[theBuckwheat]

>>
It sounds like the President did a good job of speaking to what the American people are calling for.
<<

Yes, he did. However, the consequences of this collective decision has not yet been made manifest in all its costly implications. That was the heart of my previous post.

Who would have thought, for example, that the rush to ethanol, made possible by an almost 50 cent per gallon federal subsidy plus tax credits and other tax advantages that have yet to be costed-out on a per-gallon basis, would have caused riots in Mexico when price of corn used to make it doubled?

[P-40]

would have caused riots in Mexico when price of corn used to make it doubled?

When the two makers of tortillas in Mexico, that together make up over 70% of the market, were threatened with an investigation into pricing and speculation schemes prices came down. Ethanol wasn't much of a factor. Had it been, the problem would not have been confined to just southern Mexico.

Ethanol gets a tax break of 51 cents. Many call that a subsidy...but I like seeing corporate taxes reduced especially when a new market comes from it.