Even if you have the money, no dice. Diesel is $4. a gallon. Propane is insane. Seed is running $200 a bag.
In 1995, when exports drove the market to $5 corn, the inputs were less than a quarter of the costs they are today.
Today, (2007 harvest) the world wide shortage of corn and wheat has again driven the market, not ethanol.
I remember reading an article in Road & Track magazine 20 or more years ago about "Gasohol".
The author asked a question about questions which may lie ahead in the future... What will we ultimately decide we want - food or fuel?
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?
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.
Just read this morning the USDA says planting intentions of corn is down 8% for crop year 2008
The Amish are the only farmers that I know of that still rotate their crops. As previously stated, sometimes a field is changed over from corn to soybeans or vice-versa but that has more to do with prices for the crops as oppassed to replenishing the soil.
stevewf1 wrote: I remember reading an article in Road & Track magazine 20 or more years ago about "Gasohol".The author asked a question about questions which may lie ahead in the future... What will we ultimately decide we want - food or fuel?
Read the posts again.
No one is substituting food for fuel. Corn goes in, gets hammered, becomes mash, is distilled, the solids come out, are dried, and sold as Animal feed (The water is recycled back through the process hundreds of times)(Ethanol is anhydrous, no water). That animal feed replaces corn, and allows better weight gain on cattle. Cheaper than Corn.
tnchpsk8 wrote: The Amish are the only farmers that I know of that still rotate their crops. As previously stated, sometimes a field is changed over from corn to soybeans or vice-versa but that has more to do with prices for the crops as oppassed to replenishing the soil.
Nope. It has to do with a farmer not wanting to spend so much on fertilizer if he decided to put corn on corn. Rotation of crops is as common as mosquitos in Minnesota. When you invest a lot of time and money on a farm, why on earth would you destroy the only land you have? So many farms here have been in family's for centurys, there is a reason why the land is still so productive.
Here is what it really breaks down to. We all, including myself went out and bought SUV's and the like. A certain party in Congress has greatly restricted us drilling for oil on our own soil and created too many restrictions on building refineries. China and India are now competing for the oil we used to get on the cheap. OPEC has us over a barrel and has had for years. Perhaps Ethanol is grasping at air, but we have not given ourselves alot of other options. I would rather pay a dollar more a pound for "grain fed beef" than buy IEDs and support terror in the MIddle East. So friends rather we like it or not, we as Americans need to come up with some solutions. Just as a side note, how did the railroads fare during the oil embargo in the late 70's?
Good discussion.
RRKen wrote: No one is substituting food for fuel. Corn goes in, gets hammered, becomes mash, is distilled, the solids come out, are dried, and sold as Animal feed (The water is recycled back through the process hundreds of times)(Ethanol is anhydrous, no water). That animal feed replaces corn, and allows better weight gain on cattle. Cheaper than Corn.
This thread is so busy, I don't know if anyone has brought it up yet, but has anyone else seen TIME magazine, April 7 cover date (it's out now). Cover article is "THE CLEAN ENERGY MYTH: Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternatives to oil. All they're doing is driving up fuel prices and making global warming worse -- and you're paying for it."
RRKen wrote: tnchpsk8 wrote: The Amish are the only farmers that I know of that still rotate their crops. As previously stated, sometimes a field is changed over from corn to soybeans or vice-versa but that has more to do with prices for the crops as oppassed to replenishing the soil.Nope. It has to do with a farmer not wanting to spend so much on fertilizer if he decided to put corn on corn. Rotation of crops is as common as mosquitos in Minnesota. When you invest a lot of time and money on a farm, why on earth would you destroy the only land you have? So many farms here have been in family's for centurys, there is a reason why the land is still so productive.
RR KEN, it's the same here for rotating crops not just fertilizer cost, but also insecticide and herbicides. Corn on corn fields have more bug and weed problems, some of them can [and have] have become resistant to the current products available.
inch
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Murphy Siding wrote: RRKen wrote: No one is substituting food for fuel. Corn goes in, gets hammered, becomes mash, is distilled, the solids come out, are dried, and sold as Animal feed (The water is recycled back through the process hundreds of times)(Ethanol is anhydrous, no water). That animal feed replaces corn, and allows better weight gain on cattle. Cheaper than Corn. There is a boom of contruction of dairy barns in eastern S.D., due to the abundance of animal feed from ethanol plants, which is more cost effective than feeding cows corn.
Not here, I heard of another dairy closing a couple counties over due to over all higher cost.
Some of the hog n beef farmers have cut back some on their numbers from higher cost and lower profits.
al-in-chgo wrote: This thread is so busy, I don't know if anyone has brought it up yet, but has anyone else seen TIME magazine, April 7 cover date (it's out now). Cover article is "THE CLEAN ENERGY MYTH: Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternatives to oil. All they're doing is driving up fuel prices and making global warming worse -- and you're paying for it."
When ethanol was first proposed back in the 80's, it was intended only as a supplement added to gasoline, not a replacement. But, politicians can get ahold of a good idea and things go down hill quickly.
USDA's corn planting intention data came out yesterday. In short, they estimate 8% FEWER corn acres than previous years. That should be a reasonably hard number as it is getting very late for farmers to do much shifting of crops on their acres.
The probable reason for the corn drop is the cost of inputs, in particular fertilizer. Corn require large amounts of it as compared to other crops, and that is a hydrocarbon based product. Also, prices for substitute crops -- mostly soybeans -- are also at record levels.
The railroads are probably pretty indifferent regarding the crop mix. Around here, they transport both crops to the Mississippi River terminals to be barged down the river and exported or directly by rail to the southern states for animal feed. If the corn is processed into ethanol or the beans into biodiesel, it will leave the processing facility by train.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.