|
Post by wheels on Aug 15, 2012 12:48:01 GMT -5
"To recap, government is driving up the cost of food, animal feed and gasoline, and Obama's solution is to drive up meat prices as well. Obama could eliminate the entire problem overnight and reduce carbon emissions were he to waive the ethanol mandate in a time of drought. Instead, he is creating a new spending program to mollify livestock producers, who, were it not for the ethanol mandate, would be able to make an honest living without his help." washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-to-protect-ethanol-obama-seeks-to-inflate-meat-prices/article/2504906#.UCvISqDNntfthis is something that will affect every family in america. we will all pay higher gas prices b/c of this decision. we will all pay higher meat prices b/ of this decision. i just don't understand it. this is probably the easiest decision this president could make and he gets it wrong. this proves that he just doesn't have the right stuff.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Aug 15, 2012 13:47:23 GMT -5
Government buying to support prices to farmers is certainly not new. The biggest problem is that too many corporate farms get the lion's share of such support. Processors, being larger and better financed hold prices down when farmers are forced to sell due to weather conditions beyond anyone's control. Often bankrupting the smaller farmers and seriously damaging even the larger farmers. Once the infrastructure of the small farms are wiped out, it never fully recovers. If indeed the government buys from the farmer as indicated rather than processors, the government will prop up the price for those that need it while still buying at a lower price than by going through the processors. Not that bad a deal for all concerned. The processors would likely buy at fire sale prices but not pass the savings on to the consumer either.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 15, 2012 14:03:06 GMT -5
Government buying to support prices to farmers is certainly not new. The biggest problem is that too many corporate farms get the lion's share of such support. Processors, being larger and better financed hold prices down when farmers are forced to sell due to weather conditions beyond anyone's control. Often bankrupting the smaller farmers and seriously damaging even the larger farmers. Once the infrastructure of the small farms are wiped out, it never fully recovers. If indeed the government buys from the farmer as indicated rather than processors, the government will prop up the price for those that need it while still buying at a lower price than by going through the processors. Not that bad a deal for all concerned. The processors would likely buy at fire sale prices but not pass the savings on to the consumer either. did you even read the article? you've completely missed the point. it's the ethanol mandate that's the issue. 40% of the nation's corn production goes to ethanol. if the ethanol mandate was lifted during times of drought, the farmers could use that corn to feed their livestock. we're not talking about the meat producers not being able to sell their product. we're talking about them having to pay high prices for feed b/c they can't get corn. we're talking about them having to sell their livestock early while taking a financial hit b/c they don't have corn to feed them. that means those cows won't be on the market in the future. the government buying the meat won't help them at all. it will only serve to raise prices in the long-term for you and me. this program is as stupid as "cash for clunkers." propping up the ethanol mandate is the problem. it will cause your grocery bill and your fuel bill to increase. this directly affects your wallet. how can you not be concerned?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Aug 15, 2012 15:03:49 GMT -5
Typical for the bomma. More government intervention is always the answer with that one.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 15, 2012 15:54:31 GMT -5
it is typical, but this is a no-brainer. you just suspend the ethanol mandate. it's so simple. how can he (or at least one of his advisers) not see this?
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 15, 2012 16:52:09 GMT -5
it is typical, but this is a no-brainer. you just suspend the ethanol mandate. it's so simple. how can he (or at least one of his advisers) not see this? You are 100% correct. The amount of ethanol injected into gas at the terminals could even be dialed back to 5% instead of the industry standard 10%. I think some kind of intervention as such will occur but it will take a loud cry that spurs a political football over it, it won't happen because it's smart to do. The gubbermint doing it per the smart angle would be admitting that the whole ethanol idea was as dumb as we all know it is.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 16, 2012 10:50:53 GMT -5
Ethanol is up 18% and the amount that CAN be produced is down. As soon as all these dynamics intersect the corn state politicians will be dragged in kicking and screaming. 'In just the past few months, six ethanol plants have closed because of the drought, reducing output by almost 400 million gallons. Most of the firms idling output have been smaller producers, with the exception of industry giant Valero Energy. Central Minnesota Ethanol Co-op in Little Falls, Minn., and East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC in Garnett, Kan., have announced in August that they are shutting down.' www.argusleader.com/article/20120816/NEWS/308160023/Ethanol-plants-closing-corn-yields-drop-prices-rise?odyssey=nav|head
|
|