Ethanol is ''good'' and ''green''

[TPS]

What difference does it make? As it stands right now gasoline formulated with 10% ethanol reduces mpg approximately 10%.

That would be even more damaging for the corn/ethanol subsidy...thanks a lot Bush!

[3rdnlng]

That would be even more damaging for the corn/ethanol subsidy...thanks a lot Bush!

 

It was a terrible decision by the Bush administration. Obama is going all in on it though.

[Dante]

It was a terrible decision by the Bush administration. Obama is going all in on it though.

Seems like Barry is in on anything that causes disruption, rising prices, general despair and discourse. Funny that. Almost think it was on purpose.

[OCinBuffalo]

I wish I was drunk. But I am waiting for some retard to come in and say something. I've already seen people protesting and speaking out against the farmer for this and many similar things

I think most of us have already demonstrated the ability to understand a nuanced market, so you have little to fear in terms of serious criticism. However, this is PPP, so you should know by now that the unserious and wiseass will see this as an invitation.

 

Not me though. I've said what I had to say about farm subsidies years ago. There is a case for it, the trouble is, that case has been bastardized into FUBAR.

I don't blame farmers unless you count ADM and Cargill as farmers, I know they get their share of fame subsidies does that make them farmers?

Like I said, most of us.

 

It's amazing how the left wants to talk about their support the poor, yet at the same time doesn't seem to understand economies of scale, and how that DIRECTLY benefits the poor.

 

When the price of super market brand corn flakes goes down, the poor benefit. When it stays that way, the poor get to keep more of their money consistently, and that it supposed to help them start becoming less poor. The same is true with Wal Mart and clothing.

 

On one side, we have tons of empirical evidence that shows: this is BS. The poor are poor for 1 and/or 2 reasons: lack of discipline, and/or lack of ability. No amount of government aid is gonna get fat, lazy single mother off the couch, or, partying constantly, crack whore mother off the pipe. And, Tom Dumb is Tom Dumb, and the only job he can hold in our society is the one he's barely clinging to now.

 

On the other side, we must consider the kids of the poor: and that is not BS. If we are about equal opportunity, then we can't call a kid purposely doing bad in school, so that he is assigned to summer school, so as to avoid starving all summer due to bad parenting: an equal opportunity. (Yeah, tell me that doesn't happen, and I will curse you by introducing you to my mother, the city teacher. The rest of your life will be hell)

 

I've said it numerous times: we need a parent's "penalty box". If you can't control yourself, and provide for your child properly, using or not using state funds properly, then you need to see some punishment. This box should be without class restriction. The parents who leave their kid alone all weekend to go to Vegas need to see the inside of that box as well.

 

We have plenty of carrot. We need some stick.

[TPS]

 

 

It's amazing how the left wants to talk about their support the poor, yet at the same time doesn't seem to understand economies of scale, and how that DIRECTLY benefits the poor.

 

When the price of super market brand corn flakes goes down, the poor benefit. When it stays that way, the poor get to keep more of their money consistently, and that it supposed to help them start becoming less poor. The same is true with Wal Mart and clothing.

Seems as if you are putting words into lybob's fingers...

 

Stating that the monopsony of ADM, Cargill, et al have their fingers in the kitty jar of Ag farm subsidies doesn't have much to do with economies of scale. It has to do with policies that are made and shaped to the benefit of the big producers who grow global commodities, not the small and medium farmers who tend to grow for the domestic market.

 

This is a general problem with all policies "regulating" various industries--they are shaped and dominated by the big corps of the industry, so the policies tend to benefit them and harm the small/medium players.

[OCinBuffalo]

Seems as if you are putting words into lybob's fingers...

 

Stating that the monopsony of ADM, Cargill, et al have their fingers in the kitty jar of Ag farm subsidies doesn't have much to do with economies of scale. It has to do with policies that are made and shaped to the benefit of the big producers who grow global commodities, not the small and medium farmers who tend to grow for the domestic market.

 

This is a general problem with all policies "regulating" various industries--they are shaped and dominated by the big corps of the industry, so the policies tend to benefit them and harm the small/medium players.

 

1. Where do the global comodities end up? Answer: in everybody's cereal bowl. If they get there for a cheaper price, then how is that a bad thing for the poor/lower middle class? I don't understand how one says they are for the poor, yet attacks the very people who sell them food cheaply, by attacking the people who produce the ingredients cheaply. Oh yeah, I'm sure a collectivist farm system would produce more for less. (Cue the pics of empty shelves in Russia)

 

It staggeres the imagination how this simple concept eludes so many on the left. Historically: cheap food produced on a massive scale, is Reason #1 how this country became great. Cheap, widely available food is the single best ward against tryanny, from either side. But, lets attack it!

 

2. IF we accept what you say, then, the "general problem" with regulation is inherent to regulation.

 

In our system, the biggest will ALWAYS have more resources than the smallest. But, that is not "privilege" that is "years of intentional effort". Do you think I don't want my company to be bigger? Do you think I don't see the advantages in that? So, if I do the right things right, and it gets bigger, and I have a reason(not likely) to bend the ear of a elected clown, will my company then be "priveleged", or the result of "years of intentional effort"?

 

Hint: It's the latter. Growth is goal, because the advantages of it are known.

 

When we add regulation to this mix, your "general problem" becomes obviously: inherent.

 

Therefore, perhaps before we start trying to run the country on platitudes, which produce legislation like Dodd Frank(which isn't even working as intended, and is in fact benefitting the big guys, and hurting the small)....as liberals have been demanding since before Clinton took office....

 

...we should pause, and consider the fact that the college professors behind most of those platitudes, don't in fact know WTF they are talking about, when it comes to regulations. Should Paul Krugman be put in charge of regulating...anything?

 

Perhaps it's time to accept your limitations? Perhaps it's time to approach change, as anybody who actually does it for a living knows it works best: incrementally, and only after we've tested it.

 

But, what expectation of that can we possibly set, when it comes to the left in general, and the far left specifically?

 

No. It will be more platitudes, and bumper stickers, and then: it's Obamacare. Nice work, dipshits.

[boyst]

Seems as if you are putting words into lybob's fingers...

 

Stating that the monopsony of ADM, Cargill, et al have their fingers in the kitty jar of Ag farm subsidies doesn't have much to do with economies of scale. It has to do with policies that are made and shaped to the benefit of the big producers who grow global commodities, not the small and medium farmers who tend to grow for the domestic market.

 

This is a general problem with all policies "regulating" various industries--they are shaped and dominated by the big corps of the industry, so the policies tend to benefit them and harm the small/medium players.

If I ever get a chance I will wrap up what I read in an article that was fascinating about that whole process and how it began. Farmers being able to make a good buck selling it locally and not shipping it, the railroad coming along making it cheaper to transport and the guy he sold to now sells it to a town 50 miles away. Then the town 50 miles away grows to 500 miles. Then 500 becomes 5000 and the whole time you add in the middle man who stayed connected and keep the two on the edges apart. The farmer got a good deal when it was only 50 miles away. It became 5000 and more expenses went in to it - more fuel so we pay the fuel man more. More tires, so we pay the tire man more. It was and still is a very interesting trickle down economic model and that is because or in spite of government subsidies - that's not my call. If I ever find it I will share it - it was in one of them redneck magazine farm magazines that them city folk laugh at...

[TPS]

If I ever get a chance I will wrap up what I read in an article that was fascinating about that whole process and how it began. Farmers being able to make a good buck selling it locally and not shipping it, the railroad coming along making it cheaper to transport and the guy he sold to now sells it to a town 50 miles away. Then the town 50 miles away grows to 500 miles. Then 500 becomes 5000 and the whole time you add in the middle man who stayed connected and keep the two on the edges apart. The farmer got a good deal when it was only 50 miles away. It became 5000 and more expenses went in to it - more fuel so we pay the fuel man more. More tires, so we pay the tire man more. It was and still is a very interesting trickle down economic model and that is because or in spite of government subsidies - that's not my call. If I ever find it I will share it - it was in one of them redneck magazine farm magazines that them city folk laugh at...

That is the point. We are fooled in to thinking that "farm subsidies" support farmers. They don't. They support the big agribusinesses that are hooked into the ADM/Cargill monopoly.

 

1. Where do the global comodities end up? Answer: in everybody's cereal bowl. If they get there for a cheaper price, then how is that a bad thing for the poor/lower middle class? I don't understand how one says they are for the poor, yet attacks the very people who sell them food cheaply, by attacking the people who produce the ingredients cheaply. Oh yeah, I'm sure a collectivist farm system would produce more for less. (Cue the pics of empty shelves in Russia)

 

It staggeres the imagination how this simple concept eludes so many on the left. Historically: cheap food produced on a massive scale, is Reason #1 how this country became great. Cheap, widely available food is the single best ward against tryanny, from either side. But, lets attack it!

 

2. IF we accept what you say, then, the "general problem" with regulation is inherent to regulation.

 

In our system, the biggest will ALWAYS have more resources than the smallest. But, that is not "privilege" that is "years of intentional effort". Do you think I don't want my company to be bigger? Do you think I don't see the advantages in that? So, if I do the right things right, and it gets bigger, and I have a reason(not likely) to bend the ear of a elected clown, will my company then be "priveleged", or the result of "years of intentional effort"?

 

Hint: It's the latter. Growth is goal, because the advantages of it are known.

 

When we add regulation to this mix, your "general problem" becomes obviously: inherent.

 

Therefore, perhaps before we start trying to run the country on platitudes, which produce legislation like Dodd Frank(which isn't even working as intended, and is in fact benefitting the big guys, and hurting the small)....as liberals have been demanding since before Clinton took office....

 

...we should pause, and consider the fact that the college professors behind most of those platitudes, don't in fact know WTF they are talking about, when it comes to regulations. Should Paul Krugman be put in charge of regulating...anything?

 

Perhaps it's time to accept your limitations? Perhaps it's time to approach change, as anybody who actually does it for a living knows it works best: incrementally, and only after we've tested it.

 

But, what expectation of that can we possibly set, when it comes to the left in general, and the far left specifically?

 

No. It will be more platitudes, and bumper stickers, and then: it's Obamacare. Nice work, dipshits.

No one is saying you need small farms only. No one is denying economies of scale. You seem to have a habit of interpreting what people say to fit your liberal bogey man. What I am saying is that the powerful interests make sure the farm bill feeds their trough. It's designed as "pork" for the big farm corps that don't need it. That has nothing to do with creating economies of scale. It's all about power and influence. I think that resonates on the right as much as it does on the left...

[boyst]

That is the point. We are fooled in to thinking that "farm subsidies" support farmers. They don't. They support the big agribusinesses that are hooked into the ADM/Cargill monopoly.

 

No one is saying you need small farms only. No one is denying economies of scale. You seem to have a habit of interpreting what people say to fit your liberal bogey man. What I am saying is that the powerful interests make sure the farm bill feeds their trough. It's designed as "pork" for the big farm corps that don't need it. That has nothing to do with creating economies of scale. It's all about power and influence. I think that resonates on the right as much as it does on the left...

Those farm subsidies, though, go to a lot of different causes to help offset different factors - factors that would likely be passed down to the farmer and the consumer, most importantly the consumer. Do we really want to pay $5 for an apple?

[GG]

That is the point. We are fooled in to thinking that "farm subsidies" support farmers. They don't. They support the big agribusinesses that are hooked into the ADM/Cargill monopoly.

 

No one is saying you need small farms only. No one is denying economies of scale. You seem to have a habit of interpreting what people say to fit your liberal bogey man. What I am saying is that the powerful interests make sure the farm bill feeds their trough. It's designed as "pork" for the big farm corps that don't need it. That has nothing to do with creating economies of scale. It's all about power and influence. I think that resonates on the right as much as it does on the left...

 

Hey lookie here, another agreement. Never mind what the f'ng ethanol subsidy is doing to the market price of sugar.

 

Those farm subsidies, though, go to a lot of different causes to help offset different factors - factors that would likely be passed down to the farmer and the consumer, most importantly the consumer. Do we really want to pay $5 for an apple?

 

Baloney. Then have directed subsidies. Don't back into it by mandating an inefficient use of land to plant a cash crop that screws up the gasoline market and distorts the food market. There is a bigger overall downside in the ethanol boondogle than the benefit you think the farmers are getting.

[boyst]

Hey lookie here, another agreement. Never mind what the f'ng ethanol subsidy is doing to the market price of sugar.

 

 

 

Baloney. Then have directed subsidies. Don't back into it by mandating an inefficient use of land to plant a cash crop that screws up the gasoline market and distorts the food market. There is a bigger overall downside in the ethanol boondogle than the benefit you think the farmers are getting.

I do not get why we have this issue with sugar. Its why we have corn sugar vs. sugar sugar in our pop. I understand why we have it, trust me I do, but I do not get why...

 

I am not backing in to anything. Ethanol is a joke. It is not a good system, it's not perfect, but the system is designed to prop itself up and reward itself.

[GG]

I do not get why we have this issue with sugar. Its why we have corn sugar vs. sugar sugar in our pop. I understand why we have it, trust me I do, but I do not get why...

 

I am not backing in to anything. Ethanol is a joke. It is not a good system, it's not perfect, but the system is designed to prop itself up and reward itself.

 

That's the point, they're artificially subsidizing corn to turn it into sugar, and are also tarriffing the daylights out of sugar imports. That totally distorts the markets. It's probably why your feedlot costs went through the roof when the ethanol mandate kicked in. All corn was diverted to the fuel. Ridiculous.

[boyst]

That's the point, they're artificially subsidizing corn to turn it into sugar, and are also tarriffing the daylights out of sugar imports. That totally distorts the markets. It's probably why your feedlot costs went through the roof when the ethanol mandate kicked in. All corn was diverted to the fuel. Ridiculous.

all grass

no feed

I'm a grassfed farmer

[OCinBuffalo]

That is the point. We are fooled in to thinking that "farm subsidies" support farmers. They don't. They support the big agribusinesses that are hooked into the ADM/Cargill monopoly.

This is like being astonished that highway funds support highway department unions.

No one is saying you need small farms only. No one is denying economies of scale. You seem to have a habit of interpreting what people say to fit your liberal bogey man. What I am saying is that the powerful interests make sure the farm bill feeds their trough. It's designed as "pork" for the big farm corps that don't need it. That has nothing to do with creating economies of scale. It's all about power and influence. I think that resonates on the right as much as it does on the left...

You're a business guy, right? Finance guy?

 

Imagine you are evaluating ADM for investment, and you see that the CEO, brand new guy, as his first act, avoided taking full advantage of what the govenment has set up, and lost earnings his first Qtr as a result.

 

Are you going to say "yeah let's move our money in there"? Of course not. Now, is it the brand-new CEO's fault that these things arleady exist? What's he supposed to do? How about the guy that's been there for 30 years, is he supposed to take this year off?

 

How exactly do you do your evaluations? Do you base them on how the world is, or how the world "should" be?

 

The reality is: ADM IS economies of scale. It defines it. So does Wal Mart.

 

You want to talk about ADM, and not talk about economies of scale? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

 

You can't talk one without the other. They are inexorably linked.

 

How? IF we took away every single farm subsidy tomorrow, would we still be talking about ADM in terms of economies of scale?

 

Yep.

 

EDIT:

Also, subsidies is about "over time, not point in time" in terms of market stabilization. The confidence we have comes largely from the notion that food is going to be around, quite literally forever. Every single business plan in America is based on that. Subsidies add stability to that basic requirement.

 

This isn't about throwing money at Solyndra. This is about making sure you have the luxury to make such stupid mistakes.

Edited November 13, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[TPS]

This is like being astonished that highway funds support highway department unions.

 

You're a business guy, right? Finance guy?

 

Imagine you are evaluating ADM for investment, and you see that the CEO, brand new guy, as his first act, avoided taking full advantage of what the govenment has set up, and lost earnings his first Qtr as a result.

 

Are you going to say "yeah let's move our money in there"? Of course not. Now, is it the brand-new CEO's fault that these things arleady exist? What's he supposed to do? How about the guy that's been there for 30 years, is he supposed to take this year off?

 

How exactly do you do your evaluations? Do you base them on how the world is, or how the world "should" be?

 

The reality is: ADM IS economies of scale. It defines it. So does Wal Mart.

 

You want to talk about ADM, and not talk about economies of scale? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

 

You can't talk one without the other. They are inexorably linked.

 

How? IF we took away every single farm subsidy tomorrow, would we still be talking about ADM in terms of economies of scale?

 

Yep.

 

 

Thanks for making my point--economies of scale (and efficiency) have nothing to do with the subsidies.

[DC Tom]

That's the point, they're artificially subsidizing corn to turn it into sugar, and are also tarriffing the daylights out of sugar imports. That totally distorts the markets. It's probably why your feedlot costs went through the roof when the ethanol mandate kicked in. All corn was diverted to the fuel. Ridiculous.

 

Actually, the "waste product" from corn-ethanol production - the solids, minus the sugars - is feed. It's one of the reasons corn-ethanol is at all as practical as it is.

[Keukasmallies]

Just Google "Cadillac Bill Smith" to see how long this crap has been going on....

[boyst]

 

 

Actually, the "waste product" from corn-ethanol production - the solids, minus the sugars - is feed. It's one of the reasons corn-ethanol is at all as practical as it is.

one feedlot steer needs about 70 lbs of that byproduct a day.

[....lybob]

Seems as if you are putting words into lybob's fingers...

 

Stating that the monopsony of ADM, Cargill, et al have their fingers in the kitty jar of Ag farm subsidies doesn't have much to do with economies of scale. It has to do with policies that are made and shaped to the benefit of the big producers who grow global commodities, not the small and medium farmers who tend to grow for the domestic market.

 

This is a general problem with all policies "regulating" various industries--they are shaped and dominated by the big corps of the industry, so the policies tend to benefit them and harm the small/medium players.

yep that was the general point or more accurately that ADM et al provide the Bribes campaign contributions that make legislators better listeners when their lobbyists educate them on all the benefits of ethanol or other agriculture policies. While the small family farmer may at times be able to take advantage of certain government subsidies/policies they are not often the driving force for those subsidies/policies although their name is often invoked on the floor of congress.

[....lybob]

one feedlot steer needs about 70 lbs of that byproduct a day.

it's interesting to me the difference things they can feed to live stock , some of it is pretty weird for example ground newspaper and molasses, ground up out of date candy, and a guy out in Las Vegas may a fortune feeding his pigs uneaten breakfast buffets.