www.ditl.org

sunnyside wrote:Am I sure we'd do it again if the situation warranted it?

Not 100%.

Of course there are a wide array of moves to be made. And I'm not saying everyone has to be an economist. What I was saying is that you should at least consider how someone will react to whatever policy is implemented. For some reason when it comes to peoples political or economic beliefs they assume the equivalent of someone continuing to bend at the hip when they drop their soap in prison.

Is it a possibility? Yes, it is. Do I think in the middle of a recession that congress will enact protections for farmers that make food more expensive for everyone? No I don't.

Regardless of the economics involved I think its ridiculous to be turning food into gas when there are starving people in the world.

Tyyr wrote: Is it a possibility? Yes, it is. Do I think in the middle of a recession that congress will enact protections for farmers that make food more expensive for everyone? No I don't.

Have you been paying attention to the things congress is doing during this recession? And that would be the sort of thing where the government can profit (Because they tax the farmer on a percentage of his profits that rises with income, than tax people a sales tax also based on the price of the item, and a hundred additional taxes in between). It's especially relevant to cash flow because grains are one of the few things we export instead of inport.

It is a little tricky politically to phrase things that way. My guess is that in the current political climate if the change is something someone in the Department of Agriculture can do quitely it'd be done, if they actually had to pass new legislation it'd be dicey. Of course in the current political climate they'll pay almost anything to be "green" so the no ethanol angle is also a moot point. I suspect the sort of congress that would whack ethanol would also likely be willing to control the grain market in their favor.

Regardless of the economics involved I think its ridiculous to be turning food into gas when there are starving people in the world.

I'm telling you it doesn't really matter. We are more than capable of producing enough food for everyone. Even without government controlls farmers are simply not going to produce grain at current levels if the price drops significantly, their profit margins are not that high, and they cannot operate at a loss. Ideally they'd do something like increase meat production (which is where most grain goes anyway I do believe). So Wendies might offer a four patty sandwich for the price of their three patty sandwich, but nobody in Kenya is significantly any better off. But it's also possible a number of farms would simply close up. Again nobody in Kenya is better off, just now we have a weaker economy.

sunnyside wrote:Have you been paying attention to the things congress is doing during this recession?

As a matter of fact I have. You're not the lone informed person on the board.

if they actually had to pass new legislation it'd be dicey. Of course in the current political climate they'll pay almost anything to be "green" so the no ethanol angle is also a moot point. I suspect the sort of congress that would whack ethanol would also likely be willing to control the grain market in their favor.

And there's the key, if you have to legislate it then you're in trouble. Why? Because people say they want to be green, but they aren't willing to pay. Tell them we can keep making ethanol but it's going to cost them at the supermarket and they'll turn on it like a pack of rabid dogs. Besides, ethanol has been steadily loosing its green image anyways. At best its a draw with regular gasoline and it might even be worse.

I'm telling you it doesn't really matter. We are more than capable of producing enough food for everyone. Even without government controlls farmers are simply not going to produce grain at current levels if the price drops significantly, their profit margins are not that high, and they cannot operate at a loss. Ideally they'd do something like increase meat production (which is where most grain goes anyway I do believe). So Wendies might offer a four patty sandwich for the price of their three patty sandwich, but nobody in Kenya is significantly any better off. But it's also possible a number of farms would simply close up. Again nobody in Kenya is better off, just now we have a weaker economy.

Here's a thought. Instead of doing one of the two fucking stupid things you propose. Either keep producing ethanol (fucking stupid) or pay farmers to not farm (really fucking stupid) use the money that would have been spent on ethanol or farm subsidies to instead... buy the excess grain and give it to aid organizations?

Just a little side note...

sunnyside wrote:I don't know about sugarcane, I think it requires warmer weather than we have in the states growing the grains.

Ahem.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Just a little side note...

sunnyside wrote:I don't know about sugarcane, I think it requires warmer weather than we have in the states growing the grains.

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_belt You're off by a couple states with that one.



Anyway while I dubious of ethanol not being more green, one thing I do know is that subsidies there are again a spot where the government stands to make money back. Again they profit off the higher grain prices and have a higher priced export instead of having to import more gas which is all sorts of good for the economy. Also lately we probably match every dollar we spend on gas with a dollar we spend on blowing something up or killing people funded by that gas money.

While it would be nice, buying up all that grain straight up and giving it to another country would be massively pricey. Because not only do you get any of the money back, but you have to pay for the whole price of the grain not just the smaller subsidy amount.

Plus until they figure out birth control over there if they don't starvve now they'll just increase the population and there'll be more starving people during the next drought.

Now sending them food laced with birth control. That could be effective!

Ummm... you know fuel-grade ethanol can be made from recycled tires, right?

sunnyside wrote:Now sending them food laced with birth control. That could be effective!

OK, I'm just going to pretend that this was never said.

sunnyside wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_belt You're off by a couple states with that one.

What the...

You said:

sunnyside wrote:I don't know about sugarcane, I think it requires warmer weather than we have in the states

Then I pointed out that Sugar Land used to be a sugarcane plantation. I don't see how I'm off at all.

Unfortunately, American-produced sugar cane is generally far too expensive to be used much.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Then I pointed out that Sugar Land used to be a sugarcane plantation. I don't see how I'm off at all.

What a happy coincidence with the name of the town, too.

Mikey wrote:Unfortunately, American-produced sugar cane is generally far too expensive to be used much.

Yeah, I was just saying that it certainly can be grown in the States.

Mikey wrote:What a happy coincidence with the name of the town, too.

That is an odd coincidence. I'd never thought of that.

@tsu, whoops. I could have sworn I'd typed grain producing states. I'm sure we could grow sugarcane in all the places we grow citrus, but that's beside the point.

sunnyside wrote:@tsu, whoops. I could have sworn I'd typed grain producing states. I'm sure we could grow sugarcane in all the places we grow citrus, but that's beside the point.

Oh, sorry. Miscommunication then.

Well, that's probably part of the problem right there, "Africa has and always will be a shithole, so why bother". Interesting that we gave the Soviets basically free wheat starting in the 70's when their farms failed but no one will give any to the Africans (no nukes=no grain I suppose).

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn about the Russians either.

To me, like so many other things I think the USA needs to walk away for about a decade and let the rest of the world think about taking care of itself for a while. USA has stuck itself in the protective daddy role for so long that now its just expected. Its the job of the UN to gather nations together to work together on these types of problems. So, I say let them do it. USA step out and UN step in.

Dam right, we shall put the fear of the United Nations into the evil-doers of the world!

Rochey wrote:Dam right, we shall put the fear of the United Nations into the evil-doers of the world!

I was going for EVERYONE, not just he evil guys. "Hey, you don't like the USA, well now we're leaving your fate to the UN."