Skip to comments.America's grain stocks running short (food security and export control?)
Posted on 02/25/2008 5:08:27 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
click here to read article
That’s ok... McCain supports increasing US ethanol production, which will fix global warming, which will save us all!
Uhh, wait a minute...
Won’t be long, now, before we’ll have to have family meetings to decide whether to spend our life savings on a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread......
Funny how that works: with a weak U.S. dollar and global demand so high, U.S. producers can't ship American grain quickly enough. Oh, heck, we're all gonna starve.
—With a weak U.S. dollar and global demand so high,—
Duh! The answer is keep the grain at home; restrict exports. That will help drop the price of grain (and milk and eggs) at home. The ag lobby won’t like that, but tough darts.
farmers won't much like it either.
—farmers won’t much like it either.—
six of one ...
What do you think happens when the government artificially depresses prices for a commodity? How do the producers react?
Duh. And what explicit numerated power in the US Constitution allows the US government to do that? Answer: there is none. And don’t give me bs about the commerce power. Ditto for export restrictions on a number of other items. It just doesn’t exist. So many conservatives say they support the Constitution, but they really don’t.
If they pull the same crap they pulled back in 1973 like slaughtering calves and chicks before they went to market, then their arses should be tossed in jail.
You’re going to have to explain why you think one form of intervention is bad, and the other good.
The necessary and proper clause (also known as the elastic clause, the basket clause, the coefficient clause, and the sweeping clause. This clause is a loophole big enough to drive a Hummer through, which is probably why the Framers put it in the Constitution in the first place.
—Youre going to have to explain why you think one form of intervention is bad, and the other good.—
Allowing prices to go up because greedy speculators are shipping it overseas to non-Americans is not intervention, it is NON-intervention (letting a house burn down is non-intervention, putting the fire out before it does too much damage is intervention).
What do you think happens when the government artificially boost prices for a commodity, i.e., farm subsidies? The USG has been subsidizing farmers for a long time. It has never been a free market.
Da, comrade. The kulaks are enemies of the State.
Why are you asking me? I’m honestly curious.
Hey, I know. Let’s tax American workers and use the money to subsidize unprofitable ethanol plants, and then charge them more for food and energy, and tax the margin (of course)!
—Da, comrade. The kulaks are enemies of the State.—
Cute. Obiviously you are too young to remember 1973, but this economic sabotage caused great “pocketbook mayhem” even before the oil shock hit. I don’t want to see Americans suffer now like they did back then.
Yet, for all your good intentions, you propose a policy that ensures what you wish to avoid actually occurs.
It is obvious that if you artificially depress prices for a commodity, production will go down. The producers will not want to incur large losses or invest large amounts of capital with a small return.
—It is obvious that if you artificially depress prices for a commodity, production will go down. The producers will not want to incur large losses or invest large amounts of capital with a small return.—
Well if prices are going to be high because of increased export or high because speculators will decrease production if export is cutoff, then it makes more sense to cutoff export. If nothing else, it will teach the ag lobby that greed and not putting the American consumer first has consequences. The American consumer will be no worse off (albeit no better off) either way.
Oh, really? Do you expect folks to be slaughtering livestock that is not theirs to slaughter, or are you advocating jailing people for disposing of their own property as they see fit?
The other alternative is to increase subsides domestically so the farmers will receive the global market price and sell domestically. Or let the market operate freely, which will make it more attractive for farmers to put more land into production to take advantage of an expanding market.
” Wheat prices have been near $10 a bushel, more than $6 a bushel higher. Cash prices for soybeans are about $13 a bushel, up more than $7 a bushel. Corn is pricing at almost $5 a bushel, an increase of greater than $3 a bushel.”
There is very little grain moving at these prices. If the farmers had any they would surely sell it, but I expect that everyone did as we did and sold the beans on the way up at $9/bushel.
With very few exceptions, ever since WWI, the agriculture problem has been one of overproduction. If the current high prices stick, production will increase and we will be “blessed” again with a excess of produce.
Not really. Of course given the state of our jurisprudence at this late date in the Republic, I’m not much surprised at any crap the courts manage to let through.
—With very few exceptions, ever since WWI, the agriculture problem has been one of overproduction. If the current high prices stick, production will increase and we will be blessed again with a excess of produce—
From your lips to God’s ears, as the saying goes.
We have never had the ethanol mandate and subsidies so the analogy does not hold. The ethanol mandates shifts the demand curve, impacting corn and many other crops. The past analogy involves only demand for food. Now we have demand for food and fuel. In addition, we have developing world demand. Thus, I do not see production catching up for some time if ever. A poor growing season will be disaster.
Now foreign buyers are greedy speculators? LOL!
Two solutions: (1) suspend ethanol mandates for a few months, let the corn go into feed rather than ethanol, and (2) any acreage we’re paying farmers NOT to grow on, tell them to grow stuff this year
Farmers refused to produce food at a loss and you call it economic sabotage? How dare they!
And yet they still won’t buy ethanol from Brazil because the “corn” lobby won’t allow it.
Jeez, the Hillary campaign seems to have infested even FreeRepublic.
Corn used for ethanol is also used for feed. Were the government to mandate that corn be used only for feed, it would be requiring that livestock feeding become dramatically less efficient.
He is a paleo. Lack of economic understanding should be assumed.
More the sugar lobby but whatever the case, with current high prices now would be a good time to do away with that import ban or tariff.
--by taxing imports and using the revenue to subsidize food for the consumer.
Big government control; first higher taxes, next government control of the market, and finally a worker's paradise.
I was a farmer in 1973. I don't remember such a thing. Refresh my memory.
That's right. Let's tell them to grow something. What should we tell them to grow? How do we make them do so? What if they ignore our demands?
That's because you're professor and not a farmer.
Overproduction will continue to be problem. The real breakthoughs in yields are coming, better fertilizers usage through breeding, better drought resistance etc.
Corn production went from 6 to 7 billion bushels in 1985 to 13 billion in 2007. It will double again in less than 10 years with the current incentive to produce. Wheat, soybeans, name the crop, give the farmers the incentive that corn has to grow more, and you'll see the flood of crops continue.
That’s what happens when you subsidize the use crops for fuel instead of food.
Ummm, no, he doesn't. He actually campaigned against farm subsidies for ethanol in Iowa - a big reason of why he did so poorly in that state.
Farmers are well armed and won't like your hijacking of their crops.
Translated into simpler English: this year, if we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops, then eliminate those payments. The farmers may choose to grow crops and sell them, in order to make money to make up for the eliminated farm subsidies
Bravo! Off with their heads.
What's ironic about many of the replies, is that they had to stop eating their big breakfast to type!
The final program isn't in place yet, but from the farmers I've talked to, your wish has been granted.
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.