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

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Why bother? If I showed up at a tailgate, someone would make me sit in a corner for 15 days.

 

That's not the right attitude or spirit. You sound like a sociopath, show good judgement and learn from what happened. We all have been down that road... I was suspended for two weeks (2005, PPP of course). LoL... Do you see me crying and whining about it?

 

Buck up little camper and get to that tailgate!

 

:-P

 

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

 

Can any American Prez. "save face" and admit when things go wrong? Doesn't matter if they have an R or a D after their name... Can't be done!

 

Do we really want to pay $5 for an apple?

 

Maybe we wouldn't have so many fat azzes! Bring it! Cut that apple up and share it w/the family!

[boyst]

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things they can feed to live stock , some of it is pretty weird for example ground newspaper and molasses, ground up out of date candy, and a guy out in Las Vegas may a fortune feeding his pigs uneaten breakfast buffets.

The feed for cattle is a lot of filler and a powerful fluff.

 

Beer byproducts are very popular, too. A guy here in the state has a contract with Dole that he will pick up all their byproducts and food waste and uses that as feed for this cattle.

 

Maybe we wouldn't have so many fat azzes! Bring it! Cut that apple up and share it w/the family!

Funny you say that, because I remember watching MSNBC listening to them talk about rising food costs. One of the items they brought up was an apple, and other healthy foods. They said that rising food costs are the reason inner city populations are eating so poorly and choosing McDonalds before vegetables and fruits. Of course, anyone can cite the thousands of research papers that exist that show regardless of price and availability most of this country will choose a Big Mac over a grapefruit. Price and availability have nothing to do with it.

[DC Tom]

That's not the right attitude or spirit. You sound like a sociopath, show good judgement and learn from what happened. We all have been down that road... I was suspended for two weeks (2005, PPP of course). LoL... Do you see me crying and whining about it?

 

Buck up little camper and get to that tailgate!

 

:-P

 

I AM a sociopath, you dumb !@#$.

[OCinBuffalo]

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

Your point is valid but, retarded.

 

Yes, a large % of subsidies are payoffs to corporate agribusiness.

 

So what?

 

If the economies they produce keep prices low and production constant/stable? Where is the downside, for anybody, in that? If some economies produce some good results, more of it produces better: that is math.

 

However, the danger, as you say is if they get cocky, and start screwing up the good thing they have, by raising prices/lowering quality/production, or any other trust-like douchebaggery.

 

One thing I know? You'll be there yelling if they do, and I'll be right there next to you. So....what else is there for today?

 

This is one thing that the government has shown it can do well: ensure stability and availability of quality food.

 

You should learn to accept when you win. I don't think the uber-libertarians who want all government spending abolished, or communists who want to collectivist farms, are going to get much traction on messing with our current food situation with anyone.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's not the right attitude or spirit. You sound like a sociopath, show good judgement and learn from what happened. We all have been down that road... I was suspended for two weeks (2005, PPP of course). LoL... Do you see me crying and whining about it?

 

Buck up little camper and get to that tailgate!

 

:-P

I wear my banning as a badge of honor. We all know who did it and why.

 

I got 4 points before I even knew they existed. That's because none of them came with any message, and to this day, still do not have any explanation as to how they appeared. Now, tell me, objectively....

 

(I got one from Beerball, and he was right(imagine that), and at he explained himself.)

 

Look: this ALL comes down to the fact that the little pissant who does it knows he can't last 10 mins on PPP without being literally laughed at.

 

Instead? He writes twee little messages that he knows I won't share with the group, because I don't post PMs.

 

It's pathetic, and hilarious, for me.

 

So, I'm winning this by a mile from where I'm sitting. In fact I've already won. I win every day that mincy little girl refuses to come here and do what the rest of us do: post, and then back it up.

 

Instead: he hides, and plays with his little....modicum of authority.

[DC Tom]

I wear my banning as a badge of honor. We all know who did it and why.

 

I got 4 points before I even knew they existed. That's because none of them came with any message, and to this day, still do not have any explanation as to how they appeared. Now, tell me, objectively....

 

(I got one from Beerball, and he was right(imagine that), and at he explained himself.)

 

Look: this ALL comes down to the fact that the little pissant who does it knows he can't last 10 mins on PPP without being literally laughed at.

 

Instead? He writes twee little messages that he knows I won't share with the group, because I don't post PMs.

 

It's pathetic, and hilarious, for me.

 

So, I'm winning this by a mile from where I'm sitting. In fact I've already won. I win every day that mincy little girl refuses to come here and do what the rest of us do: post, and then back it up.

 

Instead: he hides, and plays with his little....modicum of authority.

 

You're such a victim. You should vote Democrat.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're such a victim. You should vote Democrat.

You're such an unimitigated moron. What about that post says victim to you?

 

Or, is poor comprehension a symptom of your "condition" as well?

 

Yeah, I'm the one claiming "victim" status here...

Edited November 14, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Tiberius]

Your point is valid but, retarded.

 

Yes, a large % of subsidies are payoffs to corporate agribusiness.

 

So what?

 

If the economies they produce keep prices low and production constant/stable? Where is the downside, for anybody, in that? If some economies produce some good results, more of it produces better: that is math.

 

 

.

 

Retarded. More production leads to over production and deflation and boom and bust cycles. Business like stability and predictabliiy which government helps to bring about.

[B-Man]

Big Ethanol is just not having a good week

 

Big Ethanol is not happy with the Associated Press about their recent bout of detailed, investigative attention to the many ways in which federal biofuels policies directly engender aggressive environmental degradation, and they are devoting their time to disproving, discrediting, and otherwise explaining away the AP’s report like their industry’s survival depends on it — mostly because, you know, it does.

 

Without the Renewable Fuel Standard’s mandate (which was passed in 2007, but upon which the Obama administration has relentlessly doubled down), demand for corn-based ethanol would slip by the wayside — and they certainly can’t have that.

 

 

.

[TPS]

 

Your point is valid but, retarded.

 

Yes, a large % of subsidies are payoffs to corporate agribusiness.

 

So what?

 

If the economies they produce keep prices low and production constant/stable? Where is the downside, for anybody, in that? If some economies produce some good results, more of it produces better: that is math.

 

Hmmm...you agree that economies of scale have zip to do with subsidies, then go on to harp on how the economies are necessary to keep prices low. What's the deal? Are you having an internal debate? Do you have a minimum daily word count to hit?

[OCinBuffalo]

Retarded. More production leads to over production and deflation and boom and bust cycles. Business like stability and predictabliiy which government helps to bring about.

Do you realize that you just defined the problem, and how the subsidy solution fixes it, all in your first sentence?

 

 

And I'm retarded?

 

 

Dude, subsidies essentially tighten the swings that an unsubsized COMMODITY market goes through, and therefore prevents exactly the problem you've defined.. (Notice I said COMMODITY. Notice I'm saying now: health insurance is NOT A COMMODITY. Moron.)

 

So, when the production is up, the government buys the excess and keeps prices stable, when it's down, government sells it's surplus, and keeps prices stable.

 

This can be done with a COMMODITY, because one kernel of corn is no different than another. One gallon of milk, slice of chees, etc. Homogenous product, in any graduation = COMMODITY.

 

 

The second sentence is what I've been saying: food subsidies are smart, as long as the companies don't collude to fix prices higher than they should be, because they provide enormous stability to every other market there is.

 

Hmmm...you agree that economies of scale have zip to do with subsidies, then go on to harp on how the economies are necessary to keep prices low. What's the deal? Are you having an internal debate? Do you have a minimum daily word count to hit?

Nope, you haven't thought it through.

 

Economies exist without subsidy. However, subsidy works as a force multiplier for economies. IF I know there's minimal risk for me to buy 1000 more acres and all the farm equipment i want, thanks to subsidy, I do it. That makes it possible for me to create economies/mutliplies the economy of scale I create, and I do either, faster.

 

Years of subsidy has led to years of buying up resources, building economies, and driving down price. This risk is as I've already stated, but, also as I've stated, where is ADM supposed to hide at this point? They are too big to hide anything. And they have people like you watching their every move.

 

So, it's as I said: you haven't thought it through. But, when you see everything in life as zero sum, as leftists like yourself do, then it's very difficult to think things through properly, isn't it?

Edited November 15, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[TPS]

Do you realize that you just defined the problem, and how the subsidy solution fixes it, all in your first sentence?

 

 

And I'm retarded?

 

 

Dude, subsidies essentially tighten the swings that an unsubsized COMMODITY market goes through, and therefore prevents exactly the problem you've defined.. (Notice I said COMMODITY. Notice I'm saying now: health insurance is NOT A COMMODITY. Moron.)

 

So, when the production is up, the government buys the excess and keeps prices stable, when it's down, government sells it's surplus, and keeps prices stable.

 

This can be done with a COMMODITY, because one kernel of corn is no different than another. One gallon of milk, slice of chees, etc. Homogenous product, in any graduation = COMMODITY.

 

 

The second sentence is what I've been saying: food subsidies are smart, as long as the companies don't collude to fix prices higher than they should be, because they provide enormous stability to every other market there is.

 

 

Nope, you haven't thought it through.

 

Economies exist without subsidy. However, subsidy works as a force multiplier for economies. IF I know there's minimal risk for me to buy 1000 more acres and all the farm equipment i want, thanks to subsidy, I do it. That makes it possible for me to create economies/mutliplies the economy of scale I create, and I do either, faster.

 

Years of subsidy has led to years of buying up resources, building economies, and driving down price. This risk is as I've already stated, but, also as I've stated, where is ADM supposed to hide at this point? They are too big to hide anything. And they have people like you watching their every move.

 

So, it's as I said: you haven't thought it through. But, when you see everything in life as zero sum, as leftists like yourself do, then it's very difficult to think things through properly, isn't it?

Dude, you sound like an academic.

ADM doesn't farm. They are monopsony buyers. They usually dictate to agri-farms what to produce, and what price ADM will pay. ADM makes their money on the logistics of transport, storage, and also processing. Much of their subsidy comes from the ethanol subsidy that everyone here seems to agree is BS. They influence policies (and subsidies) that promote the use of corn and soy which are their biggest markets. They want the ethanol subsidy; they want the sugar subsidy, because both benefit their processing business.

 

As for your unrelenting focus on economies of scale, yes, big agri-farms get most of the farm-related subsidies which stabilizes their income--that was the original intent of farm subsidies. No body is harping on that but you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dude, you sound like an academic.

ADM doesn't farm. They are monopsony buyers. They usually dictate to agri-farms what to produce, and what price ADM will pay. ADM makes their money on the logistics of transport, storage, and also processing. Much of their subsidy comes from the ethanol subsidy that everyone here seems to agree is BS. They influence policies (and subsidies) that promote the use of corn and soy which are their biggest markets. They want the ethanol subsidy; they want the sugar subsidy, because both benefit their processing business.

Which is no different than what Wal Mart does. So, coming back to the original friggin point: Both ADM AND Wal Mart keep prices low, for food and clothing, which helps the poor! Much more so than every jagoff Democrat program has ever even come close to doing.

As for your unrelenting focus on economies of scale, yes, big agri-farms get most of the farm-related subsidies which stabilizes their income--that was the original intent of farm subsidies. No body is harping on that but you.

You gatorman to thank for the harping.

 

Yes, I will focus unrelentingly on busting morons who talk out thier ass.

[3rdnlng]

It must be worse than we think, even the EPA is backing off:

 

http://dailycaller.c...thanol-mandate/

 

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it is scaling back its ethanol blending requirement for 2014.

Refiners had voiced concerns about putting more biofuels into the already strained fuel supply.

The agency has lowered the amount of ethanol that must be blended into U.S. fuel supplies from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013 to 15.21 billion gallons in 2014. The refining industry warned the agency earlier this year that refiners were reaching the maximum amount of ethanol that could safely be blended into the fuel supply, known as the “blendwall.”

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2kqjmJzeZ

Edited November 16, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[Nanker]

It must be worse than we think, even the EPA is backing off:

 

http://dailycaller.c...thanol-mandate/

 

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it is scaling back its ethanol blending requirement for 2014.

Refiners had voiced concerns about putting more biofuels into the already strained fuel supply.

The agency has lowered the amount of ethanol that must be blended into U.S. fuel supplies from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013 to 15.21 billion gallons in 2014. The refining industry warned the agency earlier this year that refiners were reaching the maximum amount of ethanol that could safely be blended into the fuel supply, known as the “blendwall.”

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2kqjmJzeZ

 

Well that's just crazy talk. I'm astonished that the EPA apparently listened and backed off. Because, you see the more ethanol they put in gaz, the sooner those substandard engines and bad automobiles the evil auto industry foisted on Americans, the sooner those awful engines will go kaput. And that's good for America. But if you like your old substandard automobile - you can keep your old substandard automobile... at least until just after the next election.

[TPS]

Which is no different than what Wal Mart does. So, coming back to the original friggin point: Both ADM AND Wal Mart keep prices low, for food and clothing, which helps the poor! Much more so than every jagoff Democrat program has ever even come close to doing.

 

You gatorman to thank for the harping.

 

Yes, I will focus unrelentingly on busting morons who talk out thier ass.

Not quite. While Walmart is relentless about pushing suppliers to keep prices low for their retail end buyers, ADM doesn't care whether prices are low or high because they are the middleman. While they may dictate to farmers, they dictate based on global S&D--they can't control the weather and other global conditions. Regardless of the prices of corn and soy, they make their money on transport and storage; they suck off the ethanol teat subsidy; and they also make a good chunk of change in the futures markets, since they have better info than most.

 

The original point made was that ADM et al don't need the ethanol subsidies, and those subsidies aren't what create economies of scale in farming. The ethanol subsidy is relatively new, and it benefits ADM as an ethanol processor. And, in fact, the ethanol subsidy has caused corn prices to rise.

 

Again, ADM is NOT the reason for lower farm prices. As the middleman, they don't care what the ultimate price is (for the most part). So, no, they are not some entity (like Walmart) that helps drive down prices for the poor. More often than not, they prevent prices from going lower....

[OCinBuffalo]

Not quite. While Walmart is relentless about pushing suppliers to keep prices low for their retail end buyers, ADM doesn't care whether prices are low or high because they are the middleman. While they may dictate to farmers, they dictate based on global S&D--they can't control the weather and other global conditions. Regardless of the prices of corn and soy, they make their money on transport and storage; they suck off the ethanol teat subsidy; and they also make a good chunk of change in the futures markets, since they have better info than most.

 

The original point made was that ADM et al don't need the ethanol subsidies, and those subsidies aren't what create economies of scale in farming. The ethanol subsidy is relatively new, and it benefits ADM as an ethanol processor. And, in fact, the ethanol subsidy has caused corn prices to rise.

 

Again, ADM is NOT the reason for lower farm prices. As the middleman, they don't care what the ultimate price is (for the most part). So, no, they are not some entity (like Walmart) that helps drive down prices for the poor. More often than not, they prevent prices from going lower....

Wait a sec...ADM doesn't care about prices being higher or lower, yet, they are responsible, via the ethanol subidy they get, for prices being higher?

 

Which is it? If they aren't the reason for lower farm prices, and are just middle men, then how in the sam hell are we supposed to blame them for higher prices?

 

Why lay this at ADM's feet? Why not on the politicians who created this? Why not on the government agencies who regulate it(why else do they have a job?) Again, what happens to ADM's stock price if their CEO doesn't take advantage of subsidies that Obama has extended/increased(and yeah, yeah, I know ethanol has been around forever, spare me)? You gonna advise people to buy?

 

And seriously, you are talking about what, the 4th(2nd, whatever) oldest profession in the world: Getting the farmer's goods to market.

 

Yeah, this whole business discipline called logistics(used to be called supply chain, used to be called materials management) that has repeatedly shown return on investment it the form of lower costs....doesn't exist. Right.

 

The middle man can't reduce overall cost, because he is a middle man?

 

Are you trying to sell me a mattress here? Furniture then? The words "factory direct" come to mind.

 

Or are you talking about the entire infrastructure of the agrobusiness? Please tell me again how a farmer in Iowa gets his corn to market...in Switzerland.

[DC Tom]

Wait a sec...ADM doesn't care about prices being higher or lower, yet, they are responsible, via the ethanol subidy they get, for prices being higher?

 

Which is it? If they aren't the reason for lower farm prices, and are just middle men, then how in the sam hell are we supposed to blame them for higher prices?

 

Why lay this at ADM's feet? Why not on the politicians who created this? Why not on the government agencies who regulate it(why else do they have a job?) Again, what happens to ADM's stock price if their CEO doesn't take advantage of subsidies that Obama has extended/increased(and yeah, yeah, I know ethanol has been around forever, spare me)? You gonna advise people to buy?

 

And seriously, you are talking about what, the 4th(2nd, whatever) oldest profession in the world: Getting the farmer's goods to market.

 

Yeah, this whole business discipline called logistics(used to be called supply chain, used to be called materials management) that has repeatedly shown return on investment it the form of lower costs....doesn't exist. Right.

 

The middle man can't reduce overall cost, because he is a middle man?

 

Are you trying to sell me a mattress here? Furniture then? The words "factory direct" come to mind.

 

Or are you talking about the entire infrastructure of the agrobusiness? Please tell me again how a farmer in Iowa gets his corn to market...in Switzerland.

 

I'd just like to congratulate you on your first ever post where you don't talk about yourself.

[TPS]

Wait a sec...ADM doesn't care about prices being higher or lower, yet, they are responsible, via the ethanol subidy they get, for prices being higher?

That should've been enthanol mandate, not subsidy.

 

Which is it? If they aren't the reason for lower farm prices, and are just middle men, then how in the sam hell are we supposed to blame them for higher prices?h

The ethanol mandate has caused higher corn prices. ADM supports the mandate and subsidies that went with it (see below).

 

Why lay this at ADM's feet? Why not on the politicians who created this? Why not on the government agencies who regulate it(why else do they have a job?) Again, what happens to ADM's stock price if their CEO doesn't take advantage of subsidies that Obama has extended/increased(and yeah, yeah, I know ethanol has been around forever, spare me)? You gonna advise people to buy?

I do blame the capture of government by large corporations. Regulations and laws are shaped by the industry leaders, and regulators come from those same companies. Almost every aspect of policy is about how to benefit those big corps (and more often than not, they hurt the smaller producers). The ethanol mandate was pushed by the likes of ADM and Cargill, and more important they pushed for the subsidies that were tied to it.

 

And seriously, you are talking about what, the 4th(2nd, whatever) oldest profession in the world: Getting the farmer's goods to market.

 

Yeah, this whole business discipline called logistics(used to be called supply chain, used to be called materials management) that has repeatedly shown return on investment it the form of lower costs....doesn't exist. Right.

 

The middle man can't reduce overall cost, because he is a middle man?

There you go putting words into someone's fingers again...technological advances have reduced costs. Saying that they don't care about farm prices doesn't mean they don't care about their competitive position and trying to reduce their own costs of providing the logistics.

 

Are you trying to sell me a mattress here? Furniture then? The words "factory direct" come to mind.

 

Or are you talking about the entire infrastructure of the agrobusiness? Please tell me again how a farmer in Iowa gets his corn to market...in Switzerland.

 

I'll try to simplify it for you:

1. The ethanol mandate was bad policy pushed by ADM, Cargill, et al. They also pushed for the subsidies as part of the policy.

2. That mandate helped increase corn prices.

3. ADM makes much of its money on the logistics, but they also are big ethanol producers. As such, they don't care much about Ag prices, since they make money whether prices are high or low. They have, however, made a good bundle off of the ethanol subsidy.

4. Saying the don't care about ag prices does NOT mean they don't care about their own business and making it more efficient over time.

5. None of this has anything to do with economies of scale in farming leading to lower prices or the subsidies to actual farmers that has been your focus.

6. Large corporations who dominate an industry shape policy to their liking, and they "pay" politicians to vote for what they want. The chief regulators are industry insiders who will never bite the hand that will feed them once they go back to the private sector.

 

Do I "blame" ADM? No. I blame an apathetic public that has allowed the capture of government by business.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'll try to simplify it for you:

1. The ethanol mandate was bad policy pushed by ADM, Cargill, et al. They also pushed for the subsidies as part of the policy.

2. That mandate helped increase corn prices.

3. ADM makes much of its money on the logistics, but they also are big ethanol producers. As such, they don't care much about Ag prices, since they make money whether prices are high or low. They have, however, made a good bundle off of the ethanol subsidy.

4. Saying the don't care about ag prices does NOT mean they don't care about their own business and making it more efficient over time.

5. None of this has anything to do with economies of scale in farming leading to lower prices or the subsidies to actual farmers that has been your focus.

6. Large corporations who dominate an industry shape policy to their liking, and they "pay" politicians to vote for what they want. The chief regulators are industry insiders who will never bite the hand that will feed them once they go back to the private sector.

 

Do I "blame" ADM? No. I blame an apathetic public that has allowed the capture of government by business.

Thanks. Now, let me, as a consultant manager(have to help DC_Tom along in his Children's Crusade) simplify something for you:

Let's say I create the conditions where my organization overbills for expenses. I created the system that tracks billing(that I say is going to stop overbilling, yet, doesn't.) But, the only people who know WTF we are doing are my employees, or ex-employee consultants who I've hired to "regulate billing", which means they are the only people who can reasonably say what is overbilling, and what isn't.

 

Are my employees/consultants/George W Bush at fault, or am I?

 

Answer: I am. I created the damn system. I created the conditions for it's corruption.

 

You are complaining about corporations...using the very facility you dopey leftists created. Stop creating the damn facility.

 

Stop believing you can control something you know nothing about. Stop creating the conditions, the agencies, the very regulation mechanisms you keep selling as "the answer". They are the reason government can be "captured". They are the friggin vehicle!

 

If a Congress critter has nothing to sell, then ADM(or whoever) has nothing...to buy.

 

The more you involve government, the more power you give politicians to determine who gets helped/harmed, the more you increase the chance for corruption of government. This shoud be common sense.

 

Create laws, not regs. This way, when you break the law, you go do jail. If you can't create laws? STFU. We live by the rule of law. Not by the rule of regulation...

 

= whaaaa..."I can't manage these regs, because I'm "captured", because the smart guys at company X, Y, and Z are smart(which is why they work there, and not the government), and they know how to nail my silly government ass coming and going"

 

Or, as in my case, "they hire consultants to make me look stupid!" So, that if there's a problem...well? "Bad consultant! Go to your room!"

 

There's a reason the CEO is who he is, and the government employee is who she is, and sure as hell there's a reason why consultants are who they are. When we forget that, we create the conditions for failure.

 

I can't believe you're dumbfounded: that people in business aren't going to lay down and take whatever nonsense you statists decide to put together next, and then? Cry when that nonsense gets corrupted by the very people you say should have EVEN MORE POWER: the politicians and the regulators?

 

Staggers the imagination.

 

How about: Stop empowering people whose net worth increases exponentially the longer they are in Congress? What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

 

How about pass laws? How about: let the DOJ prosecute offenders in a court of law? Stop selling who wins and loses via regulation.

Edited November 22, 2013 by OCinBuffalo