Like ethanol? Get fond of food prices , taxes, good by pheasants

O

oldandnew

Active member
I found a web sight from Huffington Post ( I am sure a lot of you distrust this websight as Dick Cheney said so). But because our gamebird population is dependent upon what we do farming, I belief this is appropriate. In short ethanol is a loser, we lose do to high commodity prices, we lose on cost of fuel, we subsidize it, uses water, ( that stuff a little short on), enriches the "in the know investors", ( here in Missouri, every one of these deals are relatives, family members , or donors to politicians who voted to approve the bills. I am trying to post the article. http:www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17 ethanol-mandate_n_ 1799046.html?ref=topbar, enjoy.
 
My guess is that ethanol for fuel is temporary and as soon as the plant is depreciated and the tax breaks used up, it will be a dead industry except for its value for use in gateway alcoholic beverages like hard lemonade and the like that new drinkers buy.
 
BritChaser said:
My guess is that ethanol for fuel is temporary and as soon as the plant is depreciated and the tax breaks used up, it will be a dead industry except for its value for use in gateway alcoholic beverages like hard lemonade and the like that new drinkers buy.
Click to expand...

well, unfortunately the EPA has just authorized the use of ethanol as a blend up from 10% to 15% by volume....until people bitch about high food prices, which will take a least another year, it will still be mandated to use 40% of all corn production for ethanol creation.......yup, the Feds continues to dictate your life.....enjoy, lots more to come.:eek:
 
Ethanol mandates are just another in a very long line of government failure at centrally planning the economy.

If you ask anyone with 1/10th of a brain if they want the government to plan the economy you will hear 99% of them say, "absolutely not! Centrally planning is what the Soviets did and it was an utter failure."

Yet here we are. Government is mandating that our farms produce X amount of corn to be turned into ethanol to be blended into motor fuel. Problem is the free market doesn't want it, doesn't need it and it crowds out other productive uses for all that land, all that money we waste on corn alcohol.

I am have a B. S. in economics and studied Soviet economics extensively in college in the early 80s. It was a total failure then and what we accept today as "needed" is the same things they tried and failed at then.

Their programs produced a two tier society then. The connected few with all the wealth and the rest who struggled on the edge of poverty. Funny thing is that it seems to be exactly where we are heading because we have adopted the methods if not the names of all the BS centrally planned aspects of society and we are being conditioned to accept them as the norm.
 
Thanks for the lecture! I especially enjoyed the concept of "anyone with 1/10th of a brain" and the inference that anyone who disagrees with you has less than 1/10th of a brain. Very well thought out and reflective of your high level of education. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
BritChaser said:
Thanks for the lecture! I especialy enjoyed the concept of "anyone with 1/10th of a brain" and the inference that anyone who disagrees with you has less than 1/10th of a brain. Very well thought out and reflective of your high level of education. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

.....................................
 
Last edited:
Ethanol is it's own worst enemy. The reason corn is $8 is because of the demand ethanol puts on it. 10 billion bushel crop would leave the US with a large carry over if not for corn ethanol.
If the price of crude stays at current levels or even goes up some. Corn ethanol is doomed. Most ethanol plant are still operating on contracted corn, not $8 corn.
What do you suppose is going to happen when new contracts are signed?
 
I don't think the issue has a right or wrong veiwpoint. The reasons are still evidendent as to how and why, we merged on to this solution to begin with. At that time we had huge surpluses of corn, corn farmers were getting LDP price support, we were awash in expensive foreign oil imports, we had cheap food, gas prices where the cause of concern. We lighted upon a solution which would make gas cheaper, reduce foreign oil imports. Problems were discounted in the wave of enthusiam to make it happen. We can mostly agree now it was a not all pluses without minuses. As the economist Malthus said in 1800's, "you can't use food for fuel", risking catastrophe, My hope is to involve ourselves in decision making. We need to be "long term" in issues like these, short term gain, at horrendous cost. This affects, water, food, land prices, and the pheasants, which may be the factor that gets us involved. All the other benefits are beside the point. How long are going to do this? Well the administration and congress can sure agree upon this issue, we're all in. Romney states that" you can't put a windmill on a car", no soup for windmills! The reality, we need conservation, now! Better electrical grip system, fuel efficient cars, forget the 3500 sq.ft. home, leave few open spaces, reduce the quagemire of livestock sales, reduction is the key, alternative sources of energy we can strive for. Nobody wants to conserve anything, it's sure not on the campaign speeches, can't get elected. the are a hundred issues like ethanol. Discussion is fine, at least we're talking about it!Some day we wake up, lights don't work, fields are like you back yard, no pheasants, but it's O.K. you can't afford a car/or fuel, to get anywhere anyway!
 
There is also the piece that Ethanol is not healthy for your engine and reduces fuel economy. The extra money you save at the pump is negated by the decrease in fuel mileage and the long term damage done to your engine.
 
oldandnew said:
I don't think the issue has a right or wrong veiwpoint. The reasons are still evidendent as to how and why, we merged on to this solution to begin with. At that time we had huge surpluses of corn, corn farmers were getting LDP price support, we were awash in expensive foreign oil imports, we had cheap food, gas prices where the cause of concern. We lighted upon a solution which would make gas cheaper, reduce foreign oil imports. Problems were discounted in the wave of enthusiam to make it happen. We can mostly agree now it was a not all pluses without minuses. As the economist Malthus said in 1800's, "you can't use food for fuel", risking catastrophe, My hope is to involve ourselves in decision making. We need to be "long term" in issues like these, short term gain, at horrendous cost. This affects, water, food, land prices, and the pheasants, which may be the factor that gets us involved. All the other benefits are beside the point. How long are going to do this? Well the administration and congress can sure agree upon this issue, we're all in. Romney states that" you can't put a windmill on a car", no soup for windmills! The reality, we need conservation, now! Better electrical grip system, fuel efficient cars, forget the 3500 sq.ft. home, leave few open spaces, reduce the quagemire of livestock sales, reduction is the key, alternative sources of energy we can strive for. Nobody wants to conserve anything, it's sure not on the campaign speeches, can't get elected. the are a hundred issues like ethanol. Discussion is fine, at least we're talking about it!Some day we wake up, lights don't work, fields are like you back yard, no pheasants, but it's O.K. you can't afford a car/or fuel, to get anywhere anyway!
Click to expand...

...............................................
 
Last edited:
BritChaser said:
Thanks for the lecture! I especially enjoyed the concept of "anyone with 1/10th of a brain" and the inference that anyone who disagrees with you has less than 1/10th of a brain. Very well thought out and reflective of your high level of education. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I made no such inference. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work?
 
carptom1 said:
Thank you. But unfortunately we have lost all sense of reason in politics. You are either for or against there will be no compromise. Compromise shows weakness. Is Ethanol a good deal now, probably not, but the same could probably be said about electricity, locomotives or even cars when they were first developed. But we must do something. Total dependence on oil isn't the answer either. Many on here feel that we need to eliminate all government intervention in our lives. There has to be moderation in everything. Free unobstructed capitalism doesn't work either. Where there is money to be made corruption will follow, it doesnt even take a 1/10 of a brain to follow that. The money will still rise to the top.
Click to expand...

Why is this a political question? It is only so because government has taken it upon itself to make it so. If ethanol were economically feasible as a fuel we would be using it just as we use gasoline or diesel. It really is that simple. Same thing for electric cars, windmills and most solar panels. (for certain uses solar is quite feasible and so it is used such as in remote areas where running power lines is cost prohibitive)

Your example about electricity and locomotives doesn't hold water. Each of those was developed by the private sector and wasn't a forced solution to a manufactured problem, which is exactly what ethanol is. It was decided by government that we had to save the planet and get us off foreign energy by using our food stock.

Funny thing is they never anticipate the unintended consequences. Now we have the same "Greens" who advocated corn fuel now saying it was probably a bad idea, just ask Al Gore. We've wasted billions of dollars in direct costs and subsidies and also lost even more in lost opportunity with the capital and the real estate wasted chasing rainbows.
 
oldandnew said:
Nobody wants to conserve anything, it's sure not on the campaign speeches, can't get elected. the are a hundred issues like ethanol. Discussion is fine, at least we're talking about it!Some day we wake up, lights don't work, fields are like you back yard, no pheasants, but it's O.K. you can't afford a car/or fuel, to get anywhere anyway!
Click to expand...

Good post O&N, I am baffled at how big the GREEN movement is or was and yet how we cannot talk about conservation.

We need to bring back delayed gratification:D
 
AtTheMurph said:
Why is this a political question? It is only so because government has taken it upon itself to make it so. If ethanol were economically feasible as a fuel we would be using it just as we use gasoline or diesel. It really is that simple. Same thing for electric cars, windmills and most solar panels. (for certain uses solar is quite feasible and so it is used such as in remote areas where running power lines is cost prohibitive)

Your example about electricity and locomotives doesn't hold water. Each of those was developed by the private sector and wasn't a forced solution to a manufactured problem, which is exactly what ethanol is. It was decided by government that we had to save the planet and get us off foreign energy by using our food stock.

Funny thing is they never anticipate the unintended consequences. Now we have the same "Greens" who advocated corn fuel now saying it was probably a bad idea, just ask Al Gore. We've wasted billions of dollars in direct costs and subsidies and also lost even more in lost opportunity with the capital and the real estate wasted chasing rainbows.
Click to expand...

..................................
 
Last edited:
As I see it, the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

I'm not sure where to even begin, but at the same time it seems like it's always the same few people spouting off the same stuff regardless of what's actually going on, so I'll just save my typing.
 
1GB said:
As I see it, the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

I'm not sure where to even begin, but at the same time it seems like it's always the same few people spouting off the same stuff regardless of what's actually going on, so I'll just save my typing.
Click to expand...

We need a sub-forum titled "Rants."
 
AtTheMurph said:
Government is mandating that our farms produce X amount of corn to be turned into ethanol to be blended into motor fuel.ts of society and we are being conditioned to accept them as the norm.
Click to expand...

Baloney. NO farmer is required to produce anything he doesn't want to produce. He can grow corn, daises, or grass, whatever he likes.

The ethanol subsidy is paid to ethanol producers, and they bid the price of corn up. Farmers, mostly, chase the dollars.

Pay better attention in class.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top