Politics and our food supply

[Athena]

The threads about food shortages in the political forum, bring up the fact that there is a connection between government and our food supply. There is also a connection between food and our economy, and between food and international national relationships.

 

And we might want to improve the connection between science and voters, because just hoping the future won't be as bad as some say, is not highly responsible, and as self governing people, perhaps we should be more responsible? While those arguing against fear mongering have made a good point too. Running around like chicken little crying the sky is falling, is not helpful either. However, what are the politicians doing about our food supply and what might you say to a representative, or for whom might you vote, or what meant information you might give others on the Internet?

 

This is a link for the US Farm Bills. Hopefully others will add information regarding food supply and the politics of other countries.

 

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/#08

[jeskill]

There's a lot of talk about the 2012 Farm Bill these days. I'd personally love to see a change in the way the US subsidizes agricultural production:

 

- no subsidies for farms making over 250,000/year

- no subsidies for corn

- incentives for farmers who are growing sustainably and selling locally

- more support for farmers markets

- maintain the farmer's insurance program

 

The majority of these are a pipe-dream at this point in time (esp. corn), but even policy that has the effect of slowing moving in these directions would be good.

[swansont]

We subsidize corn and ethanol production from corn, which siphons away food resources. Ethanol subsidies might have made sense when gas was $1 or $2 a gallon, and if ethanol was actually net energy positive, but with gas upwards of $4, there's no reason. If it's still not economical without a subsidy at $4/gal, one needs to revisit the justification for the program.

[mississippichem]

We subsidize corn and ethanol production from corn, which siphons away food resources. Ethanol subsidies might have made sense when gas was $1 or $2 a gallon, and ethanol was actually net energy positive, but with gas upwards of $4, there's no reason. If it's still not economical without a subsidy at $4/gal, one needs to revisit the justification for the program.

 

Amen reverend. Stole the words from my mouth.

 

Ethanol subsidies represent bad science, bad food policy, bad environmental policy, bad fiscal policy, and are the result IMHO of an ignorant legislature coupled with heavy corn lobby efforts.

Edited August 25, 2011 by mississippichem

[jackson33]

Most "Ethanol Subsidies", actually go to oil refineries to blend ethanol into a final product. If you cut that subsidy, without changing the regulation, it would likely increase the cost up .45 cents per gallon, for the final product. Those involved in growing corn only wish to maintain the higher commodity price, the process increasing demand, which will not change.

 

There are two pieces of legislation set to expire at the end of this year. One is the 45 cent per gallon subsidy (called the VEETC) that is paid to oil companies to blend ethanol into gasoline. Because the oil companies are also mandated to blend ethanol, the subsidy is mostly redundant.[/Quote]

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/11/29/the-most-wasteful-ethanol-subsidy/

 

Explains current action Congressional actions...

 

On the other side of the corn field, National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA) President Bill Donald called the vote “a giant step toward leveling the playing field for a bushel of corn” noting that cattle producers “support our nation’s commitment to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But after 30 years and more than $30 billion in taxpayer support, the day has come to let the mature corn-based ethanol industry stand on its own two feet.”[/Quote]

http://agwired.com/2011/06/16/senate-votes-to-end-ethanol-blenders-tax-credit/

 

Today's cost per bushel 7.43, slightly off it's all time high of 7.99.

 

http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/

[swansont]

Most "Ethanol Subsidies", actually go to oil refineries to blend ethanol into a final product. If you cut that subsidy, without changing the regulation, it would likely increase the cost up .45 cents per gallon, for the final product. Those involved in growing corn only wish to maintain the higher commodity price, the process increasing demand, which will not change.

If the process was $.50 a gallon from being profitable when gas was $2 a gallon, why is it still not profitable when gas is $4 a gallon? They should be making $1.50 a gallon from the ethanol, IF ethanol was a net energy source. But they don't use ethanol to produce ethanol (they can't), they use oil products to do so. So the costs rise as the oil prices rise. But because there are so many subsidies, it's profitable and that means acreage is devoted to ethanol corn instead of food or feed. Which drives food prices up.

[JohnB]

Actually the numbers are pretty scary. If we assume Wiki is correct;

 

1. The grain required to fill a 25 gallon gas tank with ethanol would feed 1 person for a year.

 

2. In 2006 the US produce 4.86 billion gallons of ethanol.

 

That means enough food to feed more than 194 million people was burned in cars etc in 2006 just from the US production. Brazil wasn't far behind at 4.3 billion gallons, or enough to feed a further 172 million people. That is food for some 366 million people being burnt as fuel.

 

Any way you cut it, that is a lot of people going hungry so that Europeans and others can drive their "biodiesel" BMWs and feel good about "saving the planet".

 

(Yes, it was field corn rather than the more edible sweet corn, but it's still a staggering amount.)

[jackson33]

The current steep growth in ethanol consumption is being driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a nationwide renewable fuels standard requiring use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, requiring 36 billion gallons of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 16 billion gallons must be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.[10][27][28][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States#History_of_ethanol_in_the_U.S.

 

swansont; My post was meant as "FYI", not an argument. I'd assumed you already understood, ethanol subsidies were based on mandated usage, but your post indicates otherwise. Since this requirement is increasing and will be increased, the percentage of use when first mandated and blended, was minimal per refined gallon of gasoline, compared to today.

 

As for food or food commodity pricing, the only way to bring these down is to eliminate the mandates, which has nothing to do with the subsidies.

 

 

(Yes, it was field corn rather than the more edible sweet corn, but it's still a staggering amount.) [/Quote]

 

JohnB; Field corn is most often used to produce animal feed, the easiest, cheapest to grow, harvest and can be grown anyplace sweet corn is grown (Not necessarily the reverse). Where many other crops are grown (cotton/wheat/sorghum or other grains and beans), corn could be grown, causing other food prices to increase, including animal food (pork/beef) which are also near all time high levels...

 

If US fossil fuel policy is going to be "Green" and/or an increased usage of ethanol is the object, they best start looking at alternative none food materials, for a primary source, if it's not already too late. For another thread....

[jeskill]

OK. So can we say that the people of this thread agree that corn ethanol subsidies and mandated usages should be discarded?

[Phi for All]

Most "Ethanol Subsidies", actually go to oil refineries to blend ethanol into a final product. If you cut that subsidy, without changing the regulation, it would likely increase the cost up .45 cents per gallon, for the final product.

I'm not so sure about this argument. When gas was up much higher 2 years ago, it prompted a flurry of development into alternatives. I think a 45 cent/gallon spike right now would result in more interest, something the oil companies seem determined to stall.

 

The farmers are selling their corn for the most money. Cut the subsidies for inefficient corn to ethanol production and there will be more corn for food.

 

While you're at it, cut the subsidies for expensive US sugar and perhaps the land will be more productive for food crops. The US can import foreign sugar, which is half the price, so the consumer benefits. The manufacturers of sweet products can go back to using real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, so there will be more benefits to consumers, manufacturers, and even more corn to use as real food.

[John Cuthber]

Actually the numbers are pretty scary. If we assume Wiki is correct;

 

1. The grain required to fill a 25 gallon gas tank with ethanol would feed 1 person for a year.

 

2. In 2006 the US produce 4.86 billion gallons of ethanol.

 

That means enough food to feed more than 194 million people was burned in cars etc in 2006 just from the US production. Brazil wasn't far behind at 4.3 billion gallons, or enough to feed a further 172 million people. That is food for some 366 million people being burnt as fuel.

 

Any way you cut it, that is a lot of people going hungry so that Europeans and others can drive their "biodiesel" BMWs and feel good about "saving the planet".

 

(Yes, it was field corn rather than the more edible sweet corn, but it's still a staggering amount.)

 

You do know that biodiesel isn't made from corn don't you?

[jackson33]

I'm not so sure about this argument. When gas was up much higher 2 years ago, it prompted a flurry of development into alternatives. I think a 45 cent/gallon spike right now would result in more interest, something the oil companies seem determined to stall. [/Quote]

 

Hi Phil; I certainly didn't do a very good job, with that explanation, sorry. If the 45 cent subsidy to blend into, say 20 gallons of gasoline fuel can't be covered by other means, at most each gallon would be raised is about 2 cents. Not trying to be precise, making a point, the cost to refine gas for California, over that of say Montana is probably 10-15 cents per gallon higher already, because of States mandates. Oil futures are determined by markets, not necessarily the oil companies, but the refinery prices are determined by actual cost to produce, what ever the final product is, Gasoline to California, to fuel oil for Nebraska.

 

The farmers are selling their corn for the most money. Cut the subsidies for inefficient corn to ethanol production and there will be more corn for food. [/Quote]

 

No, without repealing regulation that mandates the use of ethanol, cutting the subsidies will not cut the demand for corn, which dictates the price, the subsidies are meaningless. As an above link/post (#5) indicates 30B$ over 30 years of taxpayer support is trivial to a trillion dollar business.

 

While you're at it, cut the subsidies for expensive US sugar and perhaps the land will be more productive for food crops. The US can import foreign sugar, which is half the price, so the consumer benefits. The manufacturers of sweet products can go back to using real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, so there will be more benefits to consumers, manufacturers, and even more corn to use as real food. [/Quote]

 

I can't argue you points, but remember Brazil is using Sugar Cain, to produce what we call ethanol and Cuban Sugar Cain is still off limits. They also have an active "Energy Policy" which the US has none. I haven't seen this years US corn harvest reports, but the planting reports were all records, as will be harvested bushels per acre.

 

A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

 

 

 

OK. So can we say that the people of this thread agree that corn ethanol subsidies and mandated usages should be discarded? [/Quote]

 

jeskill; I don't think so, most think if the subsidies are discontinued, corn will be somehow available for food, which is simply not true. As you say it, this would happen, but Congress has shown do desire to cut any pertinent regulation and politicians needing an enemy for the 2012 Election, have chose "big business welfare", subsidies....

[jeskill]

jeskill; I don't think so, most think if the subsidies are discontinued, corn will be somehow available for food, which is simply not true. As you say it, this would happen, but Congress has shown do desire to cut any pertinent regulation and politicians needing an enemy for the 2012 Election, have chose "big business welfare", subsidies....

 

I was under the impression that corn is overproduced in North America -- and that this is the main reason we use HFCS instead of other forms of sugar, are growing corn for ethanol, use corn as feed for cows, salmon, etc. IMO, our dependence on corn for a lot of things unrelated to healthy food is limiting our ability to eat healthy and grow food sustainably.

 

** Edit to respond to your point that eliminating subsidies would not necessarily mean that extra corn would be available as food ...

I would hope that it's not available as food. I would hope that the land is used to grow other crops that are more sustainable and healthy.

 

So I guess my question is, who (on this thread, anyways) would be against the idea that we need to cut out corn subsidies and mandates for corn usage?

 

What do you mean by "Big business welfare"? Does this relate to food business or is it just a general term?

Edited August 26, 2011 by jeskill

[Phi for All]

Hi Phil; I certainly didn't do a very good job, with that explanation, sorry. If the 45 cent subsidy to blend into, say 20 gallons of gasoline fuel can't be covered by other means, at most each gallon would be raised is about 2 cents. Not trying to be precise, making a point, the cost to refine gas for California, over that of say Montana is probably 10-15 cents per gallon higher already, because of States mandates. Oil futures are determined by markets, not necessarily the oil companies, but the refinery prices are determined by actual cost to produce, what ever the final product is, Gasoline to California, to fuel oil for Nebraska.

I understand your point now. And sure, I think the mandates to use corn as a biofuel are insane, for the reasons others have stated. It's not sustainable, and without subsidies driving it, it's not even profitable.

 

 

No, without repealing regulation that mandates the use of ethanol, cutting the subsidies will not cut the demand for corn, which dictates the price, the subsidies are meaningless. As an above link/post (#5) indicates 30B$ over 30 years of taxpayer support is trivial to a trillion dollar business.

I agree that the regulation requiring ethanol needs to be repealed. There are better fuel additives that don't use food crops and if we're going to subsidize anything, I'd rather see research done into alternatives. The problem isn't regulation, it's how the regs were manipulated to use ethanol rather than something that makes more sense.

[jackson33]

I was under the impression that corn is overproduced in North America -- and that this is the main reason we use HFCS instead of other forms of sugar, are growing corn for ethanol, use corn as feed for cows, salmon, etc. IMO, our dependence on corn for a lot of things unrelated to healthy food is limiting our ability to eat healthy and grow food sustainably. [/Quote]

 

jeskill, your link is interesting, but wonder when it was written. Here is another viewpoint on why the US started to subsidies blending corn ethanol into Gas, mainly to compete with the Brazian Sugar product. Keep in mind while doing your research, that corn futures until mid-2007 were under 2.50/B, then generally under 4.00/B until mid-2010. I can't rule out US$ inflation, as the Brazilian Real has maintained its value.

 

 

Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.[17] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff[18][19])[/Quote]

 

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M

 

What do you mean by "Big business welfare"? Does this relate to food business or is it just a general term? [/Quote]

 

General Term, will work. I'm just so sick of hearing people making over 200K/Y, that have their own plane or may have built estates over a million dollars are so evil. Did you know Apple Computer and Exxon/Mobil have about the same value, about 460B$, but when have you heard anything bad about Apple, yet Apple nets about 25% in profits, Exxon 10%?

 

I'd rather see research done into alternatives. The problem isn't regulation, it's how the regs were manipulated to use ethanol rather than something that makes more sense. [/Quote]

 

 

Phil; It's only fair to mention another side the issue, since we have a 30-100 or more year, bridge to cross, getting to realistic alternatives to fossil fuels, if it's even practical, needed or possible. Here are some examples, that if addressed 30 years ago, could be what corn/sugar fuels are today....IMO.

 

A big step forward came last week with the opening of the nation’s first ­demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Jennings, La. The facility, built by Cambridge, Mass.-based Verenium Corp., will use high-tech enzymes to make 1.4 million gallons per year of ethanol from the cellulose in sugar cane bagasse, a waste product.[/Quote]

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2008/0604/the-race-for-nonfood-biofuel

 

Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

[swansont]

General Term, will work. I'm just so sick of hearing people making over 200K/Y, that have their own plane or may have built estates over a million dollars are so evil. Did you know Apple Computer and Exxon/Mobil have about the same value, about 460B$, but when have you heard anything bad about Apple, yet Apple nets about 25% in profits, Exxon 10%?

How much in government subsidies were sent Apple's way? XOM made more than $30 Billion in profit last fiscal year. Apple made $14 B. What share of the $4 billion in annual oil subsidies did XOM get, and why is that necessary?

 

(BTW the market caps are about $360 B, but that's not important to the discussion)

[Phi for All]

General Term, will work. I'm just so sick of hearing people making over 200K/Y, that have their own plane or may have built estates over a million dollars are so evil. Did you know Apple Computer and Exxon/Mobil have about the same value, about 460B$, but when have you heard anything bad about Apple, yet Apple nets about 25% in profits, Exxon 10%?

Well, you're talking about different things here. I have no problem with wealth, or wealthy people. I do think that corporations have been given too much power in the US. Mitt Romney claims that "corporations are people". Corporations are made of people, they serve people but they should not be considered people with the same rights under the 14th amendment. But a lot of effort has gone into creating corporate personhood and imo it has overshadowed the power and political process of the people and the free market. Corporations have too much political clout which allows them to circumvent smart regulations, they have more money than some small nations, and every president from Reagan to Bush to Clinton has worked to give them control of the media as well. You can control just about anything if you control both Congress and the media.

 

As far as the Exxon/Apple argument goes, Apple doesn't get subsidies from the federal government.

 

Phil; It's only fair to mention another side the issue, since we have a 30-100 or more year, bridge to cross, getting to realistic alternatives to fossil fuels, if it's even practical, needed or possible. Here are some examples, that if addressed 30 years ago, could be what corn/sugar fuels are today....IMO.

 

 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2008/0604/the-race-for-nonfood-biofuel

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

These are good alternatives. I would add hemp, which has other uses and grows just about anywhere with little impact on the soil. We'll probably never get it, because the products made from it like fabric, paper, oil, and yes, food, would be too inexpensive and durable if large-scale production were to be invested in. Hemp seeds are more durable and digestible than soy beans and have almost the same nutritional value. [1]

[Essay]

Phil; It's only fair to mention another side the issue, since we have a 30-100 or more year, bridge to cross, getting to realistic alternatives to fossil fuels, if it's even practical, needed or possible. Here are some examples, that if addressed 30 years ago, could be what corn/sugar fuels are today....IMO.

 

http://www.csmonitor...nonfood-biofuel

 

 

That CSMonitor link is from back, just before the optimism bubble burst, in '08:

 

"Actual marketplace production of cellulosic ethanol is zero – there's not a gallon being produced [commercially] right now," says Thomas Foust, biofuels research director at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. "But with all these plants coming on line ... by 2010 or 2011 we will start to see millions of gallons."

 

Has any of this come to pass? There are better ways, than these resource intensive schemes, to beneficially utilize waste biomass and create biofuels.

 

see:

http://www.sciencefo..._20#entry623817

 

But I like your point about "waste biomass" being a better option than energy intensive (and subsidized) corn for biofuel.

 

~

[JohnB]

You do know that biodiesel isn't made from corn don't you?

 

Yes John, but the general point was that it was wasting good food growing land for inefficient ethanol production. This is pretty much being done so that people in the West can still happily drive, but salve their consciences. Down here we use sugar cane, it props up the cane farmers and the government can say that it's "doing something" about climate change. This allows people to drive their huge 4WDs that never leave the bitumen while feeling that they're "doing their bit" by using 10% ethanol fuel. It used to be called "Selling Indulgences" when the Catholics did it.

 

In general, because it differs from nation to nation, what subsidies do the oil companies get in the US? They don't get any down here.

[amanda more]

The threads about food shortages in the political forum, bring up the fact that there is a connection between government and our food supply. There is also a connection between food and our economy, and between food and international national relationships.

 

And we might want to improve the connection between science and voters, because just hoping the future won't be as bad as some say, is not highly responsible, and as self governing people, perhaps we should be more responsible? While those arguing against fear mongering have made a good point too. Running around like chicken little crying the sky is falling, is not helpful either. However, what are the politicians doing about our food supply and what might you say to a representative, or for whom might you vote, or what meant information you might give others on the Internet?

 

This is a link for the US Farm Bills. Hopefully others will add information regarding food supply and the politics of other countries.

 

http://www.nationala...g/farmbills/#08

 

I met the activist founder of Food not Bombs hanging out in a coffee shop. No matter if only a penney that makes its way to the consumer, subsidizing food for food even for the big guys has to assist prices. Subsidizing for ethanol wouldn't. Should this ever pan out where say grass can be used economically then it will help lower prices in the future- I'd say far future like 20 years. The poor are then subsidizing a research project and starving. There has to be a lot of 15 year old active growing boys that are hungry as they need 4800 calories. To feed them in the "food wars" method of greens etc. costs $48 a day. Not happening. I wrote a super simple book "Eating on $1" in amazon that merely called out prices and calories. Oddly revolutionary, I suppose. Those on the left don't want to think a teenager needs empty calories and those on the right think $7 a day is a huge program and superfluous even as more children have fallen into poverty just as prices have risen. Everyone is ignorant that the Clintons were successful. Except for droves of people that recently found that "no safety net" means no cash for heating/cooling, a roof over the head and gas to go to food banks. By getting that whopping $7 per kid families have squeaked by. The single guy who has no work? I guess he could try thumbing a ride to and from a food bank. Unlike food stamps which he needs disability for he will only get $30 worth and so cant spend gas to get to and from. The book shows that since 1600 calories of rice is like 60 cents it is possible to get calories. One would still die on that. Exceedingly simple science shows- food costs money. But not particularly a talking point for anyone in politics today.

 

 

 

[jackson33]

How much in government subsidies were sent Apple's way? XOM made more than $30 Billion in profit last fiscal year. Apple made $14 B. What share of the $4 billion in annual oil subsidies did XOM get, and why is that necessary?

 

(BTW the market caps are about $360 B, but that's not important to the discussion) [/Quote]

 

swansont; Yes, the 4 should have been a 3 and an error, not caught in a reread...

 

Out of curiosity, do you feel a steady flow of fuel that drives industry, should even be in the private sector? If your answer is no, then advocate to nationalize the sector, as Maxine Waters has suggested and I'll have more to say...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

 

If your answer in yes, it should be in the private sector, then explain under what authority Government can dictate an operation (blending ethanol into gasoline), while not wanting to be blamed for the increased price, without a subsidy? Back when this nonsense first got started, I believe all produced ethanol had to be trucked (would corrode the then pipelines), which alone IMO, cost more than ever received.

 

Now lets play with the numbers some more; Apple paid -0- dividends, although has certainly grown their Company. Exxon has about 5B outstanding shares* and paid a little less than 2.00/S**, in the last 4 quarters or about 9B$ to millions of stock holders and I have no idea how many sub-contractors they employ, do much the same....

 

*

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Exxon_Mobil_(XOM)/Common_Shares_Outstanding

 

**

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=XOM

 

Corporations have too much political clout which allows them to circumvent smart regulations, they have more money than some small nations, and every president from Reagan to Bush to Clinton has worked to give them control of the media as well. You can control just about anything if you control both Congress and the media.[/Quote]

 

Phil; The Companies we're talking about are today and have been in part since before WWII, (FDR/Truman/Eisenhower/JFK forward) international concerns. I would think, in the best interest of a free Nation, the people (management/workers), investors, stock holders and consumers of these companies represent, should be listened to by every concerned politician. It's a National Interest to keep these companies, based in the US and there is no law or regulation that can enforce them staying. In fact you probably have no idea how much you buy, is owned or produced outside the US, already...for instance;

 

What's more all-American than a Bud with a shot of Wild Turkey? Something that's actually made and owned by U.S. companies. We take a look at some iconic American brands that aren't, well, American anymore.

 

American icon: Anheuser Busch

 

Owner: Belgian-based InBev.[/Quote]

 

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/business/non-american-american-companies-10352.gallery

 

Has any of this come to pass? There are better ways, than these resource intensive schemes, to beneficially utilize waste biomass and create biofuels.[/Quote]

 

Essay, nothing worth mentioning, to my knowledge. Every so often you'll hear or read about a small business producing biofuels, using themselves, think "Waste Management" as some active projects ongoing, but they all seem to lack cost efficiency. One possible reason might be wood pulp, which at one time did get some attention, is also used for paper products and most silage can be stored and used to feed animal stock or even if not green, used as a fertilizer...

[swansont]

swansont; Yes, the 4 should have been a 3 and an error, not caught in a reread...

 

Out of curiosity, do you feel a steady flow of fuel that drives industry, should even be in the private sector? If your answer is no, then advocate to nationalize the sector, as Maxine Waters has suggested and I'll have more to say...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

 

If your answer in yes, it should be in the private sector, then explain under what authority Government can dictate an operation (blending ethanol into gasoline), while not wanting to be blamed for the increased price, without a subsidy? Back when this nonsense first got started, I believe all produced ethanol had to be trucked (would corrode the then pipelines), which alone IMO, cost more than ever received.

 

Public/private is beside the point, but the government can probably claim commerce clause. You do have to transport ethanol by truck/train, etc. because it absorbs water easily.

 

My argument is this: A corn+ethanol subsidy might have made sense when gasoline was $2 a gallon and the industry was young. But of ethanol were energy-positive, you wouldn't need the subsidy when gas got more expensive — you could sell ethanol at a higher price and make a profit. I don't have a problem with a subsidy to help get a necessary industry started and give it time to mature. Ethanol has had that. The mandate is bad policy. Subsidies for ethanol and oil should not be needed and are also bad policy.

 

It's not like we aren't paying for it anyway, since it's tax money instead of at the pump. The real question is if it's lowering prices and/or

 

Now lets play with the numbers some more; Apple paid -0- dividends, although has certainly grown their Company. Exxon has about 5B outstanding shares* and paid a little less than 2.00/S**, in the last 4 quarters or about 9B$ to millions of stock holders and I have no idea how many sub-contractors they employ, do much the same....

 

I don't see the connection to corporate welfare.

[Phi for All]

Phil; The Companies we're talking about are today and have been in part since before WWII, (FDR/Truman/Eisenhower/JFK forward) international concerns. I would think, in the best interest of a free Nation, the people (management/workers), investors, stock holders and consumers of these companies represent, should be listened to by every concerned politician. It's a National Interest to keep these companies, based in the US and there is no law or regulation that can enforce them staying. In fact you probably have no idea how much you buy, is owned or produced outside the US, already...for instance;

 

 

 

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/business/non-american-american-companies-10352.gallery

My point was that media consolidation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows these behemoth corporations to own media outlets. Before that, to own television, radio and newspapers, that had to be your only business. Now, Disney can own ABC. This assures that Disney's brand image can be manipulated at will. Bain Capital owns Clear Channel Radio. The fact that Bain also owns Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, ToysRUs and many other consumer companies seems, to me, to be in conflict with consumer interests. Will you ever hear anything negative about those companies on a Clear Channel news broadcast? Not if they're like Fox News, who kept their US listeners in the dark about their European scandal for months. Add to the fact that Bain was founded by none other than presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and I'd say you have some really dreadful manipulations going on, none of which reflect the American spirit most of these politicians and corporations like to drape themselves with (and yes, while using overseas positioning to raise profits and avoid taxes, cutting US jobs in private and gov't sectors).

[jackson33]

swansont; If a subsidy makes sense with gasoline at 2.00/G and if the subsidy help control cost, thereby the market price, while increasing usage, to my aging mind, it would be more important to subsidize at the higher price.

 

Transportation is costly, if Government requires a Company to increase cost IMO, they should pay the cost, period. I do agree the consumer, in the end pays for everything, but Governments (State/Federal) might take regulation into consideration, BEFORE being imposed. As for water being easily absorbed, whatever the reason they don't build pipelines, for pure ethanol, would seem to be the cost or some unsure factor.

 

 

ScienceDaily (Aug. 3, 2011) — U.S. production of ethanol for fuel has been rising quickly, topping 13 billion gallons in 2010. With the usual rail, truck and barge transport methods under potential strain, existing gas pipelines might be an efficient alternative for moving this renewable fuel around the country. But researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) caution that ethanol, and especially the bacteria sometimes found in it, can dramatically degrade pipelines.[/Quote]

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102856.htm

 

Public/private is beside the point, but the government can probably claim commerce clause.[/Quote]

 

I'll assume you would favor Government take over the Energy Sector in the US or at least not oppose and you could write the post, you know I would, if was worth my time. Unfortunately, if SOMEHOW, Obamacare is found Constitutional and/or not repealed BY January 2013, that will certainly be tried. That's unadulterated Socialism and not what I think you want, for your descendents, I hope.

 

I don't see the connection to corporate welfare.[/Quote]

 

It's an either/or scenario; Exxon and all the major private Oil Companies, have long paid out dividends that influence an economy, while Apple has 72B$ invested or placed in liquid assets (called, Cash on hand). I happen to think the Oil Companies and their said 8M generated jobs, are doing more good than harm.

 

My point was that media consolidation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows these behemoth corporations to own media outlets. Before that, to own television, radio and newspapers, that had to be your only business.[/Quote]

 

Phil; That's another can of worms, but you would have to explain why you feel it's OK for Government to subsidize Public Radio/Television or regulate some "over the public airways" content and not OK, for business to form conglomerates? I'm not particularly a fan of vertical monopolies, but I see no reason why GE, Warren Buffett (Bershire Hathaway Inc.) or any of today's International Giants, should not be allowed to diversify. I also would agree with a recent court ruling, in that they can have and voice political opinions....

[Phi for All]

Phil; That's another can of worms, but you would have to explain why you feel it's OK for Government to subsidize Public Radio/Television or regulate some "over the public airways" content and not OK, for business to form conglomerates? I'm not particularly a fan of vertical monopolies, but I see no reason why GE, Warren Buffett (Bershire Hathaway Inc.) or any of today's International Giants, should not be allowed to diversify. I also would agree with a recent court ruling, in that they can have and voice political opinions....

Same can, really, since the methods by which we receive information about government and food supplying corporations seems tainted by the difference between journalism and marketing. Subsidized public media at least has the profit angle removed. I trust the journalistic integrity of NPR more than I do Fox News.

 

I think there are some things that are in conflict with motives involving profit. News should be as presented with as few special interests as possible. I don't see how that can happen when your boss also happens to own the company you want to do the investigative report on.

 

I believe in a fair market and its ability to weather most economies, but I feel that corporations have too much influence on political and economic processes. It tips the scales too much in their favor and when it comes to food, water and air regulations, I don't trust a pure profit angle to keep the market fair.