Replies

I never said that the diversion of corn to ethanol is solely responsible for the increase in food prices, and you're right that the diversion should have been more than offset by the increase in production.

But for the author to claim that the diversion of corn to fuel rather than food does not affect the price of rice is bullshit.

There are many and more important factors in the current price spike of food, but the diversion of food to fuel is certainly and unequivocally an upward pressure on all food prices. It is impossible for it not to be.

"But for the author to claim that the diversion of corn to fuel rather than food does not affect the price of rice is bullshit. There are many and more important factors in the current price spike of food, but the diversion of food to fuel is certainly and unequivocally an upward pressure on all food prices. It is impossible for it not to be."

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.