Will food prices be that proverbial straw?

So... why can't we do that? Isn't this: Americah! FUDGE YEH! You mean to tell me we are getting upstaged by the... Brazilians? I'd get it if it was Europeans or something, but man... That's kinda embarrassing ain't it?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The only BS here is being peddled by you, Sir.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tibu

Go to THIS SITE and you will find that the U.S. pretty much eats all of its sugar and then imports even more. The top three producers of sugar are Brazil, India, and the EU. The main sugar grown in the U.S. is beet sugar but the mainstay for sweetened products is corn syrup and corn fructose. That is why soft drink manufacturers and others dependent on high fructose corn syrup are ticked off at this ethanol gig.
 
Wow

Lots and lots of info in this one. Some great food for thought. Although I wonder if I'll live long enough to ponder it. I may starve to death because I can't afford food, but it looks like I'll die of thirst first because we will use all our water to grow the corn to make into ethanol instead of for eating. Wow.


As far as the part of the original post that asks about problems due to the high cost of food, well, yes. Duh!

Look at the history of just the last couple of centuries, and you will see every repressive/authoritarian regime (of what ever political stripe) throughout the world came into power because of the fact that the common people were hungry. And I don't mean hungry because it isn't dinner time yet, I mean hungry when you don't want to be. Hungry for days. Hungry watching your children sicken and die kind of hungry. People who are having trouble feeding their families (especially when they did ok before) are ripe for a change in the situation. They will follow anyone, Communist, Socialist, Nazi, anyone who promises and appears that they may be able to deliver, a better situation.

Remember the old pictures of Wiemar Republic Germans pushing a wheelbarrow load of paper money down the street to buy a loaf of bread? That situation eventually resulted in the Nazis in power in Germany.

Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, it has happened in all those places. Why would it be any different here, when things get bad enough?

I often wonder why we can't let things work themselves out, but upon reflection, I realise money has more than a little bit to do with it. That and the need for some people to be seen as "doing something".
 
Will ethanol cause more dentists to commit seppukku?

Hey lower the sugar content of soft drinks so you can make ehtanol and what we pay in increased fuel/food prices we will make up in lower dental bills :)

WilddownsidesandupsidestoeverythingAlaska
 
Look at the history of just the last couple of centuries, and you will see every repressive/authoritarian regime (of what ever political stripe) throughout the world came into power because of the fact that the common people were hungry.
Click to expand...

Not true in Russia or in China, or even in Germany for that matter :)

WildbutnicetryAlaska
 
Ethanol absorbs the water and impurities found in regular pipelines. A dedicated pipeline would have to be made for ethanol.

25% of Americas corn goes to ethanol production now. Mexico gets most of its corn from the United States. Tortillas made with corn are a staple food for the poorer folks. A great deal of their daily budget goes towards food. Corn Tortillas are a basic food for millions of Mexicans.

Animal feeds are made using corn. the majority of poultry feed is made from corn. Which means poultry and egg prices have already increased. WE might literally have the chickens that lay the golden eggs if corn prices keep going up. Pork and beef prices will also being going up from costs in fuel and feed a double whammy.

We also have more ethanol plants scheduled to be built in the future. The goal is to produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol in the US. That means more corn will be diverted to ethanol production.

What does that mean for third world nations that depend on corn exports?

To parphrase a famous quote.

Let them eat ethanol.......

Food did play a part in that revolution.

p.s. pull down some food from the cabinet and check the labels for corn products. Enjoying that soft drink? It probably has corn syrup in it. Corn is also used in cosmetics and drugs.
 
All of this hoopla will become a non-issue once the tycoons and barons start mining the Green River Formation.

Then I can buy myself that 1973 Pontiac Trans Am with the 455cc engine that I've always wanted, and drive it around with total impunity.

Global warming say what?
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070524-083912-6259r.htm

The U.S. Senate is debating new legislation that would further expand ethanol production from corn. A 2005 law already mandates production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, about 5 percent of the projected gasoline use at that time. These biofuel goals are propped up by a generous federal subsidy of 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline, and a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on most imported ethanol, to keep out cheap imports from Brazil. This latest legislation is a prime example of the government's throwing good money after a bad idea, of ignoring science and economics in favor of politics, and of disdain for free markets.

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no other feasible, proven alternative. However, it is unlikely that American farmers will be able to meet such demands: Achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply. The irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60 percent of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens, or used in food or beverages. Thus, it is no surprise that competition for corn has doubled its price during the past year -- from $2 to $4 per bushel. Because thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts, we see upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn: Nationally, food prices were up 3.9 percent in April, compared to the same month a year earlier.

These early effects may be only a hint of things to come. Any sort of shock to corn yields, such as drought, unseasonably hot weather, pests or disease in the next few years could send food prices into the stratosphere. Even Gregory Page, the chief executive officer of agribusiness giant Cargill, a major beneficiary of the ethanol boom, shares these fears, "We just have to be sure that the more-is-better mindset [regarding ethanol] doesn't get way out ahead of the capacity of the land to provide the fuel. ... What we would like to see is some thoughtfulness about what we will do if we have a weather calamity."

Such concerns are more than theoretical: In 1970, a widespread outbreak of a fungus called Southern corn leaf blight destroyed 15 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and in 1988, drought reduced U.S. corn yields almost 30 percent.

...

American legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic realities of ethanol production. Brazil and other major sugarcane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast sugarcane plantations, and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest. At current world prices for sugar and corn, Brazilian ethanol production would remain competitive even if oil prices dropped to around $30 per barrel, but U.S. corn-based ethanol plants would lose money at $40 oil, even with the subsidy.

Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently -- and also to remove the 54 cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.

Our politicians may be drunk with the prospect of corn-derived ethanol, but if we don't adopt policies based on science and sound economics, it is consumers around the world who will suffer from the hangover.

Colin A. Carter is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Davis. Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was a Food and Drug Administration official from 1979 to 1994. His most recent book is "The Frankenfood Myth."
Click to expand...
 
rather than using corn it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently
Click to expand...

And here, IMHO, is the crux of the problem. This "solution" still leaves us dependent and under the thumb of a foreign country. I would much rather develop the technology here at home, keep the profits here and be self sufficient, even if it costs more.
In the long run, OPEC, Venezuela, etc. (And I’m sure, Brazil, if we become dependent on them) will extract every penny from us that they can. I think that being able to tell them to go pound sand would be worth quite a bit to me.
 
Making alcohol from corn is a very, very fine idea. Putting it in your gas tank is a crime against humanity!
 
The question is what happens if there is some kind of blight or weather that effects corn production in a major way? fuel or food?
 
water?

I've read that making ethanol uses large amounts of water, and as fresh water is in increasingly short supply in many areas, shouldn't this a concern?
 
The government exhibits a desire to transfer money from most people to farmers. So, buy land and grow corn. If you can't fix the system, at least arrange to benefit from it.
 
unlikely

unlikely for the simple reason that in many parts of emerging market where living standard is ultra low (per capita GDP < $1000), they can produce food extremely cheaply.

If U.S. subsidy on domestic farming is taken out completely, these poverty stricken farmers will be able to compete more, and we'll see more agricultural import.

This topic of farm subsidy/farmers in emerging market has being covered by Cato Institute several times.

--John
 
these poverty stricken farmers will be able to compete more, and we'll see more agricultural import.
Click to expand...

so what are these poverty stricken farmers going to use to buy agricultaral equipment and the other stuff that farmers need like fuel and seed.? Or will they feed the country using horse plows?
 
Why sweat it. Civilization as we know it is doomed, in 300 years we will all be racially Asian, Chinese culturally and speaking english that will make our present vernacular as understandable as Chaucer is to us today.

My advice is to marry a Chinese girl and get a head start.

Life goes on. You cant stop it. We have been changing and experimenting ever since we ALL left AFRICA 500,000 years ago.

WildipersonallyhavepygmyancestryAlaska

PS I wish I could remember the title of the sci fi book where Chinese rule the world and the rest of us live in like these giant cities? Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top