E15 starting to appear.....

[TiredTrucker]

But beef prices are at record highs right now. So it becomes a wash even if corn were high now, which it is not. Corn was higher in 1996. Over $5 a bushel. Keep in mind that the U.S. dollar has lost 28% of its value in the last decade. You cannot just point to something and say it was a direct result of this other thing.

Friday's market price, beef on hoof... $144 average trade. Corn avg.. $4.52

Market price, Dec 2000, beef on hoof... $77.50 average trade. Corn avg 12/2000... $2.80

Again, please don't try this at home. Vilsack, is in fact the Sectretary of the DOA, but he is a lawyer by trade from Burlington, Iowa and has not worked on a farm or been in farming in his life. He was a lousy governor. He was appointed by Obama as a political favor. If beef producers are losing money, it is more a reflection on their operation than feed prices. Beef prices have doubled in 14 years, while corn has done less than that. When you factor out the loss in the value of the dollar, things are not nearly as bad as the chicken little society would have folks believe when it comes to food and prices. It is an amateurish attempt to demonize something they don't like.

It is one thing to not like something, and then refuse to buy it. It is quite another to not like something and then demonize it and the people who do like it. My primary emphasis in college was hard science and mathematics, so I am unqualified to provide sound psychiatric advice to folks who exhibit such paranoia.

 

[chuck1955]

It's hard to throw corn at livestock that don't exist or take time to reach maturity. I like your description of Vislack, but isn't this typical of most of Obama's appointed staff. Their more or less "yes" men to his political agenda. When the head of EPA was replaced recently the corn lobby felt pretty confident that he fit into their type of person. I was surprised when EPA recommended a cut in the mandate. I wonder if it's a concession to congress possibly wanting to throw out the mandate altogether. The mandate increases every year to where in 2022 it requires 36 billion gallons. We all might have to go on a diet, but the price of food will take care of that. Farmers are vital to our nation. The consumer and farmer would be better off if we subsided our food needs to make sure shortages don't exist and remove the mandates. As I think you would admit this program does very little to wean us of oil consumption. It should be made available at a true market cost to those who chose to use it.

 

[TiredTrucker]

I have no problem if mandates, of any kind, are eliminated. they should not have been put in place to begin with. I also take issue with subsidizing food or anything else for that matter. The market will take care of that. What is truly wanted, will be grown because people will vote with their wallet what they want.

We can have some mutual agreements. Mandates are wrong. Subsidies are wrong. There is no allowance for such stuff in the U.S. Constitution. Some presidents and congresses understood that, others have ignored it. The further government stays out of things, the better off we all are. What works in the marketplace and people are willing to buy, someone will find a way to provide it, and competition will make sure that the price will be what the market will bear.

I am not interested, in the least, in weaning us off of any consumption. Oil or whatever. I want us using any and all energy solutions that offer what we need at the fairest price we can get it for. Pump more oil, frack more NG, set up more nuclear plants, dig more coal, make ethanol, butanol, or whatever as well. What works great in one area of the country, let it work, what works in another area of the country, let it work. No one size fits all solutions. Saturate this country with so much cheap energy, and get government out of the way, and this will be the boom country of the millennia.

 

[chuck1955]

TiredTrucker your dead on about government intervention. Look at the mess Obamacare has turned into. Last year Europe ibnstalled a 10% tariff on U.S. ethanol for what they called us on dumping ethanol in their countries. That means selling below actual cost. Is it possible we were giving Europe the same subsidies that had been imposed here? If so how would that be fair to the taxpayer when this administration is running up a pretty large debt as it is?

 

[SHOZ]

The US subsidy does not apply to ethanol producers. So anything being dumped in Europe is not subsidized.

 

[chuck1955]

SHOZ in the Startribune article this tariff pretty much killed that market for U.S. ethanol producers. On other forum sites posters had questioned the government but could never get a straight answer. I assumed if they were that would explain the dumping charge.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Saturate this country with so much cheap energy, and get government out of the way, and this will be the boom country of the millennia.


I liked the whole thing, but this really sums it up.

It could actually put folks back to WORK!

 

[Mach1Owner]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Saturate this country with so much cheap energy, and get government out of the way, and this will be the boom country of the millennia.


I liked the whole thing, but this really sums it up.

It could actually put folks back to WORK!


Cities are doing something similar. They want to get Google Fiber as it's cheap, and companies are moving into those cities and they are having a job/technology boom.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

I am not interested, in the least, in weaning us off of any consumption. Oil or whatever. I want us using any and all energy solutions that offer what we need at the fairest price we can get it for. Pump more oil, frack more NG, set up more nuclear plants, dig more coal, make ethanol, butanol, or whatever as well. What works great in one area of the country, let it work, what works in another area of the country, let it work. No one size fits all solutions. Saturate this country with so much cheap energy, and get government out of the way, and this will be the boom country of the millennia.

Sounds a little short sighted? Even ignoring the potential green house gas diasaster, what's the country going to do when all your cheap energy is gone, and the rest of the world's isn't?
Your big business biased trade polcies will allow export of all your resources anyways if you allow full-bore development. In 20 or 30 years you will back to importing oil and gas at double or triple you sold all yours for... Its already starting with your natural gas. 4 liquifying plants have been approved already.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Please calm the "talking points" based rhetoric for a moment and note that fuel consumption is DOWN, and has been trending down for some time. As vehicles become ever more efficient it is unlikely that your scenario is real for any reality based projection.

As a matter of fact, at our current lackadaisical growth we may continue trending downward a lot!

Big Biz is a real problem, and any savvy voter already knows that either side is indistinguishable in this regard. But I think the folks are getting fed up with the choices offered...

 

[chuck1955]

SteveSRT8 if you think people are fed up with the choices, what about when they have no choice such as a mandate? Ethanol does very little to solve our problems and creates a whole set of it's own. It's time for the government to get out of the way and allow ethanol to establish itself on it's own merits. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: chuck1955
It's time for the government to get out of the way and allow ethanol to establish itself on it's own merits. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.


It's our long term energy and environmental strategy. Some people don't want the government involved in anything. Some strange birds want to have multiple wives, hundreds of kids and live in remote areas making all their own rules.

 

[chuck1955]

Turtlevette this whole program was thought out about as well as Obamacare and it needs fixing. How much oil does it save us? How environmental clean is it? No one seems to have an answer to why California gets theirs from Brazil and the answer is simple its not environmentally clean as the corn lobby would have you believe. Cellulosic Ethanol hardly exist and yet it was supposed to be a large part of this program. It's time to clean house on this program.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: chuck1955
SteveSRT8 if you think people are fed up with the choices, what about when they have no choice such as a mandate? Ethanol does very little to solve our problems and creates a whole set of it's own. It's time for the government to get out of the way and allow ethanol to establish itself on it's own merits. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.


Times a dozen, Chuck!

I am all about letting the reins go and drill, pump, frack, whatever works to make energy sources including ethanol available. The economic boom would be tremendous and the market then picks winners and losers the right way, instead of some idiotic politician choosing whoever can pay the most moolah. Big biz is ruining our govt and it's common to both sides of the aisle, as no one looks out for US!

 

[turtlevette]

So the major source of you guy's heartburn is the corn lobby? Not the ethanol. You're OK with swithgrass or cane produced ethanol?

I don't think anyone should be able to lobby. Let's clean the whole mess up and throw the crooks out.

 

[Cubey]

Out of curiosity, which states?

 

[chuck1955]

Tutlvette our lobbyist throwing money and campaign dollars at these politicians is disgusting and I totally agree with you. How is the typical consumer to get fair representation when this going on, then throw in media bias. If the mandate doesn't get trimmed back their only move will be to mandate E15. Back when subsidies for ethanol was stopped I told people I felt it would have little or no effect because it's use is mandated. If ethanol was as positive as the corn lobby would have you believe, what's the need for a mandate? I believe corn ethanol is laced with all kinds of issues and will not survive without the mandate. Look at how many contracts this administration has handed out to people tied to campaign contributions. Now throw in the head of the corn lobby recently, when asked about the proposed cut in the mandate answer was to this administration to keep their promise. It's time to do what's best for the consumer.

 

[SHOZ]

The subsidy did not stop.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
So the major source of you guy's heartburn is the corn lobby? Not the ethanol. You're OK with swithgrass or cane produced ethanol?

I don't think anyone should be able to lobby. Let's clean the whole mess up and throw the crooks out.


Absolutely.

Our Govt works for us. Big biz is distorting the political process with moolah! This generates corruption galore.

Ethanol should be but one small piece of this pie. We should look at ALL alternatives, and then sort them out in the free market the way we always did.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
So the major source of you guy's heartburn is the corn lobby? Not the ethanol. You're OK with swithgrass or cane produced ethanol?

I don't think anyone should be able to lobby. Let's clean the whole mess up and throw the crooks out.

Why would anyone be mad that ethanol exists? People are mad about the gun to their head. This was also covered in other threads you were a part of. You were too busy shilling for the mega corps to notice if I remember right.