Great. Another quote from another individual who thinks that the rise in oil prices has had NOTHING to do with the doubling of the cost of corn.
So, oil prices could double, or even triple, and there'd be no economic effect, right? But if one ear of corn is turned into one drop of ethanol, that's the smoking gun for the rise in corn prices.
There you go making stuff up again. Noone said that there was no effect from rising oil prices. They left it to you, which you have deftly acheived, to discern that for yourself.
The fact remains that it is the rising cost of feed stock for cattle and poultry that is driving the current cost increases; or do you think that Livestock owners, food manufacturers, international charitable groups, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, National Chicken Council, Tyson's, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, and Ducks Unlimited are simply another individual's opinion also?
How is it that the WSJ, Boston Globe, NYT, LAT, CS Monitor, Denver Post, my local paper, the Nightly News, among others agree with me and not with you?
How is it that international aid groups agree with me and not with you?
How is it that the very manufacturers you accuse me of hating agree with me and not with you?
That has to be one of the most convoluted justifications/rationalizations I have EVER read.
It's ALL the politician's faults, but NONE of the fault lies with the American corporations.
You know, those corporations? The ones who are turning all the corn into ethanol and, by direct action, starving all the poor?
No blame? None at all for them?
In other words, capitalism as a business enterprise is fine, but capitalism as a political bastion of our government is evil.
Unfriggingbelievable.
How was that statement "the most convoluted justifications/rationalizations" you have EVER read. Do you simply not read much?
I am a capitalist in a capitalist nation. The current rush to ethanol is being driven by the pooliticians and the agribusinesses are reaping the profits of that political agenda. Did you miss these tidbits in the article zI posted just for you?
Georgia's farmers loved corn-based ethanol; Georgia's agri-businesses loved corn-based ethanol; and all that meant that then-Agriculture Committee Chairman Chambliss loved corn-based ethanol, too.
...
Call it a case study in how a powerful lobby can overplay its hand.
...
Turns out there are huge economic consequences to Congress micromanaging energy policy, and all to aid its campaign donors in agribusiness.
The only BS here is being peddled by you, Sir.
Me, livestock owners, food manufacturers, international charitable groups, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, National Chicken Council, Tyson's, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, Ducks Unlimited, the WSJ, Boston Globe, NYT, LAT, CS Monitor, Denver Post, my local paper, and the Nightly News are ALLLLLLLL peddling a bunch of BS but Mike Irwin is telling us all the true facts so we should all listen to him.
We're all going to starve to death because of the evil politicians who promote ethanol, but the companies that actually produce the ethanol? Hey, they're hunky dory.
The market drives the prices and the politicians are, at this time, driving the market. They have dictated,
through legislation, that there MUST be a minimum amount of ethanol produced and they have dictated
through legislation that the car manufacturers MUST produce E-85 cars and trucks. The companies which produce the ethanol did not write this legislation but they are reaping the reward; at least until the politicians start talking about those "windfall profits".
On "nowbeit" and "wherewithall", touche! The first was tongue-in-cheek and the other was a double-tap. Such is life.