Author Topic: Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?  (Read 2712 times)

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,257
  • I'm an Extremist!
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« on: August 06, 2006, 09:25:00 AM »
I'd like to get the perspective on this story from one of this region's local papers rather than a San Francisco paper before I pass judgement. I'd be disappointed if someone with Pelosi's reputation could so easily hornswaggle these farmers into being her buddy. But it wouldn't be the first time profit made strange bedfellows...

On a tangent, nice attack on gun owners with the "like guns, don't like gays" line.

--------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/06/MNGQJKC8081.DTL

(08-06) 04:00 PDT Redwood Falls, Minn. -- Few folks in rural Minnesota have heard of Nancy Pelosi, and even fewer like her politics.

Guns are popular in this farming community. Gays are not. And many regard legal abortions as genocide. The House Democratic leader's position on each of these issues is well outside the mainstream here, where attitudes toward San Francisco often rely on unflattering stereotypes.

"If you want a little push into the Pacific -- we'll help you,'' offered David Johnson, who grows corn and soybeans near the Iowa border, speaking in a tone that suggested he was only half kidding.

But Pelosi has found an issue that brings smiles to the farmers' faces.

The issue is corn, or more specifically ethanol, a byproduct of smashing and fermenting the grain that grows as far as the eye can see, and is increasingly used to power automobiles as an alternative to $3-a-gallon gasoline.

During a visit to an agricultural festival last week that took three plane rides and a muddy drive to reach, Pelosi preached the gospel of corn fuel that some believe will boost the nation's economy, the fortunes of farmers, and perhaps the Democratic Party's image in the conservative farm belt.

"When I return to Washington, I will tell them I have been to Minnesota and I have seen the future," Pelosi told about 500 farmers, who responded with enthusiastic applause.

For Pelosi to become speaker of the House and overcome the caricature of her as a "latte liberal,'' she must appear at ease in places like Redwood Falls (pop. 5,435), where the nearest Starbucks is more than an hour away and where locals looked at the pouring rain that turned their dry fields and the outdoor festival into muddy slop, and said: "Thank God.''

Her visit to Redwood County's 25th annual FarmFest provided a glimpse at how Democrats hope to chip away at the Republican advantage in rural America, which has long balanced the Democrats' domination of big cities.

Decked out in boots and blue jeans, Pelosi refrained from attacks on President Bush and the GOP Congress, which are a mainstay of her San Francisco and Washington appearances. Instead, she focused on an energy plan she insisted will send dollars "to the Middle West, not the Middle East.''

The presence of a Capitol Hill security detail, her camel blazer and pearly white earrings, and the film crew from "60 Minutes'' -- which emerged from a cornfield like Shoeless Joe Jackson in "Field of Dreams'' -- made it clear she was not local.

But the San Francisco Democrat had no trouble eating pork chops on a stick, talking soybeans and turkey manure with farmers, and promoting the Democrats' commitment to corn-based ethanol and other biofuels.

As unlikely as Pelosi's presence in Minnesota's Seventh Congressional District, the party's interest in rural voters is not. Of the 40 most competitive House seats at stake in the November midterm elections, at least half have a significant rural constituency, and an improved Democratic showing would considerably help their quest to win the 15 seats they need to take back a majority from the Republicans.

Minnesota's seventh, stretching along the South Dakota border in southwestern Minnesota clear up to Canada, is perhaps the nation's largest agricultural district. It is one of dozens of stops Pelosi is expected to make this month, a campaign schedule that will take her to at least 12 states.

Few places are farther from Pelosi's home -- physically and culturally. Roughly 1,900 miles east of San Francisco and 1,200 miles west of Washington, the district is nearly 300 times larger than Pelosi's, consisting of thousands of farms that were the backdrop for Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House on the Prairie.''

District voters gave Bush comfortable victories in 2000 and 2004. And it is an easy place to draw laughs mocking a San Francisco Democrat.

Ron Carey, the Minnesota GOP state chairman, has said "about the only farm products Nancy Pelosi is familiar with are the wine and brie served at her lavish San Francisco fundraisers.''

Michael Barrett, the Republican candidate for Congress in the district, said most people think of her "more as an expert on alternative lifestyles than alternative energy.''

When Pelosi took over as the Democratic leader, many Republicans -- and a good many in her own party -- warned that a San Francisco liberal would be toxic to Democrats such as Rep. Collin Peterson, the conservative Democrat who has represented Redwood Falls and the surrounding district for the past 16 years.

But the efforts to demonize Pelosi have been ineffective.

Republican radio ads in 2004 attacked Peterson for being too cozy with the "ultraliberal Pelosi.'' Peterson won with 66 percent of the vote.

And the political climate is such in the summer of 2006 that Peterson accompanied Pelosi through his district for nearly 10 hours last week, praising her for being focused on the ethanol issue "like a laser beam'' and boasting that "I'm turning her into an aggie.''

Peterson, who could become chairman of the House Agriculture Committee if Democrats win a majority, is up-front about his differences with Pelosi, which he said are about as wide as his differences with House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Peterson is the sort of Democrat who would be virtually unrecognizable in the Bay Area, voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska, for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, to limit legal abortions, against expanding stem cell research and in favor of Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug bill.

"I probably couldn't get 10 percent of the vote in her district, and she couldn't get elected in my district,'' Peterson said.

Yet he was pleased to show off Pelosi to his constituents, saying they agree on "the core issues,'' and if he can get a congresswoman from San Francisco to sign on to his agriculture policies, "that's a pretty good thing.''

Even Peterson's opponent, Barrett, who called it a mistake for Peterson to stand beside Pelosi, said he won't repeat the radio ads trying to link the pair.

"I'm not going to waste my money,'' he said in an interview. "Nancy's not the issue.''

Pelosi was aware of her audience and stuck close to the ethanol issue in her discussions with farmers. To a crowd interested in emergency grazing and haying and feed stockpiles, she talked of the Democrat's commitment to using corn to make the country energy independent in 10 years, of research projects to boost biofuels, and of the Democrats' "innovation strategy,'' which includes making broadband universal.

Pelosi did not mention that San Francisco has a farm -- a mushroom farm -- as she did before an agriculture group in Washington last month, perhaps recognizing that growing mushrooms in San Francisco will only harden stereotypes.

Instead, she gave a brief tribute to U.S. troops in Iraq and to family values and told one crowd she had picked up a present for her husband: "I got the recipe for pork chops on a stick.''

When asked whether as speaker she would push legislation to provide tax cuts to farmers who invest in renewable energy, she responded, "Within the first week.''

Enthusiasm for a new market for corn knows no bounds among locals. Peterson called the ethanol boon "the most exciting thing that's happened in rural America in 100 years.''

Making ethanol widely available will require major changes in infrastructure, including pumps at gas stations that can deliver E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline that can be found in only a few regions in the country. By one estimate, it would require a cornfield 20 times the size of Minnesota to satisfy the nation's appetite for fuel.

University of Minnesota economist Steven Taff warned that while demand for corn fuel may delight Minnesota farmers today, eventually production would saturate the market and "what we see now with ethanol cannot last.''

But at a time of $3-a-gallon gas, war raging in the Middle East, and great concern over oil-based energy's effect on the environment, promoting ethanol has an immediate political benefit.

Margaret Kelliher, the Democratic leader in the Minnesota House, said the party has been picking up seats in the southern part of the state in part because of its efforts among farmers.

"Remember we're the DFL,'' Kelliher said, referring to the "Democratic Farmer Labor Party,'' as it is known in Minnesota. "This resonates here very easily.''

Pelosi said the message reaches well beyond the state, saying her office is distributing the party's commitment to 5,000 rural media outlets.

"This helps convey the commitment to rural America that energy independence is our goal -- to make clear to rural America that this is the commitment of the House Democrats,'' Pelosi said as she prepared to get on a private jet bound for Minneapolis for another day of events.

On the day that Pelosi left Minnesota last week, national GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman was in the twin cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul invoking her name as a reason for Republicans to redouble their campaign efforts.

"Picture Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who called the president 'an incompetent leader' and 'morally irresponsible,' '' Mehlman told a Republican gathering.

But Bush's waning popularity is evident in rural Minnesota, where many said they had voted for him twice but were sorry they had. Many expressed frustration with the GOP and voiced little appetite for such partisan attacks.

Even Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is facing re-election, shared the stage with Pelosi, saying in a brief interview that "the country needs more bipartisan cooperation.''

To bring the House Democratic leader to rural Minnesota is an "opportunity for us to showcase ... the strength of the ethanol possibilities,'' Pawlenty said.

As the odor of the nearby portable toilets penetrated the enormous FarmFest tent where Pelosi spoke, James Derickson, a 75-year-old retired farmer said he had grown weary of Republicans.

"She's all right by me,'' he said of Pelosi. "Let's get more women in there. They can't do any worse.''

E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow@sfchronicle.com.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2006, 01:49:36 PM »
On the opposite side, Harry Reid from Nevada is rated 100% by the NRA.

Ethanol is a liberal issue.  It is perfect for them because they can dole out tax breaks, legislate behavior, and cost people money all while appearing patriotic.  The truth is that ethanol is a very inefficient fuel.  Current fuel prices owe some of their fluff to a congressional mandate barring the use of certain additives and mandating the substitution of ethanol.  In addition, there was not enough domestic ethanol but Congress did not lower tarrifs on foreign ethanol.  The result is gas prices in the $2.80-3.00 gal range.
The answer is that the farmers are both gullible and greedy.  Farming is one of the most heavily subsidized activities in the US, with most benefit going to the most wealthy.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2006, 10:02:54 PM »
In answer to the original question:

Gullible.
D. R. ZINN

Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2006, 03:47:08 AM »
Quote
Ethanol is a liberal issue.
And therein lies the problem.

Ethanol is the current phase of "Energy Independence".  Bush & Co. are seen as thoroughly owned by Big Oil.  You can sputter "The Dems are anti-business" all you want, but it's hard to make a convincing counterargument when you are seen as a polar bear and caribou killer for wanting to drill in ANWR.

It isn't "a liberal issue".  It's an issue that the liberals have won.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2006, 03:56:36 AM »
Quote from: Antibubba
Quote
Ethanol is a liberal issue.
And therein lies the problem.

Ethanol is the current phase of "Energy Independence".  Bush & Co. are seen as thoroughly owned by Big Oil.  You can sputter "The Dems are anti-business" all you want, but it's hard to make a convincing counterargument when you are seen as a polar bear and caribou killer for wanting to drill in ANWR.

It isn't "a liberal issue".  It's an issue that the liberals have won.
I dont understand your point.  Are you in favor of ethanol as a fuel?  Are you in favor of Democrats using it as an issue?  Do you have a hankering for Nancy Pelosi?  I dont get it.
The first time I remember hearing the phrase "Energy Independence" was in a speech by Pres Richard Nixon, probably in 1973 after the Arab oil embargo.  He promised us independence in 20 years or something.  When oil prices spike every president has promised a program of independence.  It wont happen and cant, given the realities of global trade.  It is a chimaera.  The only way we could be "independent" would be to cease almost all useful activity.
The main problem is that people perceive there is a problem and therefore want government to "do something" about it.  This is an attitude that is at most 65 years old.  The government doesnt need to "do something" about it, other than revamp the system of taxes and regulation so people are more free to do what they want.  That will solve more problems than a thousand government programs.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Phantom Warrior

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 926
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2006, 05:11:47 AM »
Quote
Peterson is the sort of Democrat who would be virtually unrecognizable in the Bay Area, voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska, for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, to limit legal abortions, against expanding stem cell research and in favor of Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug bill.

"I probably couldn't get 10 percent of the vote in her district, and she couldn't get elected in my district,'' Peterson said.
Quote
Yet he was pleased to show off Pelosi to his constituents, saying they agree on "the core issues,'' and if he can get a congresswoman from San Francisco to sign on to his agriculture policies, "that's a pretty good thing.''
I didn't vote for Collin Peterson, but I've had a generally decent impression of him so far.  But statements like that make me wonder.  Those issues cover most of the major political, financial, and social issues.  I find myself asking, if those aren't core issues, then what is?

-a Peterson constituent


Quote
...and of the Democrats' "innovation strategy,'' which includes making broadband universal.
I'm all for broadband.  I love it.  But it's interesting that she's touting universal broadband at a largely RURAL gathering.  Lest she forget, DSL peters out after about 18,000 feet (less than 3.5 miles).  And some of the fixes, like running fiber out to a remote station and then copper out to the consumers, likely are less feasible when you are talking about sparsely populated rural areas.  But hey, innovate away.

Big_R

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2006, 05:17:03 AM »
I grew up not too far from Redwood Falls and my parents still farm about 40 miles from there.  Minnesota farmers are a different bunch.  Most of them have grown accustomed to crop subsidies (i.e. welfare) but still hold true to most "conservative" values (guns = good, anti-abortion, etc.).  Consequently, you see a mix of Republican and Democrat candidates that mirror those values.

On the ethanol front, there are plants popping up all over MN.  They're successful now, because they are subsidized by the stage gov and MN has an ethanol mandate for all gasoline products.  That said, they're not very profitable for their shareholders.  Bottom line, we can't compete with the Brazillian corn, which keeps prices low.  If the demand is high enough, ethanol is a viable additive (think E-85).  However, if oil production increases through drilling, additional refineries, etc., there really isn't an economic future for ethanol.  

That said, anyone who comes in here toting a pro-ethanol/pro crop subsidy stance will be received by farmers.  Most farmers hold their own finaincial situations over their more "conservative beliefs".  Just my opinion.

Ryan

Creeping Incrementalism

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2006, 08:46:23 PM »
The best way to power motor vehicles is oil.  Nothing else comes close.  That's the reason gasoline/diesel won a hundred years ago when there was no standard.  When you take out the taxes from gasoline, and factor in ethanol's inefficiency, I think ethanol costs roughly twice as much to drive you the same distance, and that's with incredibly high gas prices.

I personally think our government should take no action on the energy front.  Let the market decide.

As for farmers, I think they are the biggest welfare queens in America.  I don't think any industry is as government-dependent, except for some of the defense industry, since no one but the government buys aircraft carriers.  In California, agriculture uses 80% all the water in the state for 1/10 the cost that homeowners pay, yet it is against the law to buy anything but a low-flush toilet from your house.  And then I have to flush three times to get the really nasty diarrhea all out of the bowl.

Art Eatman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,442
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2006, 04:59:08 AM »
When Reagan took office, the Farm Subsidy was $6 billion a year.  When he left office, it was $40 billion.  It's now around $96 billion, last I read.

Brazilian corn ain't selling for less than ours.  One reason we have many Mexicans coming north is that they can't compete on their farms with corn; US corn is sold down there for around $2.00 a bushel (thank NAFTA for an unintended consequence).  Now, $2.00 a bushel is some $0.30 below production cost--and any profits for US farmers comes out of that $96 billion...

Ethanol is what ya do when there AIN'T no gasoline.

Basically, farm subsidies merely means we have too many farms.  Our farm subsidies are the root of many of the international squabbles on economics issues.

Art
The American Indians learned what happens when you don't control immigration.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2006, 06:48:30 AM »
Quote from: Art Eatman
When Reagan took office, the Farm Subsidy was $6 billion a year.  When he left office, it was $40 billion.  It's now around $96 billion, last I read.

Brazilian corn ain't selling for less than ours.  One reason we have many Mexicans coming north is that they can't compete on their farms with corn; US corn is sold down there for around $2.00 a bushel (thank NAFTA for an unintended consequence).  Now, $2.00 a bushel is some $0.30 below production cost--and any profits for US farmers comes out of that $96 billion...

Ethanol is what ya do when there AIN'T no gasoline.

Basically, farm subsidies merely means we have too many farms.  Our farm subsidies are the root of many of the international squabbles on economics issues.

Art
Thank you, Art.  Exactly.  Farmers want to push the "let's save the family farm, the backbone of the US" business.  The reality is that farming is big business and the subsidies go to big companies rather than the "family farmer."
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Big_R

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2006, 04:17:28 PM »
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Art Eatman
When Reagan took office, the Farm Subsidy was $6 billion a year.  When he left office, it was $40 billion.  It's now around $96 billion, last I read.

Brazilian corn ain't selling for less than ours.  One reason we have many Mexicans coming north is that they can't compete on their farms with corn; US corn is sold down there for around $2.00 a bushel (thank NAFTA for an unintended consequence).  Now, $2.00 a bushel is some $0.30 below production cost--and any profits for US farmers comes out of that $96 billion...

Ethanol is what ya do when there AIN'T no gasoline.

Basically, farm subsidies merely means we have too many farms.  Our farm subsidies are the root of many of the international squabbles on economics issues.

Art
Thank you, Art.  Exactly.  Farmers want to push the "let's save the family farm, the backbone of the US" business.  The reality is that farming is big business and the subsidies go to big companies rather than the "family farmer."
Actually, Rabbi, you're right to a point.  Subsidies are available to anyone who farms full time, and is dependant on the acerage and crops grown (different subsidies for different crops).  Also, CRP (crop reduction program) is considered a subsidy.  So, small farmers get the same dollars per acre, but less overall due to running smaller tracts of land.  In reality, in some cases, it's the only thing keeping small farmers above water.  There's no question it's midirected by corporate farms.

I don't remember the webside, but there's one out there that allows people to search by county or name to see the last 10 years of subsidies.  

Ryan

Guest

  • Guest
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2006, 04:34:13 PM »
Quote
As for farmers, I think they are the biggest welfare queens in America
You have no idea how offensive I find that uninformed, ignorant comment.

On the road we're going down, I'll at least have the last laugh when you are out bitching at the high price of bread, milk and eggs.

Big_R

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2006, 04:43:55 PM »
Quote from: Baus44
Quote
As for farmers, I think they are the biggest welfare queens in America
You have no idea how offensive I find that uninformed, ignorant comment.

On the road we're going down, I'll at least have the last laugh when you are out bitching at the high price of bread, milk and eggs.
I agree with Baus44, the subsidies for true "small" farmers are nowhere close to making them rich.

Here's the site I referenced before if anyone's interested:

http://www.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign

Ryan

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2006, 05:12:29 PM »
Quote from: Baus44
Quote
As for farmers, I think they are the biggest welfare queens in America
You have no idea how offensive I find that uninformed, ignorant comment.

On the road we're going down, I'll at least have the last laugh when you are out bitching at the high price of bread, milk and eggs.
Hmm, government subsidies keep prices of milk, eggs, etc up above the normal market price.  So, logically, if you removed the subsidies, prices would fall to their natural level, which is lower than what we pay now.
Remind me again why subsidies to farmers keep prices low?

Let's face it, the family farm is largely a thing of myth at this point.  Sure there are some, but that is not where the majority of food comes from.  In any case, I dont see why "the family farm" should be subsidized by the rest of us any more than the family computer store or the family grocery.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2006, 07:28:35 PM »
I don't get it, either.  Why is ethanol a liberal issue?

Quote
Antibubba wrote:
Ethanol is a liberal issue.

And therein lies the problem.

Ethanol is the current phase of "Energy Independence".  Bush & Co. are seen as thoroughly owned by Big Oil.  You can sputter "The Dems are anti-business" all you want, but it's hard to make a convincing counterargument when you are seen as a polar bear and caribou killer for wanting to drill in ANWR.

It isn't "a liberal issue".  It's an issue that the liberals have won.
I just came back from the local Cenex after filling up my pickup with E85 (aka, Ethanol) at $1.99/gallon. This particular Cenex happens to be located in a nice conservative farming community in Wisconsin, one that would be happy to see Gov. Doyle and company take a long walk off a short dock.  I find it ironic that folks are bitching about ethanol production and how much of a problem it is in the scheme of things. For years I watched as the government paid farmers NOT to plant crops in their fields, and let them lie fallow.  (PIK, aka Payment In Kind)  So now the farmer has the option of using his extra fallow acreage and selling extra bushels of corn to one of the several distilleries here, each of which produces in excess of 50 million gallons of ethanol each year for use in local E85 gas stations. (The stations are quite close to the ethanol distilleries, they don't truck or pipe it very far from the source) I don't know if that's being gullible, greedy, or just hedging bets against a corn market that's very susceptible to drought and feed grain pricing.  If I had the acreage, I'd sell for ethanol production, too.

It's a niche market, in reality, almost a Mac vs. PC thing. There aren't very many E85 compatible vehicles on the road right now in 2006, as a percentage of what's out there. Most dual-fuel vehicles, like my own, were built to satisfy EPA mandates and made it into fleet and government vehicle sales.  If you run E85 in a non-compatible vehicle, the check engine light will come on as the engine management computer tries to attain closed loop stoichiometry with the alcohol blend - which it was never designed to do.  At that point, you've probably caused more problems than you care to know. On the flip side, E10, which is only 10% ETOH, is already in regular unleaded gas pumps across the state, particularly in high pollution areas like Milwaukee and Madison.  Cars run just fine on it, and many folks aren't even aware they're running on 10% moonshine when they fill up at the local BP station.

People seem to think that the promotion and production of ethanol in these United States is supposed to be the be-all/end all of our petroleum fuel woes.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Ethanol can only reduce dependancy on foreign/domestic petroleum sources, and only a small percentage. If the whole country were to drive on the stuff, the cropland needed would be unbelievably huge.  (Although some have considered using palmetto or even kudzu from the South as a potential source for ethanol)  All E85 sales do is relieve local pressure for gasoline, to the tune of 50 million gallons a year near each fuel distillery, and then only to those whose vehicles can actually run on the stuff.  It does, however, send a nice message to big oil, saying we don't need you as much as you thought we did.  And I'm happy with that.

Now, for those who didn't know, E85 doesn't give you cheap fuel without drawbacks - it's 105 octane, and gives your dual-fuel vehicle a noticeable performance increase, plus I kinda like the smell of the exhaust in the morning when I first fire up the truck.  That performance increase comes at a price, however.  You lose about 15-20% of your fuel range with the stuff, as your mileage drops. (The engine burns more as it retunes the fuel injection and ignition timing for the alcohol) Likewise, if you ever switch back to pure gasoline in your dual-fuel vehicle after running ethanol for a while, you must do an oil change immediately.  Otherwise, the acidity of the crankcase will cause trouble, even if the dual-fuel engines are internally nitrided for corrosion resistance. Can't get something for nothing, ya know...
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2006, 12:35:00 AM »
Ethanol is a political issue.

Our farmers would not need subsidies if many had not been driven out of business by various forms of regulation and they had not been sacrificed on the alter of globalism.

If ethanol is going to replace gasoline one net result is that a great many people are going to be forced to buy new vehicles, make expensive modifications, or off the road.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2006, 02:45:08 AM »
What is the "alter of globalism" and where can I go to make my sacrifice?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Art Eatman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,442
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2006, 04:07:46 AM »
LAK, the contradiction in your view is a bit of a problem:  We have too much supply for the demand, which means we have too many farms producing too much in the way of grain, mostly.  Either we farm less acreage--which reduces the income per farm--or people take up a new line of work.  That is, we haven't driven enough farmers out of work.

But even the "drive out of work" is basically wrong.  Less than 20% of farms are not corporate operations.  Probably down toward 10%, although I haven't done a Google on it.  The notion of the "small farmer" is largely a myth.  

I need to hunt up the numbers for gross income per acre, average.  I think it's around $60 or so.  So, in order to be at least middle class, with an income around $100K net before taxes, per year, and figuring expenses of feed/seed/fertilizer/labor, a "small" middle class farm has to be around 3,000 acres.  And that's if the land is already paid for by parents or grandparents.  

If we don't have the tax-paid subsidies, food in the grocery stores costs more.

Our federal policies mean that we pay 50% or more above the world price of sugar, just as one for-instance--due to our undeclared war with Castro.

We sell subsidized corn into Mexico at less than the cost of production in either Mexico or here.  This wipes out corn farmers in Mexico, who then come north to find work.  Ain't that neat?

By and large, the US government is screwing the farmers of almost all the other countries.  That's why this last G8 conference went in the toilet.  Arguments about our subsidies.

Subsidies?  At one time, the recipient of the largest single federal subsidy was a farm in Texas--owned by a corporation from Luxemburg.  Odds are, nowadays, it's Archer-Daniels-Midland, or ADM.  You've seen the TV ads on how they're saving America from something or another...

Exploring the wondrous world of agriculture is great fun, if you have a strong stomach and a strong streak of masochism.

Art
The American Indians learned what happens when you don't control immigration.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2006, 05:03:13 AM »
Thanks, Art.  Spot on.
I will add that the U.S is not the only farm subsidizer out there.  The Europeans, esp the French, are much worse.  The Japanese as well, although their total agricultural output is small so it has less effect.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Art Eatman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,442
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2006, 12:34:20 PM »
I don't know if it's still the case or not, but at one time in France, all farm produce was shipped to Paris to "Les Halles" (Google it) and then after sorting, was sent out to grocery stores all over France.  A shopper might buy produce that came from a local farm, but which had made the trip to Paris and back.  I guess the French learned to enjoy not-so-fresh veggies.

Any talk in France of reducing farm subsidies, and farmers take to the streets and roads with their farm tractors, shutting down major arteries.  The French being the French, unions go out on strike in sympathy.  

Then they wonder why they have economic problems when they can't make any money...

The Japanese holler about, "We need protein!" as a justification for whaling and keeping the dophin as well as the fish caught in their nets.  But they don't allow foreign beef, or didn't used to...

Art
The American Indians learned what happens when you don't control immigration.

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Are These Farmers Gullible or Greedy?
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2006, 11:26:36 PM »
Art,

I do not disagree with most of the matter of fact points you raise. The "decline" of the family farm is another subject and story of course.

Our corporate farming has becoming alittle more competitive with some cheap imports due to the huge cheap labor pool in this country. Which of course is yet another subject as well.

------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org