Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears

[OldMercsRule]

"The starchy cassava root has long been an important ingredient in everything from tapioca pudding and ice cream to paper and animal feed"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/science/earth/07cassava.html?_r=3&ref=science

stoooooooooopid

stoooooooooooooooooopid

stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop id

N' we are reeeeeeeeel smart toooooooooooooooooooooo.

Jus' because Iowa is one of the first states in Pres' Primary races....

We burn corn...... which ruins' our engines....... decreases milage in our autos n' boats......... :laugh2: :laugh2:

N' Lord knows.... ol' Murky luvs corn.....

Me overpriced $.02. JR

[fj1200]

"The starchy cassava root has long been an important ingredient in everything from tapioca pudding and ice cream to paper and animal feed"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/science/earth/07cassava.html?_r=3&ref=science

It's OK, higher food prices impact poor countries more than those who like to mandate backwards requirements. Leave it to the busy bodies not to take into account the unseen costs of mandates.

[logroller]

It's a NYTimes article, considering the target audience, I suppose this closing comment makes sense.

“We have to move away from the thinking that producing an energy crop doesn’t compete with food,” said Mr. Dubois of the Food and Agriculture Organization. “It almost inevitably does.”
Supply and demand shifts from substitutes--What a breakthrough.:rolleyes: That was big news in the late 17th century, in an unrelated story, the Plymouth Bay Colony comes to an end.:laugh:

[PostmodernProphet]

I get tired of having to continuously prove to people that using corn for ethanol has no impact on the cost of their food

this time I'm simply going to suggest you go back and read one of the half dozen threads we've had on the topic before and remind you that you're an idiot for even mentioning it.......

the cost of the fuel used to deliver products to the supermarket where you buy it contributes far more to your grocery bill than does the corn used to produce ethanol to replace it.......

[Kathianne]

To use food and land producing food for energy, while forbidden to use proven resources and explore for more is foolish. Of course those benefiting from the subsidies and increase commodity prices disagree.

The unintended consequences of not using our resources is on the backs of the poor world-wide.

[KarlMarx]

Q: What do you call a liberal with an IQ of 100?

A: The Democratic Party

Stuff like this makes me want to do a Tony Soprano on entire bunch that perpetrated this monstrosity

Then the same monsters who support this legislation are on television bleating about how a 1% cut in the federal budget will cause people to starve...AS IF THEY REALLY COULD CARE LESS

[fj1200]

I get tired of having to continuously prove to people that using corn for ethanol has no impact on the cost of their food

That presumes you proved it before. ;)


this time I'm simply going to suggest you go back and read one of the half dozen threads we've had on the topic before and remind you that you're an idiot for even mentioning it.......

He's an idiot for pointing out basic economics?


the cost of the fuel used to deliver products to the supermarket where you buy it contributes far more to your grocery bill than does the corn used to produce ethanol to replace it.......

Not sure anyone was disputing that point.

[Kathianne]

Ethanol leading to more inflation:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-corn-reserves-expected-to-apf-3038968207.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=



US corn reserves expected to fall to 15-year low
Corn reserves projected to fall to 15-year low, a trend that could lead to higher food prices
Friday April 8, 2011, 10:40 am EDT

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Rising demand for corn from ethanol producers is pushing U.S. reserves to the lowest point in 15 years, a trend that could lead to higher grain and food prices this year...

...Corn prices affect most products in supermarkets. Corn is used to feed the cattle, hogs and chickens that fill the meat case, and it is the main ingredient in cereals and soft drinks.

[Cracker]

I get tired of having to continuously prove to people that using corn for ethanol has no impact on the cost of their food
.

Based on simple supply and demand, I don't see how.

[Kathianne]

Based on simple supply and demand, I don't see how.

Welcome! Good first post. Perhaps you might post a wee introduction at top of board?

[Cracker]

I didn't realize that this was a porn site. Sorry, but I'm not going to show my wee to anyone.

[logroller]

I get tired of having to continuously prove to people that using corn for ethanol has no impact on the cost of their food

this time I'm simply going to suggest you go back and read one of the half dozen threads we've had on the topic before and remind you that you're an idiot for even mentioning it.......

the cost of the fuel used to deliver products to the supermarket where you buy it contributes far more to your grocery bill than does the corn used to produce ethanol to replace it.......

We're not talking about the butterfly effect here. Substitutes do effect the price. I think what is important to note here is those with whom you feel in disagreement aren't against ethanol production, they're against the subsidization by govt. If the price of petroleum gas rises to the point where ethanol becomes economically beneficial (ie profitable), then so be it. Likewise if the price of fuels leads to increased transportation costs which increase food price, maybe local farming becomes more economically feasible; not because of govt but because individual players-- suppliers, transporters and consumers all have chosen to this for their own benefit. Let's say I don't like the price of corn, I can grow my own, but I'm still paying into the market through subsidies. My understanding of govt's role doesn't include forcing me to engage in commodity markets.

[Kathianne]

I didn't realize that this was a porn site. Sorry, but I'm not going to show my wee to anyone.

TWWP :laugh2:

[Cracker]

TWWP :laugh2:? :confused:

[OldMercsRule]

I didn't realize that this was a porn site. Sorry, but I'm not going to show my wee to anyone.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL


Yer kind of a funny doooooooooood, eh? Cracker feller. :happy0203: :happy0203:


I'd show my "wee" in a private or maybe a semi public showin' to the Ladies......, butt: not over the net... :thumb: :2up:

Sorry Kathianne....... sniff...... sniff

This new Cracker feller is a funny dude, n' hit me in the ol' tickle bone.......

MY = BAD

JR

[PostmodernProphet]

That presumes you proved it before. ;)



He's an idiot for pointing out basic economics?



Not sure anyone was disputing that point.

ethanol is made out of what is surplus....in the Midwest, corn was in surplus.....in Brazil, sugar cane was in surplus.........that is basic economics......

[PostmodernProphet]

To use food and land producing food for energy, while forbidden to use proven resources and explore for more is foolish.

obviously.....if you add something foolish to the equation (forbidding use of proven resources) it's going to make it more foolish.....doesn't mean making ethanol is foolish, however.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Based on simple supply and demand, I don't see how.

because the corn in your diet is an insignificant part of your diet.....the bulk of corn produced in the US that makes it's way into the human diet comes in the form of corn syrup......most of that is used by the beverage industry......the amount of corn syrup in a can of Coke is less than one cent's worth of corn syrup......thus, what happens to your Coke if the cost of corn quadruples?........there is about nine cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes.......

now I know you're going to mention animal feed so I will take a head start on that.....brewer's mash, the by product of ethanol production, makes a better cattle feed than raw corn....that is because cattle cannot digest sugars (keep in mind methane gas as a byproduct of cattle eating and global warming).....thus, removing the sugars is actually better for cattle....

[PostmodernProphet]

We're not talking about the butterfly effect here. Substitutes do effect the price. I think what is important to note here is those with whom you feel in disagreement aren't against ethanol production, they're against the subsidization by govt. If the price of petroleum gas rises to the point where ethanol becomes economically beneficial (ie profitable), then so be it. Likewise if the price of fuels leads to increased transportation costs which increase food price, maybe local farming becomes more economically feasible; not because of govt but because individual players-- suppliers, transporters and consumers all have chosen to this for their own benefit. Let's say I don't like the price of corn, I can grow my own, but I'm still paying into the market through subsidies. My understanding of govt's role doesn't include forcing me to engage in commodity markets.


the use of ethanol and other biofuels to reduce the cost of production and transportation does more to reduce the cost of the food on grocery store shelves than the use of corn to produce it increases the cost of food on grocery store shelves.....

[fj1200]

ethanol is made out of what is surplus....in the Midwest, corn was in surplus.....in Brazil, sugar cane was in surplus.........that is basic economics......

The evidence and analysis, by those outside of Iowa ;), seems to go against you.

[OldMercsRule]

ethanol is made out of what is surplus....in the Midwest, corn was in surplus.....in Brazil, sugar cane was in surplus.........that is basic economics......


"Corn was in surplus"..... yer sayin'? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Not hardly PMP..... you smart religious fellers aren't supposta smoke whacky tabaceeeeee so what is yer excuse? :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Cracker]

because the corn in your diet is an insignificant part of your diet.....the bulk of corn produced in the US that makes it's way into the human diet comes in the form of corn syrup......most of that is used by the beverage industry......the amount of corn syrup in a can of Coke is less than one cent's worth of corn syrup......thus, what happens to your Coke if the cost of corn quadruples?........there is about nine cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes.......

now I know you're going to mention animal feed so I will take a head start on that.....brewer's mash, the by product of ethanol production, makes a better cattle feed than raw corn....that is because cattle cannot digest sugars (keep in mind methane gas as a byproduct of cattle eating and global warming).....thus, removing the sugars is actually better for cattle....

I may be having an epiphany here...

Some facts:

Ethanol production from corn is not leading to a shortage of grain for livestock feed. Quite the opposite is true. Because ethanol production produces both fuel and livestock feed, its quickly becoming a driving market force in the location and production of beef and dairy cattle.

Specifically, the production of ethanol from corn requires just the starch in each kernel. In the dry mill ethanol process, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is ground into flour (or “meal”) and processed without separation of the various nutritional component parts of the grain. The meal is slurried with water to form a “mash.” Enzymes are added to the mash, which is then processed in a high-temperature cooker, cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol begins.
After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining “stillage.” The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates the coarse grain from the solubles. The solubles are then concentrated to about 30 percent solids by evaporation, resulting in condensed distillers solubles (CDS) or “syrup.” CDS is sometimes sold into the feed market, but more often the residual coarse grain and the CDS are mixed together and dried to produce distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). In some cases, the syrup is not reapplied to the residual grains; this product is simply called distillers dried grains (DDG).
If the distillers grains are being fed to livestock in close proximity to the ethanol plant, the drying step is avoided and the product is called wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS). Because of various drying and syrup applications practices, there are several variants of distillers grains (one of which is called modified wet distillers grains), but most product is sold as DDGS, DDG, or WDGS. The vitamins, fibers, and nutrients that remain are processed into a high-value livestock feed most commonly referred to as distillers dried grains with solubles, or DDGS. http://www.americancattlemen.com/articles/ethanol-impact-feed-prices

Newt's take: http://www.radioiowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GingrichJan25.mp3

[logroller]

I may be having an epiphany here...

Some facts:
http://www.americancattlemen.com/articles/ethanol-impact-feed-prices

Newt's take: http://www.radioiowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GingrichJan25.mp3

Ah yes, free-market forces and technology working together in symphony---music to my ears.:clap:

[Cracker]

Ah yes, free-market forces and technology working together in symphony---music to my ears.:clap:

It's far from a free market. We've been subsidizing Mideast oil for decades with all the money that we spend over there, and the domestic oil market is stifled due to over regulation of drilling and environmental whackos. We should be taxing OPEC imports to pay for what we do over there and open up our own oil fields so the free market can decide what energy source is the most cost effective.

[fj1200]

It's far from a free market. We've been subsidizing Mideast oil for decades with all the money that we spend over there, and the domestic oil market is stifled due to over regulation of drilling and environmental whackos. We should be taxing OPEC imports to pay for what we do over there and open up our own oil fields so the free market can decide what energy source is the most cost effective.

On what are we spending our money over there?

[logroller]

It's far from a free market. We've been subsidizing Mideast oil for decades with all the money that we spend over there, and the domestic oil market is stifled due to over regulation of drilling and environmental whackos. We should be taxing OPEC imports to pay for what we do over there and open up our own oil fields so the free market can decide what energy source is the most cost effective.

I think you left out the part where you connected the complementary use of feed corn for ethanol production&cattle feed to ME oil interests. I agree we dont have a free-market when it comes to energy/oil, but tariffs aren't prescriptive of free-trade any more than subsidizing ethanol plants.

[Cracker]

On what are we spending our money over there? Three wars, counter-terrorism, subsidies to Israel.

[Cracker]

I think you left out the part where you connected the complementary use of feed corn for ethanol production&cattle feed to ME oil interests. I agree we dont have a free-market when it comes to energy/oil, but tariffs aren't prescriptive of free-trade any more than subsidizing ethanol plants. A tariff to pay for the actual cost of importing would actually make the market closer to its cost reality.

[PostmodernProphet]

The evidence and analysis, by those outside of Iowa ;), seems to go against you.

no....there are a few brainless liberals who like to shout "People will starve" even though it isn't true.....beyond that the economics are pretty well established....

[PostmodernProphet]

"Corn was in surplus"..... yer sayin'? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Not hardly PMP..... you smart religious fellers aren't supposta smoke whacky tabaceeeeee so what is yer excuse? :laugh2: :laugh2:

right.....they poured this corn on the ground because they wanted to ski.....http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/427skiiowasmall_1.jpg

[OldMercsRule]

right.....they poured this corn on the ground because they wanted to ski.....http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/427skiiowasmall_1.jpg


Yer really upside down on this PMP...... n' usually yer a real smart feller or at least maybeeeeee a fart smeller......... :fart:

JR :happy0203:

[PostmodernProphet]

incidentally, I find it amusing that Merc "thanked" Cracker for saying the same thing I did.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Yer really upside down on this PMP...... n' usually yer a real smart feller or at least maybeeeeee a fart smeller......... :fart:

JR :happy0203:

just for clarification.....are you denying that corn was in surplus prior to the development of ethanol plants?....

for starters, here's a quote from the article you thanked Cracker for...


It is worth pointing out that many critics of ethanol’s impact on corn prices point to their increased production costs and the tax incentive that exists for ethanol blending. What rarely accompanies such a discussion is the fact that prior to ethanol, farmers were getting a large percentage of their income from farm payments. As such, end users of corn were able to buy large volumes of grain below the cost of production and forcing the federal government to make the difference up to the farmer. By one estimate from Tufts University, the livestock industry saved $35 billion in feed costs between 1997 and 2005 as a result of artificially depressed corn prices.

[OldMercsRule]

incidentally, I find it amusing that Merc "thanked" Cracker for saying the same thing I did.....


Ya know I only have one functional brain cell............ :happy0203:

Cracker is a new feller n' reeeeeeel smart....... if I thank him lots maybe he will not pick on meeeeeeee like LR, Missileman, n' Girlfriend does.... (hope you don't start now). :happy0203:

Sooooooooooooo quit pickin' on meeeeeeeeeeeeee..... :happy0203:

There is not an excess of corn..... n' ya know I really luv corn, (one brain cell), n' all that.

Sometimes crops get a blight n' have ta be dumped n' turned into fertilizer, (even: CORN). :popcorn:

Yer picture is reeeeeeeel koooooooool, (I'd like ta ski that pile toooooo), butt: proves nothing. :fart:

Me overpriced $.02. JR :uhoh:


my fav: :boobies: :happy0203:

[OldMercsRule]

just for clarification.....are you denying that corn was in surplus prior to the development of ethanol plants?....

for starters, here's a quote from the article you thanked Cracker for...

Yer Cornfused: PMP. :laugh2:

N' yer tryin' ta do it ta meeeeeeeee .............. (not fair neeeeeeeeeeeeeeither)....sniff.....sniff

That chit is a function of "corporate [farm] welfare" due ta Presidential primarys in Iowa.... has nothin' ta due with the price of beans or [corn] in Boston. :laugh2:

Nanny Gubment n' subsidies always f**k things up..... :laugh2:

Yer lots smarter then I am and know the truth of what I jus' said :lol: better then me..... so quit tryin' ta cornfuse yer slow bud. :fart:

:happy0203:



:boobies:

[logroller]

A tariff to pay for the actual cost of importing would actually make the market closer to its cost reality.

The cost associated with bringing a product to market is the responsibility of the importer. In a free-trade system, the importer is a privately owned company, not government. Government tariffs are justified only so far as the costs imposed through tariffs are to ensure free-trade can occur(like safe shipping lanes). But this thread isn't about tariffs or foreign oil sources, not directly anyways.
Check out this thread --
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28201-Crisis-response-Why-do-we-think-quot-Govt-must-do-something!-quot-is-a-GOOD-idea&highlight=tariffs+foreign

[Cracker]

The cost associated with bringing a product to market is the responsibility of the importer. In a free-trade system, the importer is a privately owned company, not government. Government tariffs are justified only so far as the costs imposed through tariffs are to ensure free-trade can occur(like safe shipping lanes). But this thread isn't about tariffs or foreign oil sources, not directly anyways.
Check out this thread --
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28201-Crisis-response-Why-do-we-think-quot-Govt-must-do-something!-quot-is-a-GOOD-idea&highlight=tariffs+foreign

You seem to forget that the government spends an incredible amount of money in the Mideast because we have an economic interest in buying the oil there. Yet the cost of all that is borne by the taxpayers, not the consumers of the products. That's not a free market.

[LuvRPgrl]

I get tired of having to continuously prove to people that using corn for ethanol has no impact on the cost of their food

this time I'm simply going to suggest you go back and read one of the half dozen threads we've had on the topic before and remind you that you're an idiot for even mentioning it.......

the cost of the fuel used to deliver products to the supermarket where you buy it contributes far more to your grocery bill than does the corn used to produce ethanol to replace it.......

If food prices were to start going up, then the govt would simply have to stop subsidizing some farmers to "not grow certain crops".

[LuvRPgrl]

Ethanol leading to more inflation:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-corn-reserves-expected-to-apf-3038968207.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

"could lead to"
"Prices might go up"

alot of speculation, not to mention it doesn't take into account that we could start growing more corn. There is alot of farmland that is not in use.

[LuvRPgrl]

Based on simple supply and demand, I don't see how.

INCREASE the supply, we are capable

[fj1200]

Three wars, counter-terrorism, subsidies to Israel.

We fought two wars with Germany, one with Japan, and we've had bases there for over 65 years; should we slap a tariff on their stuff?

[fj1200]

A tariff to pay for the actual cost of importing would actually make the market closer to its cost reality.

You're arguing for gas taxes essentially? Will that fly in the Tea Party? Probably, it's got a description that rings well with populists... Protectionism.

[LuvRPgrl]

"Corn was in surplus"..... yer sayin'? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Not hardly PMP..... you smart religious fellers aren't supposta smoke whacky tabaceeeeee so what is yer excuse? :laugh2: :laugh2:

Idiot. Kathiannes article states "corn reserves", if you have a reserve of something, it indicates a surplus

[LuvRPgrl]

You seem to forget that the government spends an incredible amount of money in the Mideast because we have an economic interest in buying the oil there. Yet the cost of all that is borne by the taxpayers, not the consumers of the products. That's not a free market.


Are not taxpayers and consumers pretty much synonomous?

[Cracker]

We fought two wars with Germany, one with Japan, and we've had bases there for over 65 years; should we slap a tariff on their stuff?Is the reason that we are there because of their raw materials?

[Cracker]

Are not taxpayers and consumers pretty much synonomous?No. There are plenty of folks who buy gas and other OPEC petroleum based products but pay no income tax, and there are people that pay lots of income tax but use little of these products.

[LuvRPgrl]

No. There are plenty of folks who buy gas and other OPEC petroleum based products but pay no income tax, and there are people that pay lots of income tax but use little of these products.

There are alot of other taxes besides income, and virtually no one doesn't use some form of transportation, and if one is such a shut in, they probably don't pay much in taxes.

[Cracker]

There are alot of other taxes besides income, and virtually no one doesn't use some form of transportation, and if one is such a shut in, they probably don't pay much in taxes.The idea is to have the price of the products reflect the actual costs. That way consumers can make decisions to buy alternatives based on actual prices. Alternative products would be bio-fuels, plant-based plastics, etc. That's a lot closer to the free market system than the system of hidden subsidies that we have now.

[logroller]

You seem to forget that the government spends an incredible amount of money in the Mideast because we have an economic interest in buying the oil there. Yet the cost of all that is borne by the taxpayers, not the consumers of the products. That's not a free market.

Oh I didn't forget it, I just didn't mention it because the scope of the thread was ethanol subsidies and food prices. I agree with you on what I perceive to be a negative tariff for foreign oil through our military action in the ME which coincides with domestic supply suppression, all on the backs of the American taxpayer. You make valid points cracker, just not directly linked to ethanol subsidies and food prices; other than its yet another example of market interference by govt.

[OldMercsRule]

If food prices were to start going up,

"IF" yer sayin'? :laugh2: :laugh2: :lol:

Where ya been....... Mars..... Pluto or some such?

Why do ya think the Middle East is blowin' up?

Sheeeeeeesh.........


then the govt would simply have to stop subsidizing some farmers to "not grow certain crops".

OH.... n' now ya think yer "King Girlfriend" of the USA.... or some such? "Stop subsidizin' " me arse.... :lol: :laugh2: :laugh2:

The Gubment is corntroled by dim wit Democrats n' wobbly Republicans who have their POTUS primaries in IOWA; NOT "KING GIRLFRIEND". They will not "stop subsidizin'" chit 'til ol' Paul Ryan's budget is forced down their collective throats. :thumb:

Ya need ta cum home from Pluto. :laugh2: :laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

"could lead to"
"Prices might go up"

alot of speculation, not to mention it doesn't take into account that we could start growing more corn. There is alot of farmland that is not in use.

I give up.... yer in orbit alrighty.... :laugh2: :laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

Idiot. Kathiannes article states "corn reserves", if you have a reserve of something, it indicates a surplus

You really don't get it do ya? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

You're arguing for gas taxes essentially? Will that fly in the Tea Party? Probably, it's got a description that rings well with populists... Protectionism.

I'm surprised at you! Conflating folks who claim to be tea parties people, doesn't make their positions that of the parties.

In the main, the tea parties are for smaller government as limited by the federalism system and checks and balances, as well as the duties given to each branch in Articles 1, 2, and 3.

They would not be for tariffs, subsidies, or grants under normal circumstances.

They support those that would be for keeping bills to one issue, knocking out unrelated matters including, but not limited to pork. In general a bill shouldn't run over 3 pages, certainly not into the hundreds and thousands of pages.

KISS

[LuvRPgrl]

The idea is to have the price of the products reflect the actual costs. That way consumers can make decisions to buy alternatives based on actual prices. Alternative products would be bio-fuels, plant-based plastics, etc. That's a lot closer to the free market system than the system of hidden subsidies that we have now.I Oh, I totally agree.

I think the old mercury is the first poster Im ever going to put on ignore.

[Cracker]

Oh I didn't forget it, I just didn't mention it because the scope of the thread was ethanol subsidies and food prices. I agree with you on what I perceive to be a negative tariff for foreign oil through our military action in the ME which coincides with domestic supply suppression, all on the backs of the American taxpayer. You make valid points cracker, just not directly linked to ethanol subsidies and food prices; other than its yet another example of market interference by govt. I'm not suggesting a direct link with ethanol, that's not how the free market works. Make the price of OPEC oil its true price and domestic energy production of all kinds will skyrocket.

[Cracker]

I Oh, I totally agree.

I think the old mercury is the first poster Im ever going to put on ignore. I find his posting style rather boorish myself and don't read most of it. Sorry, Merc.

[fj1200]

Is the reason that we are there because of their raw materials?

Why would that matter to your reasoning? Stuff is stuff. We fought wars and have permanent military presences in both areas.

[fj1200]

I'm surprised at you! Conflating folks who claim to be tea parties people, doesn't make their positions that of the parties.

Don't worry about me and my conflations? :laugh: It didn't really go beyond Cracker, sorry if my post misled.

[fj1200]

I'm not suggesting a direct link with ethanol, that's not how the free market works. Make the price of OPEC oil its true price and domestic energy production of all kinds will skyrocket.

What makes you think it will go up?

[logroller]

I Oh, I totally agree.

I think the old mercury is the first poster Im ever going to put on ignore.


I find his posting style rather boorish myself and don't read most of it. Sorry, Merc.

He was my first and only to put on the ignore list, but I've since removed him from it. He's kinda fun, like a drunk heckler, you just have to focus on the points from his one braincell and filter out the rest.

Cracker: you're a fun addition to forum, glad you're here.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ya know I only have one functional brain cell............ :happy0203:

Cracker is a new feller n' reeeeeeel smart....... if I thank him lots maybe he will not pick on meeeeeeee like LR, Missileman, n' Girlfriend does.... (hope you don't start now). :happy0203:

Sooooooooooooo quit pickin' on meeeeeeeeeeeeee..... :happy0203:

There is not an excess of corn..... n' ya know I really luv corn, (one brain cell), n' all that.

Sometimes crops get a blight n' have ta be dumped n' turned into fertilizer, (even: CORN). :popcorn:

Yer picture is reeeeeeeel koooooooool, (I'd like ta ski that pile toooooo), butt: proves nothing. :fart:

Me overpriced $.02. JR :uhoh:


my fav: :boobies: :happy0203:

look....I grew up on a farm in Iowa.....I have family that grows corn in Iowa.....my wife owns land in Iowa that we rent to a guy who grows corn.....in short....I know a lot about corn....

to pretend we didn't have surplus corn prior to the expansion of ethanol production is simply an absurdity.....the government used to pay farmers not to raise corn....the problem is that it is an important stage in crop rotation, because the higher profit crop of soybeans cannot be grown in two consecutive years without seriously depleting the soil.....

so farmers grew corn every other year, even though they lost money on it so the stalks could be plowed back into the soil to replenish it....

there weren't enough customers to buy the corn produced.....to make sure farmers practiced crop rotation they used to subsidize the per bushel price of corn....

the development of ethanol permitted farmers to sell something at a profit that they used to lose money on.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Yer Cornfused: PMP. :laugh2:

N' yer tryin' ta do it ta meeeeeeeee .............. (not fair neeeeeeeeeeeeeeither)....sniff.....sniff

That chit is a function of "corporate [farm] welfare" due ta Presidential primarys in Iowa.... has nothin' ta due with the price of beans or [corn] in Boston. :laugh2:

Nanny Gubment n' subsidies always f**k things up..... :laugh2:

Yer lots smarter then I am and know the truth of what I jus' said :lol: better then me..... so quit tryin' ta cornfuse yer slow bud. :fart:

:happy0203:



:boobies:

look, I was willing to educate your sorry ass, but now you're just being an asshole.....

[PostmodernProphet]

If food prices were to start going up, then the govt would simply have to stop subsidizing some farmers to "not grow certain crops".

the subsidy for corn had nothing to do with the cost of food.....it was done to encourage crop rotation and prevent soil depletion.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Are not taxpayers and consumers pretty much synonomous?

that depends....do the bottom earning 50% of Americans consume?.....

[logroller]

the subsidy for corn had nothing to do with the cost of food.....it was done to encourage crop rotation and prevent soil depletion.....

As you have experience with farming and subsidies, I value your opinion.

I understand that, from time to time, government intervention is necessary. However, it would seem subsidies which encourage crop rotation could/ should be halted, as you have stated that crop rotation has been shown to be of benefit to the farmer. Would you agree?

[PostmodernProphet]

As you have experience with farming and subsidies, I value your opinion.

I understand that, from time to time, government intervention is necessary. However, it would seem subsidies which encourage crop rotation could/ should be halted, as you have stated that crop rotation has been shown to be of benefit to the farmer. Would you agree?

first of all, subsidies of corn, which promoted crop rotation, have halted.....once corn rose to over $3.85 a bushel no one qualified for the subsidy.....
second, your question seems to imply that it should be halted because it benefited the farmer.....isn't benefit an inherent part of using a subsidy to bring about desired action?.....if you wanted to lure a farmer into doing something that is good for the country would you entice him by doing something that was a detriment to him?....I doubt you would be very successful.....

did you perhaps have the mistaken assumption that ethanol subsidies were paid to farmers?....

The federal government provides a tax incentive to gasoline blenders (not ethanol producers) to encourage the use of ethanol. This subsidy affects how ethanol’s competitiveness with gasoline. For example, gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol earn a tax credit of 5.1 cents per gallon. In effect, the blenders can pay up to 51 cents more for a gallon of ethanol than the equivalent amount of gasoline and still break even. This tax break is called the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Its cost to the government ($2.5 billion in 2006) is offset by savings in crop payments to farmers. In 2006 high corn prices caused by ethanol demand reduced farm support payments by roughly $6 billion.

the government paid $2.5 billion in ethanol subsidies to fuel suppliers but saved $6billion in subsidies to farmers.....in the meantime farmers who had been selling corn for $1.99 a bushel and received a check from the government for the rest of the $3.85 guaranteed price, now receive over $6 a bushel.....and domestic consumption of petroleum products was reduced by 10%.....on the downside, the cost of your Coke went up two cents.....

http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/fact_ethanol.htm

[Cracker]

Why would that matter to your reasoning? Stuff is stuff. We fought wars and have permanent military presences in both areas.It matters because we are in Germany and Japan for political reasons, not for oil.

[Cracker]

You're arguing for gas taxes essentially? Will that fly in the Tea Party? Probably, it's got a description that rings well with populists... Protectionism. No I'm arguing for a tariff on OPEC to offset the cost of doing business with it.

[fj1200]

It matters because we are in Germany and Japan for political reasons, not for oil.

There's no distinction other than the one you created, oil is more useful to us than the politics of Germany/Japan.


No I'm arguing for a tariff on OPEC to offset the cost of doing business with it.

Then we need a tariff on the EU/Asia to offset the cost our bases there.

[Cracker]

There's no distinction other than the one you created, oil is more useful to us than the politics of Germany/Japan.



Then we need a tariff on the EU/Asia to offset the cost our bases there. Now you're just being silly. You can't put a tariff on politics, but you can put one on OPEC imports. Why is this so confusing to you?

[fj1200]

Now you're just being silly. You can't put a tariff on politics, but you can put one on OPEC imports. Why is this so confusing to you?

Nothing confusing but your logic. Do you deny that we have the ability to place a tariff on goods developed and produced under the auspices of our military protection?

[Cracker]

Nothing confusing but your logic. Do you deny that we have the ability to place a tariff on goods developed and produced under the auspices of our military protection? Your point is moot. The two issues are unrelated.

[fj1200]

Your point is moot.

No, it deftly points out your faulty logic. A tariff would only raise the cost of oil for American consumers to "cover" a cost that we're already covering.


The two issues are unrelated.

No, a tariff is a tariff and an imported good is an imported good.

[Kathianne]

Now you're just being silly. You can't put a tariff on politics, but you can put one on OPEC imports. Why is this so confusing to you?

So you agree with Obama on the price of gasoline? Seems to be. It's not like the citizens are buying something that's available here currently.

[PostmodernProphet]

something cool in the works at Michigan State University....they have received a $2.5 million grant to study it....shock wave engine....could eliminate up to 1000 lbs of auto parts....

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2803/28035101thumb_300.jpg

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/wave-disk-engines-could-be-35-times.html

[logroller]

something cool in the works at Michigan State University....they have received a $2.5 million grant to study it....shock wave engine....could eliminate up to 1000 lbs of auto parts....

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2803/28035101thumb_300.jpg

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/wave-disk-engines-could-be-35-times.html

Interesting, appears its a blend of the wankel engine and gas turbine, both more efficient than piston engines, so i can see the theoretical efficiency improvement; but the reality of seals and materials required to withstand high temp/pressure are costly and prone to problems. The fact the DOE is funding the project leads me to believe its not feasible; but I hope I'm wrong.

[fj1200]

something cool in the works at Michigan State University....they have received a $2.5 million grant to study it....shock wave engine....could eliminate up to 1000 lbs of auto parts....


Interesting, appears its a blend of the wankel engine and gas turbine, both more efficient than piston engines, so i can see the theoretical efficiency improvement; but the reality of seals and materials required to withstand high temp/pressure are costly and prone to problems. The fact the DOE is funding the project leads me to believe its not feasible; but I hope I'm wrong.

They're already doing it with microturbines.

Capstone Integrates C30 Microturbine Into Ford S-Max Plugin Hybrid (http://greenstockscentral.com/capstone-cpst-integrates-c30-microturbine-into-ford-s-max-plugin-hybrid-whisper-eco-logic-1742.html)

It seems that it could lower the weight even more.

[logroller]

They're already doing it with microturbines.

Capstone Integrates C30 Microturbine Into Ford S-Max Plugin Hybrid (http://greenstockscentral.com/capstone-cpst-integrates-c30-microturbine-into-ford-s-max-plugin-hybrid-whisper-eco-logic-1742.html)

It seems that it could lower the weight even more.

Yea but C30 microturbine isn't nearly as catchy a name as Shock Wave engine.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Yea but C30 microturbine isn't nearly as catchy a name as Shock Wave engine.:laugh:

:laugh: I'm pretty sure they should avoid branding it The Shocker. ;)

I do appreciate the MSU connection though. :salute:

[logroller]

:laugh: I'm pretty sure they should avoid branding it The Shocker. ;)

I do appreciate the MSU connection though. :salute:

:lmao:

$2.5 million taxpayers dollars, The Squealermight be more appropriate, cuz squeal like a pig boy probably has a copyright.:laugh::laugh:

I'd appreciate GM kicking down to fund this research.

[LuvRPgrl]

the subsidy for corn had nothing to do with the cost of food.....it was done to encourage crop rotation and prevent soil depletion.....

That doesn't exactly square with your other info about corn growing. You said the govt paid them to not grow, but some years they grow it anyways because of the soil content needed it to grow soy beans. So that means they didnt want that corn on the market as it would deflate corn prices,

Now, if prices go up, then they could start selling that corn instead of plowing it back in, and then the price of corn could remain stable and we would have the corn for the fuels.

A simpler way of looking at it is, let the farmers grow the corn that could go to the fuels, instead of plowing it under.

Then the market would be paying for the corn grown, and not the poor sack taxpayers.

[Cracker]

So you agree with Obama on the price of gasoline? Seems to be. It's not like the citizens are buying something that's available here currently. When the price of imported crude goes up the interest in domestic drilling does as well. OPEC has a nasty habit of raising prices for a time and then when we start drilling they drop the price. A tariff on OPEC would reduce their influence to screw with the market considerably.

[Kathianne]

When the price of imported crude goes up the interest in domestic drilling does as well. OPEC has a nasty habit of raising prices for a time and then when we start drilling they drop the price. A tariff on OPEC would reduce their influence to screw with the market considerably.

Not if the government is against alternatives except those not yet marketable. Nope, just another way to raise oil prices on the consumer.

[PostmodernProphet]

That doesn't exactly square with your other info about corn growing. You said the govt paid them to not grow, but some years they grow it anyways because of the soil content needed it to grow soy beans. So that means they didnt want that corn on the market as it would deflate corn prices,

Now, if prices go up, then they could start selling that corn instead of plowing it back in, and then the price of corn could remain stable and we would have the corn for the fuels.

A simpler way of looking at it is, let the farmers grow the corn that could go to the fuels, instead of plowing it under.

Then the market would be paying for the corn grown, and not the poor sack taxpayers.

/facepalm.....okay, let me correct your assumptions......
first, corn stalks are plowed back into the soil AFTER the corn is harvested....
second, the government programs predate ethanol production.....nobody was putting corn into fuels at the time the government programs were operating....
third, there were two different government programs.....under one, farmers could "seal" their crops at the elevator (which meant it couldn't be sold on the market) in exchange for a guaranteed price of $3.85.....the government decided when it would be sold and at that time farmers were paid the difference between what it sold for and $3.85 by the government, and paid the market price by the purchaser.....the other government program was set aside, in which the farmer agreed to let the land remain fallow for a season and received a per acre price for the government.....this program was established because it became obvious it was a waste of money to plant, fertilize and harvest corn that nobody wanted to buy in the first place......again, both programs were intended to give the soil a chance to recover from growing soybeans, which seriously deplete the soil.....

primarily, what you ignoring is the fact that nobody is currently paying farmers not to grow corn......and they haven't since the ethanol plants started producing.....

[Cracker]

Not if the government is against alternatives except those not yet marketable. Nope, just another way to raise oil prices on the consumer.

The government shouldn't be for or against any alternatives. You should know that is my position without me having to point it out.

[Kathianne]

The government shouldn't be for or against any alternatives. You should know that is my position without me having to point it out.

Then your position is grounded on facts as you wish them, not as they are.

[LuvRPgrl]

The government shouldn't be for or against any alternatives. You should know that is my position without me having to point it out.

I agree totally, but I also think it should be extended to oil, and tariffs is un needed govt interference.

If opec does as you say, then those who start drilling here for oil will have to figure out what to do KNOWING that OPEC is going to do what you say.

As far as I'm concerned, tariffs should only be used if a country is creating unfair competetion in a market by subsidizing a product imported by us, and the price of that product is artificially low due to the subsidizing.

That exact action took place with steel coming from, I think, Brazil.

[Kathianne]

To use food and land producing food for energy, while forbidden to use proven resources and explore for more is foolish. Of course those benefiting from the subsidies and increase commodity prices disagree.

The unintended consequences of not using our resources is on the backs of the poor world-wide.

Bump.

I strongly urge the rereading of the foreign policy article suggested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/chart-of-the-day-food-price-spikes-are-still-with-us/2011/08/17/gIQACA9OLJ_blog.html

Posted at 11:33 AM ET, 08/17/2011 Chart of the day: The food price spikes is still with us By Brad Plumer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/brad-plumer/2011/07/28/gIQAPrqSfI_page.html)

Remember back in 2008, when oil prices were flying up toward $140 per barrel, and food prices were skyrocketing? The news was full of stories of riots breaking out (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-14/world/world.food.crisis_1_food-aid-food-prices-rice-prices?_s=PM:WORLD) in Haiti and Bangladesh and Egypt. Then the housing bubble popped, oil prices fizzled and the food stories went away. All clear on the apocalypse front, right? Except, as this chart (http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/) from FAO shows, the food price index has quietly been sneaking back past 2008 levels over the past year, and shows no signs of abating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/foodgraph.jpg?uuid=DIRbfsjlEeCBn7Qf3SCQ3w

On Tuesday, the World Bank put out a new report (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/News%20and%20Events/22982478/Food-Price-Watch-August-2011.htm) explaining recent trends. Relatively high oil prices have been a big contributor, affecting production costs and the price of fertilizer. Lower than expected sugarcane yields in Brazil didn’t help, either. And there’s even a domestic policy angle: U.S. biofuel mandates have led to a surge in demand for maize, which has, in turn, shrunk stocks to low levels, so that even small changes in yield (a drought here, a flood there) can have an outsized effect on food prices.
Might be a good time to reread Lester Brown’s piece (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_new_geopolitics_of_food) in Foreign Policy on the new geopolitics of food: “Until recently, sudden price surges just didn’t matter as much, as they were quickly followed by a return to the relatively low food prices that helped shape the political stability of the late 20th century across much of the globe. But now both the causes and consequences are ominously different.”

[Kathianne]

Not good:

http://thegazette.com/2011/08/15/for-first-time-more-corn-to-be-used-for-ethanol-than-livestock/


...For the first time ever, more of the corn crop may go into gas tanks than into the stomachs of cattle and poultry destined for kitchen tables.


The prediction drew little response last week when it was released by the USDA in its Crop Production and Supply/Demand Report for the 2011 crop season. The USDA kept its prediction for ethanol production demand for corn at 5.05 billion, but lowered demand projections for livestock feed by 100 million bushels to 5 billion bushels.


That fuel now tops livestock as the primary user of corn struck at least one observer as noteworthy.
“That’s a first-time-ever type of change,” University of Missouri Extension economist Ron Plain said in a statement released by the university.


“For forever,” Plain said, “ feed was the largest single use of corn.”


The news comes as criticism that pro-ethanol subsidies and policies are raising food prices globally seems to be reaching a crescendo. Critics didn’t seem to latch onto the USDA’s market prediction, however.


A spokesman for Iowa’s ethanol industry termed the USDA’s market prediction “a footnote.”
“Every credible study has clearly found the effects of ethanol policies is negligible on the price of corn,” remarked Monte Shaw, president of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association...

[fj1200]

On Tuesday, the World Bank put out a new report (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/News and Events/22982478/Food-Price-Watch-August-2011.htm) explaining recent trends.

Stop. No need to read further, it's the evil corn speculators.

[Kathianne]

Stop. No need to read further, it's the evil corn speculators.
No doubt. ;) Boneheaded government policies regarding what's considered 'green' and of course subsidies. Farmers too want the easier way to make a profit, not to mention that cars will never sue for e.coli or pesticides.

[PostmodernProphet]

...For the first time ever, more of the corn crop may go into gas tanks than into the stomachs of cattle and poultry destined for kitchen tables.

it is fact that 100% of the corn used to produce ethanol is used, in the form of brewer's mash, as animal feed..thus it ends up BOTH in gas tanks and in the stomachs of cattle...ruminants cannot digest starch......only the starch is removed in distilling ethanol.....if raw corn is digested by cattle this starch is released as methane gas.......