Posted on 11/14/2013 6:35:18 AM PST by Wuli
Un no, that’s not how it works. Ethanol didn’t even hit in quantity till about 2000. We glutted on corn long before that, because ethanol has zip to do with corn production. There are other factors that determine corn planting.
You need to understand how the corn market works before making the corn to ethanol connection. It isn’t how the lefties like to frame it.
as Bret said to scarlet
“I don’t give a damn”
I am for ZERO taxpayer subsidies to the agro-industrial complex, for any purpose whatsoever
“All you say is true. But, getting the corn growing states to give up their subsidies would be about as likely as getting the entitlement class to give up their EIC. Guess your best option is to move to Iowa.”
while I am a not a fan on subsidies just for growing corn, for any reason, and while I am not big on socialism in general or giant fan of the EIC, at least the EIC has a certain level of “means test” to it while the farm subsidies have none; does that make the EIC perferct - no, and is it not still a “income/wealth redistribution” scheme? yes; but again it is “income/wealth redistribution” with a certain amount of ecnomic “need” considered for it where the farm subsidies have none; its largely a lobby of “those that have” who want more
You better, because if the ag sector collapses the rest of the country will go down with it, hard. Then you will see the food supply getting crimped for real, not what people are imagining is happening with ethanol.
“You better, because if the ag sector collapses”
the agro-industrial empires are not going to “collapse” just ‘cause no more tax-payer subsidies; the profits for the giants will shrink, which is where most of the tax subsidies go, but that’s about it
I see you’ve bought into the propaganda. What subsidies? There are no ethanol subsidies anymore except I Think the small producer credit. The only subsidy on corn will exist whether ethanol is produced or not.
There are very few of the ‘giants’ you talk about. Even then those guys aren’t really giants - well under 10K acres. Yes the get alot of subsidies but they farm more acres too.
None of that has anything to do with the end use for corn. We need value added ag even if ethanol is not the right vehicle. Cheap meat and big exports aren’t going to cut it, as many dunderhead luddites here on FR would like to revisit.
I see you’ve bought into the propaganda. What subsidies?
There is an inherent subsidy effect in the federal mandate of ethanol content in gasoline. Without that mandate the corn ethanol market would have no market. With that mandate it matters less how much a refinery is being charged for the ethanol than the fact that they must buy ethanol regardless of the price. Mandates reduce price competition and in ethanol’s case they are necessary for its existence in the energy change. That is a giant defacto “subsidy”.
Right but that’s not going to help the farmer. Even if they get a high price for corn, and there’s no evidence at this point that the mandate is helping in that regard, they’ll be facing higher input costs due to higher fuel costs. The farmer is guaranteed no boon from the increased use of ethanol.
“Even if they get a high price for corn, and there’s no evidence at this point that the mandate is helping in that regard, they’ll be facing higher input costs due to higher fuel costs.”
So what. They’ll charge and get more for the corn they sell, if that - fuel/energy - is the only reason for higher corn prices.
Regardless, we will no longer be propping up the corn-ethanol industry on its false pretenses.
Obviously from the corn chart I posted, that’s not exactly happening. That’s the whole point. I don’t like the ethanol mandate any more than anyone else, but what the article and many others claim it’s doing to the farm belt is bogus.
“That’s the whole point. I don’t like the ethanol mandate any more than anyone else, but what the article and many others claim it’s doing to the farm belt is bogus.”
I don’t give a fig what the mandate is doing. It should not exist. If the science of energy says its economical and someone WANTS ethanol in their gasoline and some supplier WANTS to supply ETHANOL and with zero, zip, nada from the taxpayers, in any way shape or form, then ethanol could be sold, on its own and not because the governments says we must use it. But the ONLY reason ethanol is being sold IS because the government says we MUST use it.
There is no good scientific reason at all for the government to mandate the use of ethanol. Period. Stop.
We have no argument here, but the article still gets it all wrong. That’s because they downloaded their info from an enviro site instead of actually going out into farm country and getting the whole story. It’s far more complex than their simple little meme makes it.
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.