Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
BTTT!
>high gasoline prices are actually great for America,
LOL! It isn’t treasonous, just stupid.
Very good post, especially that point.
The USDA is not part of the political structure, so there is no such thing as a "political contribution" to anybody in that agency. Any "contribution" would be considered a BRIBE. And ADM would have to bribe all the folks involved in the data collection process, down to below the level of county agent, and trust that NONE of them would "squeal". We're talking about the validity of the statistics gathered by the USDA---not a vote by Congress.
Actually, I think these attacks on ethanol originate with Hugo Chaves, Iranaminijad, and the Saudis. They are the ones who "lose" if fuel ethanol succeeds.
The production statistics disprove that idea. The total production of corn is UP drastically---far more than is used in ethanol, so there is a gigantic surplus of corn. So corn-derived products should go DOWN in price. Those commodities where crop acreage was replaced by corn acreage should be scarcer, and go up--but CORN products should go DOWN. If you don't understand these basic facts, then you're the one who doesn't understand economics, not me.
And even if the price of corn products DOUBLES, it in no way accounts for the much larger price increases in food products. I'll use an example (from old memory, but the numbers are ball-park correct). The amount of corn in a dollar box of corn-flakes is about five cents worth. Suppose the price of corn doubles---the amount of the "corn contribution" to the price of the box of corn is now a dime---but the price of the box of corn flakes has increased fifty cents. What was the cause of the OTHER forty-five cents.
Of course it does. And your point is????
The USDA is not part of the political structure, so there is no such thing as a “political contribution” to anybody in that agency.
Of course, but it’s very naive to think that the USDA is not influenced by Congressmen and Senators that take contributions as their main business. There is no part of government that is apolitical.
OK, let's just say that ADM wanted to "influence" the corn crop statistics that are gathered annually. Since the crop statistics are gathered by the local county agents office (you can look up crop statistics BY INDIVIDUAL COUNTY on the USDA site), this means that ADM would have to bribe EVERY COUNTY AGENT (not "Congressmen and Senators") in every corn-producing county in the US. And they would ALL have to be sufficiently dishonest to accept the bribe and not blow the whistle. Frankly, I don't think that scenario is of a very high probability of liklihood.
Agree, it seems clear these rogue states are in favor of increasing US dependence on their sources.
I don’t know how we got on the subject of crop statistics. Farm subsidy policy and bio-fuel subsidies are put in place by Congress with input and implementation by USDA officials.
Because there are people on this thread that are contending that the statistics published by the USDA are somehow "faked" so as to support the "pro-ethanol" position. Specifically "Rusty Millet" and "freedomfiter2" in posts 22 and 23. THAT is the function of USDA that is under discussion--not their setting of policy.
[snip] Virtually all these people are protesting sharp rises in the prices of rice and wheat, which is what they eat. (Mexico is an exception, because Mexicans use corn to make tortillas.) Since no one has ever converted a rice paddy to a cornfield, the simple notion that rice now costs more because we've converted land from growing food to growing fuel cannot possibly be correct... the real reason wheat prices are up is that production is lower than it otherwise might have been, because of new strains of fungi that are cutting yields and because of a six-year drought in Australia, which is among the world's major wheat suppliers... In 2007, US corn production rose to 349 million metric tons. Of this, about 62 million tons were used to produce ethanol, of which 21 million tons of dried distillers grains were returned to the grain market. This left a whopping 308 million tons available for consumption and export -- an increase of 110 million tons, or about 82 percent, over the 1995 figures. During these years, the US population increased by about 14 percent, from 264 million in 1995 to 301 million in 2007. We needed only about 25 million additional tons of corn to meet our rising domestic, non-ethanol consumption and export requirements. In fact, we produced an additional 126 million tons. Obviously, the notion that our increased use of corn for ethanol has "caused" food shortages is false. [end]Everyone on FR should know better than to repeat the ridiculous leftist garbage regurgitated through their good friends the MSM -- food shortages are in large part due to a rise in production costs, an effect brought on by the sharp rise in the price of crude. If you want 1 to 2 per cent of US employment to vanish really quickly -- that's about the number of people who grow the food -- get rid of price supports. That'll keep people from crossin' the border and takin' our seasonal jobs! (burp, scratch crotch)
There is 20c worth of flour in a pizza. Is that why its gone up three bucks?
There is probably 20c worth of wheat in Wheaties, and 20c worth of corn in corn flakes. Hell, the BOX probably costs more. Its clear that the underlying retail prices have little to do with the food value.
Corn was $2 in 1947 and various other years all the way up to a couple
years ago. Everything else went up, so why not corn, or wheat, or beans?
Looking at the figures, corn is still pretty cheap. I think it went to 5 in the 70s for a while, which is probably like 15 or 20 today?
Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2017389/posts
finally some common sense emerges.
While I agree that there are over 40,000 auto related deaths in the US every year, not all of them are alcohol related. I think it is less than 1/4 of these, which is 10,000+ to many.
I was wrong. It isn’t 1/4 or 25%, it is between 30% and 32%.
Please try to respond in more timely fashion.
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.