Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's grain stocks running short (food security and export control?)
The Grand Island Independent ^ | 02/24/08 | By Robert Pore

Posted on 02/25/2008 5:08:27 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-274 next last
To: Balding_Eagle
There's 50 years of history to back up up the fact they been very successful in doing so.

I'll bet food was cheaper. As long as you ignore the tax dollars spent on those programs.

121 posted on 02/25/2008 12:21:30 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
The question hangs in the air, should we end subsidies for oil?

I would love to get rid of any subsidies for oil as the price to get rid of all farm subsidies. Let's start today!

122 posted on 02/25/2008 12:22:55 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

My Nutri-grain waffles have gone up 10 cents two weeks ago, so has bread.

Yikes!


123 posted on 02/25/2008 12:23:08 PM PST by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
>>Exactly when you joined FreeRepublic and became an instant expert on how other people’s property should be valued.
 
I'm not the one arguing in favor of government mandated ethanol consumption.  Without government mandate, ethanol is not an economicaly viable fuel.
 
>>You’re free to buy as many bushels of corn
 
Not exactly.
 
The government now mandates a certain percentage of my fuel be ethanol.  That's not a free market.

124 posted on 02/25/2008 12:28:49 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: paleorite
updated 6:22 p.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 20, 2008 CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to take over farms or milk plants if owners refuse to sell their milk for domestic consumption and instead seek higher profits abroad or from cheese-makers.

With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22759138/

125 posted on 02/25/2008 12:42:14 PM PST by EBH ( ... the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness. --Alculin c.735-804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Etoo

If ethanol were consumed only in response to a government mandate, presumably the production (and consumption) wouldn’t exceed that mandate.


126 posted on 02/25/2008 12:50:12 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Balding_Eagle

>>I’ll bet food was cheaper.
>>As long as you ignore the tax dollars
>>spent on those programs.

And if those tax dollars are not ignored?

Ethanol is simply another form of government mandated farm subsidy.

It’s as cleverly UN-hidden as the socialist subsidization of housing that’s being provided via the sub-prime fiasco.

What an interesting coincidence it is that both pogroms are being further subsidized via the Fed’s policy of monetary inflation.


127 posted on 02/25/2008 12:56:24 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

>>If ethanol were consumed only in response to a government
>>mandate, presumably the production (and consumption)
>>wouldn’t exceed that mandate.

Welcome to the corporate communist state.


128 posted on 02/25/2008 1:17:20 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Etoo
And if those tax dollars are not ignored?

Why would you ignore those tax dollars? If food is $1 cheaper but my taxes are $2 more expensive, I don't consider that a good deal. But then again, I'm not a farmer.

Ethanol is simply another form of government mandated farm subsidy.

Exactly. We need to get rid of the early Iowa caucuses. Then politicians would be less eager to throw money at that wasteful "solution" to our energy needs.

129 posted on 02/25/2008 1:22:01 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Etoo

You may avoid addressing the issue however you want, but the fact remains that the US consumes more ethanol than the government mandates. The value of fuel grade ethanol moves in sympathy with the value of gasoline.


130 posted on 02/25/2008 1:27:52 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
You may avoid addressing the issue however you want, but the fact remains that the US consumes more ethanol than the government mandates.

Are you in favor of removing the mandates?

The value of fuel grade ethanol moves in sympathy with the value of gasoline.

Are you in favor of removing the blending credit?

131 posted on 02/25/2008 1:30:32 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Absolutely. The blending credit is, in fact, a subsidy to the oil industry, not farmers. To the extent that the credit allows inefficient ethanol producers to stay in business, it dampens progress in the industry much the way that, say, the prospect of government handouts in New Orleans has dampened private initiative.


132 posted on 02/25/2008 1:40:13 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
[The value of fuel grade ethanol moves in sympathy with the value of gasoline.]
 
Tyranny of the appetite.
 
 
How interesting a coincidence it is that the tyranny of another appetite, for methamphetamine, is attacking the moral and cultural foundation of the American Heartland.  What an interesting coincidence the majority of methamphetamine originates South of a border the oligarchs refuse to control, delivered by illegal immigrants they refuse to expel.
 
Enjoying your cake?

133 posted on 02/25/2008 1:46:18 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

” 1973 was about grain and oil prices.”

It was probably in the spring of 1973, wheat prices were about $1.50/bushel. We were driving to Albuquerque and stopped to eat in Amarillo. Don’t remember if it was USDA or the Texas ag people, but the advice to the Texas wheat farmers was to pasture your wheat and don’t bother to let it mature. It would be worth more as beef than grain. Not long after, Nixon sold a potful of wheat to Russia and the price went up to $5/bushel. That price spike did not last long and soon wheat prices were around $2/bushel. They have remained at that level up till the last year or so.


134 posted on 02/25/2008 1:46:31 PM PST by Western Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
More than 70 percent of Nebraska corn crop this year could go to ethanol production.

Yipes!

135 posted on 02/25/2008 1:51:13 PM PST by DungeonMaster (WELL I SPEAK LOUD, AND I CARRY A BIGGER STICK, AND I USE IT TOO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Etoo
Hello?

Fuel grade ethanol is bad because you know some drug addicts?

136 posted on 02/25/2008 1:54:36 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: paleorite

No, the answer is to raise prices, increase profits for farming, increased exports help the trade deficit, encourage more food production, which will in the long run help strengthen the dollar, keep food prices down and increase the buying power of Americans.

Protectionist policies will only hurt the economy in the long run because low profits will drive people away from farming, resulting in less food produced, which will raise both domestic and international food prices for everyone in the long run.


137 posted on 02/25/2008 1:54:46 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

seem to be too many geniuses in the congress and a president who likes to extend a hand to the left.


138 posted on 02/25/2008 2:01:33 PM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
...." I don't remember such a thing. Refresh my memory."....

I don't know if anybody has answered you as I haven't scanned the whole thread carefully. In that time period( I don't know if it was exactly '73) there were news accounts of farmers digging trenches with bulldozers and killing and burying their cows rather than sell for a loss. They couldn't afford to feed them and take the price meat was going for. A similar thing happened with milk farmers, they poured out their milk for the camera's rather than sell it. Then they too sent their cows for slaughter because they couldn't feed them. Shortly after that, for several years, the big story was farmers going belly up and moving to the city after several decades of family farming. There were televised farm auctions where people were buying their lifelong friends personal belongings for a dime on the dollar. It was quite disturbing for me, not so much for the personal drama's of the poor people, but for the loss of farmland to developers, never to be farmed again. We were lulled into thinking the land was worth more with malls on them, but I always wondered what we would do when we NEEDED the food. As a side note, this was also the rise of the corporate farm. They would buy several farms to make mega farms and drive the neighbors out of business because THEY got the biggest subsidies. That is still true today. Some "farmers" are drawing $20million on Wall Street, while the family guy gets a chump change.

I find it objectionable to subsidize farmers to keep them afloat, but OTOH, if they fall on hard times, it's not like you can knock down a mall and parking lot to plow it up for food. Once it's gone, it's gone. Hawaii is sort of going through this now. They will no longer have any pineapple or sugar cane farms soon, because the land is worth too much to grow crops when you can put up a multimillion dollar high rise. When a farmer that paid $200 and acre for his land can get $5000 and acre, why would you just not sell and clip coupons?

139 posted on 02/25/2008 2:03:21 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
[More than 70 percent of Nebraska corn crop this year could go to ethanol production.

Yipes!]

Hmmmm, I wonder if this means there will be less subsidized cornsyrup hidden in our foods... and a lower incidence of the associated diseases, like obesity and diabetes?

Nah. probably not.   Obesity and diabetes are ENORMOUSLY profitable; plus, the resulting early deaths help lower the expenditures of Social Security and other entitlement programs.   Corn is quite the wonder-food when viewed from the proper economic perspective.

 


140 posted on 02/25/2008 2:04:43 PM PST by Etoo (I regret that I have but one screen name to sacrifice for my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-274 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson