backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by sweetca.. on Dec 1 at 7:51 PM

Big corporate corn farmers celebrate major win, share prices in corn corps. inch higher

Battered by a drought, and hit a second time by the U.S. government's artificial inflation of corn prices, many small livestock farmers were desperately hoping that the Obama administration’s and its appointed leadership at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would agree to a temporary waiver on blending requirements of ethanol in vehicles.

I. Big Corn Gets a Helping Hand from the Obama Admin.

The EPA on Friday echoed the sentiments of big corn special interests saying it found no evidence that "significant harm" would be caused by not granting a waiver.

The decision came as somewhat of a surprise.  Many sources had expected the Obama administration to instead punt on the issue; the decision to side with the well-heeled special interests to push a program that is unpopular and likely will now cost American jobs was unexpected.

The auto industry has also vigorously opposed the EPA's decision to bump ethanol blending requirements to 15 percent.  They argue that the higher blend will ruin the engines of older vehicles, increasing emissions and forcing consumers to pay for expensive repairs or abandon their vehicles.

Obama bribery wide
Obama and Bush both backed big corn special interests. [Image Source: Politically Incorrect]

The EPA has alleged that it knows the science behind fuel blending better than the engineers who make cars, essentially calling the automakers liars.

The decision will also impact consumers, as ethanol provides less gas mileage in traditional engines that gasoline.  In other words, unless gas stations start charging less at the pump (which seems rather unlikely) consumers will be paying the same amount per gallon, for less equivalent fuel.

Even environmentalists are outraged at the Obama administration, given that ethanol has been shown to not only waste energy, but also increase carbon emissions.  Comments, Michal Rosenoer, biofuels policy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, to The Detroit News:

If the worst U.S. drought in more than 50 years and skyrocketing food prices are not enough to make EPA act, it falls to Congress to provide relief from our senseless federal support for corn ethanol.  The RFS is a broken policy — rather than giving us clean energy, it's incentivizing biofuels like corn ethanol that are exacerbating our economic and environmental problems.

Congress needs to cut corn ethanol from the RFS entirely to protect the economy and the environment from this destructive and dirty fuel.

But despite the united opposition, the Obama administration appears resolute in following its predecessor, the Republican Bush administration, in choosing to side with the big corn special interest groups.

II. EPA to Small Farmers: "Deal With It"

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation fires back at the critics, commenting, "We recognize that this year's drought has created hardship in some sectors of the economy, particularly for livestock producers.  But our extensive analysis makes clear that congressional requirements for a waiver have not been met and that waiving the RFS will have little, if any, impact."

In other words, the EPA admits it recognizes that farmers are struggling, resorting to desperate measures like feeding their livestock candy waste; but when it comes to bucking a key special interest's agenda the EPA's answer to farmers is basically "tough luck".

Farm drought
EPA claimed to be sympathetic to farmers, but refused to help them with a waiver.
[Image Source: US News]

Over 200 members of Congress, eight state governors, and numerous college professors sign a letter arguing that the blending targets would indeed have a dire impact on farmers.

So who wins?  The biggest winners are the corn and ethanol industry, particularly the growers, who benefit the most from the artificial inflation of corn prices.  Many of these growers are not even family owned, but rather are large corporate farms run by deep-pocketed entities like Archer Daniels Midland Comp. (ADM) and ConAgra Foods, Inc. (CAG).  Indeed, both companies saw a rise in share prices following the EPA's decision.

corn profits
Big corn donates deeply to federal politiicans, who in turn reward it with billions in subsidies.
[Image Source: Agriculture.com]

So the word is official -- the U.S. will continue to manipulate prices in the fuel department, despite the cost to consumers, the environment, automakers, livestock farmers, and U.S. jobs.  That's bad news for most -- unless you happen to be an Archer Daniels Midland shareholder.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Whats new?
By Uncle on 11/19/2012 11:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Fascism showing its ugly head again.Corporations are getting bolder, not even trying to hide failed consumer policy. Hey America how does it feel to be Lackeys for the 1%.




RE: Whats new?
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 12:10:30 PM , Rating: 3
Ugh. It's rough. It feels even worse on election night when your ideas are reject by 98-99% of the other voters.


RE: Whats new?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2012 12:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ugh. It's rough. It feels even worse on election night when your ideas are reject by 98-99% of the other voters.
Some of us wrote in our candidate.

Just to show you how much our two party system is truly a ruling party system, in several states (including my own) the Republican party managed to exclude Gary Johnson from the ballot by petitioning to categorize him (against his will) as a "Republican" in the primaries, and many folks didn't realize that if they voted straight ticket Libertarian, the election board would simply count it as if you didn't vote for President. How's that for Democracy?

Reportedly the boards are also tossing third party votes for candidates who weren't officially running like Ron Paul -- so essentially it may be like you never voted, if you didn't vote for America's ruling parties.

My suggestion to anyone who did vote third party, particularly those who wrote in is to check your local county election results . Most counties now have their results available online, although most don't list the actual names written in. Make sure if you wrote in, that at least one write in vote was recorded; if not, you have a legitimate case to b--ch about.


RE: Whats new?
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Make sure if you wrote in, that at least one write in vote was recorded; if not, you have a legitimate case to b--ch about.
Sure, but to what end? I'd much rather spend my energy explaining/defending libertarianism to a fellow citizen than I would arguing with a bureaucrat. I mean, yeah, your 1 vote should be counted regardless of who you vote for. But if we're only taking about the 17 non-GOP/DFL votes in the midst of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of total votes... there are larger fish to fry.


RE: Whats new?
By Samus on 11/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Whats new?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2012 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
consider your topics. what the hell is this, and most, political, non-technology related articles doing on Daily Tech
Vehicles and ethanol are not technology topics??

Face it, technology and politics often meet; it's called "tech policy".


RE: Whats new?
By Samus on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 4:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
Samus, we get it. You worship Obama and voted for him both times.

But for the rest of us, this is more than just political gossip. It's a major economic intervention and is a poster child for why a centrally planned economy, can't and won't ever work. It illustrates precisely what's wrong with America. It also gives an ominous outlook for the tech industry. If bureaucrats and "czars" think they know better than the engineers who make the cars, how much longer before the government starts poking around in your code?


RE: Whats new?
By Dorkyman on 11/19/2012 6:25:17 PM , Rating: 4
The reason that election night was such a shock and downer for so many was not that Messiah got re-elected. After all, the guy's a putz and will be gone in 4 years.

No, the real tragedy is that 51% of the voting public thought it was a good idea to re-elect him. THAT'S the source of the sadness. Kiss the magic era (roughly corresponding to the 20th century) of the USA goodbye.


RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 7:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. It's tough to share a country with a majority thinks that endless welfare handouts and debt fueled spending binges can go on forever, and that economic central planning is a workable system. Basically, a county ignorant to history, common sense, economics, and the Constitution itself. Sad indeed to have not a single thing in common with my ignorant countrymen. They're all dead strangers to me now.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 7:40:27 PM , Rating: 3
Endless welfare handouts occur with both parties. Remember corporate welfare? Corporations are people too, remember that?


RE: Whats new?
By Samus on 11/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Whats new?
By Souka on 11/19/2012 11:53:47 PM , Rating: 4
Meh... I run all my lawn equipment on non-ethonal gas.
Now running my 1999 Subaru on it to... got a %12 boost in my fuel economy.

Was running a consistent 20mpg (hundreds of datapoints to support this)
On Non-E gas, I'm now getting 22.5mpg (a few dozen datapoints to support this).

It's a tie in $$/mile price wise, but hey... no Ethonal is probably going to save me.

www.puregas.org for non-e gas near you! :)


RE: Whats new?
By Ringold on 11/20/2012 12:06:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
one of the greatest Presidents of all time


LOL

When it's not election season, even a lot of Democrat's aren't happy with him. Hard-left doesn't like him, the entire right doesn't. Just a segment of the center-left. The guy managed to win a campaign of personalities.

Meanwhile, under his watch, economy's done nothing. EPA's run wild. Middle East has gone from shitty to shittier. Iraq's on the verge of seeing Kurdistan say "To hell with this already" and going its own way. Afghanistan, depending on Karzai, could be Taliban run again by decades end at this rate. In Asia, despite a "pivot", our allies are worried we're full of words and no deeds if it came down to it. Ah, and that "reset" with Russia? Yeah, that got us.. lets see.. nothing, except a nuclear treaty that has us, again, cut more than they do. Seems legit.

And for all that extra debt, we've got something to show for it, right? High-speed maglev trains EVERYWHERE, right? Maybe flying cars? A glorious military victory against evil? Men on Mars, asteroids getting mined?

Oh wait, we don't have ANYTHING to show for it? Hmm.

Yeah. Best President ever. Totally makes Eisenhower look like a nitwit.


RE: Whats new?
By Cerin218 on 11/21/2012 6:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes I really wish you (D) bags would actually say useful things instead of talking points. Fox News? Really? Did Fox News make the 6 TRILLION new debt? Did Fox News have 8%+ unemployment for 4 years? Did Fox News cut our credit rating? Did it spend our money on massive green projects that went bankrupt? Did it make it law that you HAD to buy health insurance from the private sector as a requirement of good citizenship by perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause? Did Fox News make it law that any American can be held indefinitely without due process? Did Fox News kill an American ambassador and provide guns to Mexican criminals?

Or did Fox News just report it when Obama did these things.

And you call us sheep? If I was a Democrat leader I would Stalin you. I would steal all our possessions and stuff you in an gas chamber myself because you all literally BEG for it.


RE: Whats new?
By Uncle on 11/20/2012 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
Ya, you must have thought you were in Hell during the 8 Bush years when the National Debt sky rocketed out of control, a trillion dollars just looking for WMD's. Oh ya forgot,that was a Trillion Dollars just for the Big Lie of the Bushes. Shoot, the Cons(Reps) had government for 8 years. Did your life get any better. I just remember a lot of Body Bags coming home. Plus a huge debt handed over to the Dems on a silver platter when the people couldn't stomach any more lies.


RE: Whats new?
By Cerin218 on 11/21/2012 6:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Haha!!! At least Bush had an excuse. Obama spent 6 TRILLION without even an excuse. How is that for a silver platter? His investors and hadlers seem to have made out like bandits. The CEO from Solyndra even had the nuts to show his face at a few of the Democrat gatherings. Don't forget by the way that a MAJORITY of Democrats voted to go to war, expand war, and continue to fund war. Bush literally could not have done it without you, for all that you love to blame him. Not like Obama and Libya... By the way, the current president that campaigned to end the A-stan war, still hasn't. Nor has he figured out how to fund it. Heck, he hasn't even made a budget YET and he's in his second term. Bush's unemployment was no where near Obama's 8%+ unemployment HIS ENTIRE TERM. The only reason Bush even had that is because the deregulation of the banking industry and poor policy by the Democrats caused the housing and financial crisis. Heck Obama even managed the first credit rating cut for our country in our ENTIRE history.

Obama sucked. You supporters are deceiving yourselves. It's called hypocrisy and it's the cornerstone of being liberal.


RE: Whats new?
By Rukkian on 11/20/2012 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt it was actually 51% that agreed with him. I know I voted for him, but only because of who he was running against. Romney was completely out of touch and a douchebag of epic proportions. If the right would put up a true fiscal conservative, and not just a reverse robin hood, I think they would have won handily.

Put up a candidate that is willing to make cuts across the board - drop entitlements and also drop tax cuts for the rich, cut programs that benefit rich and poor alike (and middle class) and I would vote for him easily.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/20/2012 5:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically you got voted down because of the emotional backlash on the first 2 sentences of your response, and despite the fact that the rest of your post is spot on.

Nobody ever talks about all the loopholes Reagan closed that greatly favored the rich, funny how that works these days.


RE: Whats new?
By Cerin218 on 11/21/2012 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because Reagan is DEAD. Has been for some time. Amazing how Democrats ALWAYS bring up the past but never learn from it an omit blame for their leadership for ANYTHING.


RE: Whats new?
By EnzoFX on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Whats new?
By HrilL on 11/19/2012 2:41:50 PM , Rating: 5
You're completely wrong. I voted 3rd party. I didn't vote for evil. Both of the "two" parties are exactly the same when it comes to the FED, taking away my freedom, and out of control spending. Maybe if people actually knew what was going on and supported a party they believed in then we'd have a working system but that won't happen until sheeple like yourself stop voting for something they don't want. Gary Johnson happens to have a proven track record of successes seeing how he was a 2 term governor, lowered taxes, created jobs, and left the state with over a billion dollar surplus. But Yeah voting for one of the two clowns is a much better idea. Got it.


RE: Whats new?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2012 2:44:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

-John Quincy Adams

I'm not advising anyone to vote third party if they don't do their homework and have a compelling reason why they feel that is their best option. I'm all for everyone voting for who they think is best.

You think Romney would have been great for the country? Great, I hope you voted for him.

You think Obama, is "hope" for the future and moving the nation "forward"? Well, I hope you voted for him, if you really think that.

Ultimately, though, I wish people would spend more time on sites like OpenSecrets, MapLight, ACLU, and EFF, studying how the current political system is bilaterally reducing civil liberties, while increasingly bowing to special interests.

All I want is for people to inform themselves. Is that disgusting or wrong?

As for third parties, I fail to see why you find them so distasteful.

George Washington, who won the freedom for our country, addressed this issue directly in which he called the two-party system a monster of "alternate domination". He spoke:
quote:
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

I'll let that statement speak for itself.


RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 4:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're spot on Jason. Great post.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 4:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Enzo, that was perhaps the dumbest and most contradictory comment I've ever read on this site.

"If you don't like the system, change it, but that involves joining it, being a part of it."

We are trying to change it, by joining and voting for 3rd parties. Remember, voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil, so stop supporting evil.

I voted for Gary Johnson, am proud of it, and would do it again if I had to, despite the whining of apathetic, cynical nihilists like yourself.


RE: Whats new?
By FastEddieLB on 11/19/2012 11:01:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How's that for Democracy?

We're in a republic, not a democracy. On that note, California has WAY too much power. When the next lowest state has enough of a gap for a whole other state to fit in, that's too much. It's broken and needs to be fixed.


RE: Whats new?
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/2012 12:42:13 PM , Rating: 3
You have a choice of two candidates that are completely whored out to special interests groups. How much difference does it make? and how can you get excited whichever party get elected?


RE: Whats new?
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 1:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
You may have chosen from two candidates, but you had the choice of many more. The whole point of my post is that 98-99% of voters chose a GOP/DFL candidate, which as you correctly point out, isn't much of a choice. I, however, did not. Hence my disappointment that my views don't match the rest of the voting populace.
quote:
how can you get excited whichever party get elected?
I don't.


RE: Whats new?
By bobcpg on 11/19/2012 12:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
Feels good because I wasn’t born with an entitlement spoon in my mouth. Also I get the opportunity to become the 1% and while doing so I’ll probably develop processes/cures so your lazy poor ass can live a little better.


RE: Whats new?
By Uncle on 11/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 1:35:31 PM , Rating: 5
Woah there Uncle, you're deviating a bit from the narrative. I'll give you some advice to help prevent you from committing a thought crime.

You see, hating rich people is definitely in fashion, however you need to be careful to only hate the right kind of rich people. You'll often hear terms like "big oil", "big pharma", and "big tobacco". These people are definitely worth hating because they are evil and are members of the 1%.

On the other hand, there are companies like Apple, like you mentioned, that are the richest in the world. There are also various media/Hollywood companies who are quite wealthy too. These are what we call "honorary 99%-ers". Even though their executives and major shareholders are in the 1%, we like what they do so much that we give them a waiver from our scorn. It also helps that they are reliable contributors and voters to various Democratic candidates and causes. For this reason, it's not ok to hate them. For you will never hear words like "big tech" used in a negative context.

So in conclusion, it's fine to hate successful people, but just make sure you hate the right ones, and give a pass to the rest.

Thanks for listening, and please think according to the approved memes. This message brought to you by the MSM thought police.


RE: Whats new?
By Uncle on 11/19/2012 2:30:03 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry I could of picked hundreds of other companies. apple just came to mind cause they like to be in the news,front and center, branding their name as usual, even if its not good news for the rest of us. By the way I don't hate these companies, I dislike how they function as a "good corporate citizen".


RE: Whats new?
By Solandri on 11/19/2012 2:51:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The last few recessions we've had, or as you would put it politely, a bubble burst. None have been blamed on the middle class, just the wall street gang, bankers, fund managers, just the group in the 1%.

Actually, I'd blame the last few bubbles on the middle class. I remember numerous reports in the 1990s that the percent of people investing in stocks was the highest it had ever been. So lots of middle class people were starting to invest in stocks, and some were even braving the venture capital waters (investing in start-ups). It was this huge influx of money combined with inexperience with investing which inflated the values of a lot of companies far beyond where they should have gone - a bubble.

When that bubble popped, they got spooked by the market and sought a safer place to put their money. What could be safer than real estate? After all, unlike stocks which are just pieces of paper if the company goes bust, you've got a real physical asset which still holds value. So we got the housing market bubble. And shortly after the housing bubble burst we had a rush on oil, during prices up to nearly $150/bbl. Everyone needs energy, even in a poor economy, right? Currently we have a rush on gold as the "safe" investment.

Everyone wants to make easy money. It's easy to make easy money if you're rich and have tens of millions of dollars to throw around. A mere 1% gain for the year will let you live comfortably on $100k or more. You don't have to do any of the investment work, you just pay a guy to do it for you.

But if you have just a few tens of thousands to invest, it's not going to be easy. You have to work and do your research on what you're investing in. Make sure it's a sound company (and industry), not just snake oil. You want to be like the rich guy and pay someone (a fund manager) to do this due diligence for you. But his job isn't based on keeping you happy like the rich guy's personal broker's is. He's managing the money for thousands of little fish like you, and he's probably also managing a dozen other funds. So he's much more likely to make decisions which screw you over.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:57:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd blame the last few bubbles on the middle class

Pffft, professional money managers made all the same mistakes you peg on the middle class. And not a shred of evidence to support your statement. Sounds more like the characteristic self loathing that so many have on the right.


RE: Whats new?
By Ringold on 11/20/2012 12:14:20 AM , Rating: 1
Off hand I can't think of specific authors, but I'm pretty certain I've read a lot of research showing retail investors did significantly worse. Wall Street types even (short-sightedly, from a PR perspective) call them "dumb money." Last ones to buy on the way up, last ones to sell at the market bottom.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 4:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
As far as Bill Dudley is concerned, you can eat iPad.


RE: Whats new?
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Whats new?
By 96suzuki on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Whats new?
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/2012 12:51:46 PM , Rating: 1
This country is going down because of corporate rule. They built up china so they could save 2 cents per widget, now china is turning around and out competing our economy. The days of the US being the number one economic and military power in the world are basically numbered.


RE: Whats new?
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 4
No, it's going down because of government intervention in the economy (like the article), and unsustainable welfare and warfare spending. Do some math and you'll get it soon enough.


RE: Whats new?
By Ammohunt on 11/19/2012 1:46:15 PM , Rating: 1
We went through industrialization in the 19th century and our standard of living adjusted along with it. No industrialized country can compete with a country that is just now going through industrialization. Chinas standard of living is rising fast the average Chinese are starting to be able to afford domestic and imported products. China is the next big counsumer market smat business know this and are positioning themselves to take full advantage. Corporate rule is a myth taught by fools in college to impressionable college age kids.


RE: Whats new?
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey America how does it feel to be Lackeys for the 1%.

As evidence here, plenty of happy go lucky members of the plutarchy.


RE: Whats new?
By ezorb on 11/21/2012 4:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that both Hitler and Mussolini were dedicated socialists, and that Fascism is and anti-capitalist movement, right, I sure you know that Fascism was only considered right wing by the Soviets at the time, somehow it is now "common knowledge" but factually incorrect. You know that, right?


RE: Whats new?
By tamalero on 11/22/2012 11:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
also shows how big is the US GOV involved in maintaining the farming in the US.

way too much subsidies.


Wait
By crimsonson on 11/19/2012 12:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Obama hates corporate America?




RE: Wait
By dgingerich on 11/19/2012 12:13:58 PM , Rating: 3
Ha! He's working a deal with many of them for his kingship.


RE: Wait
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2012 12:38:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ha! He's working a deal with many of them for his kingship.
When the two ruling party candidates cumulatively require $1B USD in "donations" to get elected, take two guesses who they're going to be serving -- you or special interests.

It's quite charming how America is constantly chastising China, in many ways the American political system is like a more clever version of China's -- both ruling parties actively work to exclude and suppress other political voices. And they "debate" on meaningless moral pandering points, while accepting money and helping many of the same special interests (case and point, ethanol policy was put in place by Bush, continued by Obama).

And of course, both parties largely support manipulation of the economy, through various means -- drug regulation, energy policy, patents, etc.

America's political system is a lot like China's except its politicians are clever enough to at least given citizens the illusion of freedom and choice. It's kind of like being stuck in the Matrix.


RE: Wait
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/2012 12:45:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, if only Canada could invade and replace our government with their own. :)


RE: Wait
By Flunk on 11/19/2012 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's not going to happen, our government would never get away with declaring war on the USA. They're be out immediately, that's how our political system works. Do something really stupid and then an election follows.


RE: Wait
By Ammohunt on 11/19/2012 6:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Bring Back Bacon!


RE: Wait
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 2:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America's political system is a lot like China's except its politicians are clever enough to at least given citizens the illusion of freedom and choice. It's kind of like being stuck in the Matrix.
I disagree. I think our politicians are more clever because they've found a way to convince the general public to voluntarily relinquish their freedom/choice, and to hand over their power.

In China, the citizenry doesn't have the power in the first place.


RE: Wait
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If voting could change the system it would be outlawed.

Canadian graffiti from years ago.


RE: Wait
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 3:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stupid people write stupid things while damaging others' property.
Quote from me. Today.


RE: Wait
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ability to stay on topic - 0


RE: Wait
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 3:42:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oh... your graffiti post was a legitimate attempt to add some kind of value to the discussion? I must have missed it. My bad.

So, what was your point exactly? Were you disagreeing with me and attempting to provide some evidence that the US is equivalent to China?


RE: Wait
By kamiller422 on 11/19/2012 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I am part of the special interests crowd as I donated to some campaigns.


RE: Wait
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 12:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
What fantasy land are you living in? Big gov't and big business get along quite well with one another. It's small business that's crushed by big gov't.


RE: Wait
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/2012 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
What, what about Joe the Plumber? Our politicians spend almost all their time paying lip service to small business.


RE: Wait
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 1:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our politicians spend almost all their time paying lip service to small business.
Exactly.


RE: Wait
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2012 12:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't read or relate your comment to the article, I'm assuming.


RE: Wait
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Big gov't and big business get along quite well with one another.


quote:
“Government run by organized money is the same as government run by the organized mob”
FDR

A round of applause for Justice Roberts and his role in this.


RE: Wait
By marvdmartian on 11/19/2012 2:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but at the same time, he has to support the lobbyist groups that contributed heavily to his campaign....of which, there is no doubt, included the ethanol corn growers.


Get used to it
By slawless on 11/19/2012 12:40:51 PM , Rating: 3
This is what you voted for America. You are about to learn what it is like to live under a socialist dictatorship. All new laws governing your life will be dictated from the executive branch. (executive order and regulatory agency mandates)Congress has the power to stop it, but they can't even pass a budget. Freedom was nice while it lasted.




RE: Get used to it
By Sivar on 11/19/2012 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just like last time?


RE: Get used to it
By Nutzo on 11/19/2012 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 5

You're right, elections have consequences.

Since the election Obama has already canceled drilling permits auctions on millions of acres.
The EPA is forcing 50% more ethanol in Gasoline.

Now you are going to pay a lot more for gas, beef and almost everything else.
You poor people driving 10+ year old cars are going to have gas lines leak, and engine seal failures.
I can easily afford to buy a new car (even though I currently drive a 10 year old car), so I’ll just replace my car before this happens. I also live close to work and don’t use much gas, so it won’t affect me much.

So the rich will continue to get richer, and the middle class and poor get poorer, which is always the result of more government. The rich can always afford to work around the higher taxes/regulation, the poorer you are the less flexibility you have, so the poorer you will get.


RE: Get used to it
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
I love how you fail to address the fact that E15 would have been equally shoved down your throat with the other guy, if not more so. Lobbyists don't see parties, they only see green. To be more upset with one puppet over the other is a practice in futility.

The results you get are based on the divide and conquer techniques effectively screwing up the middle class. That's what you get for staying on the 2 party merry-go-round.


RE: Get used to it
By Spuke on 11/19/2012 3:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be more upset with one puppet over the other is a practice in futility.
I don't always agree with you but you are on a roll today.


RE: Get used to it
By Spuke on 11/19/2012 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the rich will continue to get richer, and the middle class and poor get poorer, which is always the result of more government.
This is not entirely true and part of the divide and conquer that Yash mentioned. The poor and the middle class are not getting poorer, they're (our) "growth" is essentially flat. More flat for the poor and a slight rise most of the middle class. Now PART of that middle class (starting at a household income of $90k a year) IS increasing their wealth along with the rich and a chunk of the poor moved to the middle class. We are being fooled into fighting it out with other citizens over pure BS. This info is in plain sight using government census data. Most of which has already been compiled into easy to read formats. Yet no one in the government will come out and give you the real deal. They would rather fool you into taking a chunk of money from your neighborhood coffee shop (you do you think makes $250k a year?).


RE: Get used to it
By Spuke on 11/19/2012 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(you do you think makes $250k a year?)
Jesus Christ WHO do you think makes $250k a year?


RE: Get used to it
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of businesses have many factors that make $250,000 in one year not a big deal. They may have endured several flat years, even several years in the red. There are also times businesses are cash poor. I've seen IGA stores that were very successful close under such conditions.

It sounds like a lot, but factor in how expensive many places are, start up costs, etc. Doctors almost certainly stay in the 6+ figure territory, but look at what they owe when they start.


RE: Get used to it
By Spuke on 11/19/2012 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
No disagreements from me.


RE: Get used to it
By Nutzo on 11/20/2012 12:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually middle class income has DROPPED around 4% in the past 4 years. Add in the higher costs for gas & food, add the drop in investments & home values, and the middle class is much worse off.


RE: Get used to it
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 3:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
A comedian said it best a few months ago. He was asked which party he supports, and he said neither. When asked why his response was

quote:
I don't like being 50% wrong 100% of the time.

Priceless.

What I try to do here mostly is to get the biggest stone throwers to see they live in a glass house, with a cardboard foundation, and a tissue paper roof.


RE: Get used to it
By Ammohunt on 11/19/2012 6:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the rich will continue to get richer, and the middle class and poor get poorer, which is always the result of more government.


Then the previously wealthy or previous middle class get pissed off..


blerg
By Gunbuster on 11/19/2012 12:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
Meet ever higher MPG targes on new cars.

P.S. use this fuel blend with less energy per gallon.




RE: blerg
By mellomonk on 11/19/2012 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your not going to notice much difference in energy density even at 15%. You can see far more effect by running your tires at improper pressure. The only folks who notice the energy difference is folks running E85 in flex fuel vehicles. But the lower price usually offsets that so it becomes an issue of total range in the end. Well that and mental math. Slightly increased overall milage often comes from the cleaning effect of ethanol on fuel system components. This is relative to how well the fuel system is maintained by the average consumer if ethanol was not present.

In all this discussion hardly anyone has mentioned the primary reason for using ethanol in gasoline. Reductions in emissions and offsetting fossil fuel use. This is why it was implemented in the first place, and those issues are still valid. It is not without it's negative effects, pre 1980 fuel systems can be damaged by it, and it's use combined with some other factors have effected the bushel price and hurt food prices. But in the end remember in the average fill up of E10 you are using 1.5 gallons LESS imported and non-renuable resource. Even factoring in the fossil fuel use producing the corn comes out to a 3% reduction in total fossil fuel use.

There is a debate here given the current drought and food price conditions, but it is being lost in a sea of conspiracy theory and Fox News economics. We are losing sight of the bigger goals and ideas here. Here is a nice primer on the basics.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/58.pdf


RE: blerg
By Spuke on 11/19/2012 3:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it's use combined with some other factors have effected the bushel price and hurt food prices
So making people starve is a good thing?


RE: blerg
By freedom4556 on 11/19/2012 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only folks who notice the energy difference is folks running E85 in flex fuel vehicles. But the lower price usually offsets that so it becomes an issue of total range in the end.


No it doesn't; I have run the numbers on this. Around the corner from my office they have just put in a new gas station that carries E85 in addition to the mandated E10. E85 is $.20 per gallon cheaper on the best of days but you go 5-10 mpg less depending on the vehicle. Let's grab the 2013 Equinox as an example (my car isn't flex-fuel). 26mpg on E0 vs 18 on E85 according to the EPA. http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=3... so you only go 305 miles on a tank instead of 440 but you save all of $5 on a fill-up. You'll have an extra fill up per month if you bought gas every week, so your $20 of savings was just eaten by your extra $55 gas tank. E85 COSTS YOU MONEY!


RE: blerg
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
18/26 = .69 This is a reduction of 30%.

Fuel cost would have to be 30% to break even. Your math is way off.

Your 440 miles at 26 mpg = 17 gallons. 305 miles at 18mpg = 17 gallons. A 20 cent difference = $3.40, not $5.00

30% fewer miles means the same amount of e85 you buy monthly would last 21 days, a month is over 4 weeks 11 times per year.

Create flexible pumps. Let me decide how much ethanol I want.


RE: blerg
By freedom4556 on 11/19/2012 4:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't remember the exact price of E85 as I'm in the office right now. The other thing to consider is that the 26 mpg was on pure gas because that's what the EPA uses, but the regular unleaded at the pump is E10. The mpg numbers were from the EPA, not my math.


RE: blerg
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 4:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
OK, but in any case, a 30% reduction in mileage has to be offset by a 30% reduction in price. The current mixes don't come close. And neither will E85.


RE: blerg
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is not without it's negative effects, pre 1980 fuel systems can be damaged by it


Even if it was acceptable up until now as ethanol percentages increase in a linear fashion the percentage of engine failures will increase in a higher than linear fashion.

You could spin that as economic stimulus, but most people with major engine repair bills won't see it that way.

Don't be surprised if the corn industry acquires Briggs & Stratton along with Tucumseh before the release of E20.


RE: blerg
By freedom4556 on 11/19/2012 4:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You could spin that as economic stimulus
Anybody remember the parable about the broken window? Destruction is never economic stimulus.


RE: blerg
By PontiusP on 11/19/2012 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like we got ourselves an EPA shill on here. How much do they pay you?

Here's an environmental question for you. What about the catastrophic environmental disaster known as the "Gulf dead zone" that is due to corn farming runoff? Did that ever factor into the equation?

Also, if this stuff is an energy and cost efficient alternative to oil, then why can't it simply compete in the marketplace on its own? Every time the government has to tell you to buy something you wouldn't ordinarily buy, it's time to be suspicious. And no, this isn't Fox News economics or whatever other condescending term you use. It's simple supply and demand market economics being thwarted and manipulated by government central planning.

Take the blinders off.


this is stupid
By GIZMO84 on 11/19/2012 12:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
I cant wait for electric cars! this is idiotic! elthonal is less efficiant than gas.




RE: this is stupid
By dgingerich on 11/19/2012 12:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
There are those of us with apartments who can't charge electric vehicles. The apartment complex won't let me run a 250ft extension cord from my 3rd floor apartment to whatever parking place I happen to get when I get home.

Electric vehicles don't work for everyone. Duh.


RE: this is stupid
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 12:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense! Elect a politician who will enact a law mandating your predatory landlord provide outlets for all tenants! It's your right!!!


RE: this is stupid
By Jeffk464 on 11/19/2012 12:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Chicken and egg. Your apartment complex isn't set up for charging because nobody had electric cars when it was built.


Alternatives should be available.
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
A few stations locally are selling ethanol-free premium. Sales are brisk. I wonder why. OK, not really.




RE: Alternatives should be available.
By mellomonk on 11/19/2012 3:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's fine. But I would bet they are selling at a pretty good markup. Making money on other's ignorance and fears seams to be a hallmark of modern American business practices.


RE: Alternatives should be available.
By ebakke on 11/19/2012 3:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please, share with me how a tank full of ethanol-free gasoline is a purchase based on ignorance and fear.


By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 4:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Making money on other's ignorance and fears seams to be a hallmark of modern American business practices.

And status is why German cars continue to be lower in reliability than their Japanese counterparts in the luxury segment and still sell well.

If you're looking for an emotion free economic environment you've picked the wrong planet.


Congress could fix this...
By GatoRat on 11/19/2012 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Congress could fix this, but they won't.




RE: Congress could fix this...
By bill.rookard on 11/19/2012 1:30:11 PM , Rating: 3
Congress couldn't fix a burnt out bulb with 3000 pages of directions, 400 engineers, and 80 special committees. Who are you trying to kid?

Geez, look what they've ALREADY done to the tax code to 'fix' things, we have a mess that even a CPA can't figure out.


RE: Congress could fix this...
By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 3:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Congress had their chance and blew it decades ago. After many all night sessions they failed to develop an energy policy. After another oil crisis it then became a normal part of business.

You can expect another financial crisis and more big bank bailouts in your future for the exact same reasoning, it's going to be a normal business practice.


Bias and Inaccuracy
By rs2 on 11/19/2012 8:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They argue that the higher blend will ruin the engines of older vehicles, increasing emissions and forcing consumers to pay for expensive repairs or abandon their vehicles.


We've had blended ethanol fuel available in Australia for years. Anyone with an engine made in the past decade can use it without damaging their engine or shortening its life. People with older engines may need to have their fuel lines replaced with ones made from a more modern material. This costs less than $100.

The primary danger with the ethanol is that it can eat through some of the materials that people used to use for fuel lines. Apart from that there's little damage it can do.

quote:
In other words, unless gas stations start charging less at the pump (which seems rather unlikely) consumers will be paying the same amount per gallon, for less equivalent fuel.


It's not ethanol's fault if your gas stations are disreputable. Over here the ethanol fuel costs 5% to 10% less than regular unleaded. Which essentially corresponds to the amount of efficiency lost compared to the regular unleaded. So to travel a given distance you pay basically the same amount regardless of which fuel you choose.

quote:
So the word is official -- the U.S. will continue to manipulate prices in the fuel department, despite the cost to consumers, the environment, automakers, livestock farmers, and U.S. jobs.


Yes, because clearly the only possible reason to require ethanol in fuel is to manipulate prices. Less conspiracy-theory nonsense please.

The move has a consequence for prices, sure, but to imply that it's only being done for the purpose of that consequence is really a stretch. To paraphrase some guy, it's the economy, stupid. If you don't like it, bring in the government to artificially lower prices. Now *that* would be price manipulation. But that's not what they're doing.




RE: Bias and Inaccuracy
By paydirt on 11/20/2012 5:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
huh? If you mandate stations to use only E15 instead of E10, then you are causing higher demand on ethanol (which is exclusively made from corn in the US). Therefore you are causing higher demand on corn. With supply constrained by acreage, then prices will go up.

It's economics stupid. Prices + additional demand w/o additional supply = higher prices. Corn will go up in price in relation to the price of oil.


RE: Bias and Inaccuracy
By rs2 on 11/20/2012 8:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that the move wouldn't affect demand or prices. In fact, I clearly stated:

quote:
The move has a consequence for prices, sure


...but the author of the article alleges that the mandate is being enforced *solely* with the intent of manipulating prices. Basically arguing that it's a huge government conspiracy.

So I'm not arguing that it will affect prices, I'm just saying that I don't believe the author's unsupported claim that the *purpose* of the mandate is to increase prices. Higher prices are a side-effect of the mandate, not its intended goal. Positing the contrary requires proof. Far more proof than what's provided in the article, at least.


So conflicted...
By ppardee on 11/19/2012 3:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hooray Obama Administration for not making special exceptions for special interest groups!

Boo Obama Administration for heavy-handed regulation!

The problem with this kind of regulation is that it doesn't take reality into account. Obama and the EPA have decided that they know what is best for 300+ million people even though they clearly don't have a clue.

This was the same thing you saw in Mao's Great Leap Forward and the Soviet Union. Sweeping orders were sent out and they expected them to be followed to the letter. The result was crops rotting in their silos (USSR) and all iron tools and cookware being turned into useless slag (China) because the government DOESN'T know better.

Corn is in just about everything. This is going to hurt poor families as gasoline, just about every cereal, cheap fruit juice and hundreds of other products go up in price. It's also going to increase the price of chicken, pork and beef.




RE: So conflicted...
By YashBudini on 11/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: So conflicted...
By ppardee on 11/20/2012 1:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Very little of what's happening today is 100% Obama's deal. The framework was laid over the last 100 years or so as 'progressives' and socialists get a progressively larger foothold in the federal government and pile on regulation. It's not Obama's fault that all of this stuff is there. It's his fault he's leveraging it to the detriment of the American people. It doesn't matter what other presidents have done, it doesn't make what HE is doing right.

So many see McCarthy as a bad guy, but tell me, can you name a communist country that hasn't committed mass murder of its own citizens in the name of progress and liberation? He was extreme and misguided, but he wasn't mistaken about the threat to the country.

But I wasn't talking about communism as a whole in my original post, just about governments who think they can issue a singular edict and have it cover all cases.


By GotThumbs on 11/19/2012 4:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
" the higher blend will ruin the engines of older vehicles, increasing emissions and forcing consumers to pay for expensive repairs or abandon their vehicles." Forcing you to buy a new car.

In a related note, I watched the movie "Obama's America 2016" this past weekend. I recommend it to all who like or hate Obama. The narrator/writer is an US Naturalized Indian-American who had a similar background/education as Obama. This is based on the research of an immigrant outsider looking at Obama's history growing up and his birth Fathers vision and perspective of his political beliefs. There is even an interview with one of Obama's many siblings. Knowledge is power.

I think it provides some incite into how Obama truly sees the world and the men who were mentors in the early years of the current sitting president. Obama wants bring down America to the level of other nations and and He sees even the poorest in the US as very well off, when compared to other nations. Obama's belief in redistribution of wealth is not a national vision, its a global vision. You will see many things become more apparent in the coming year alone. Hold on tight for the next four years....it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Best wishes for all in the coming years.




By YashBudini on 11/19/2012 4:45:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The narrator/writer is an US Naturalized Indian-American who had a similar background/education as Obama

Really? So where's his birth certificate?

quote:
I think it provides some incite

I'm sure it does, too bad it doesn't offer some insight, which is far more valuable.


I'm confused....
By NicodemusMM on 11/19/2012 9:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
The article states "The decision came as somewhat of a surprise. Many sources had expected the Obama administration to instead punt on the issue..."

Why would anyone think he would punt on this? Or anything else for that matter? The election is over. He's going to be in office for another 4 years. More if he can manage it. With no re-election to worry about he has no reason to hide or abstain from executing whatever it is he really wants. I hope it's peace and prosperity, but I expect something much different.




confusing to read
By JimKiler on 11/21/2012 1:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge the writer to edit this article. It took me 3 times to really understand what the first two paragraphs really mean.




Internet FIGHT!
By sweetca on 12/1/2012 7:51:00 PM , Rating: 1
Let us all agree:
1. Reagan was one of the greatest (recent) Presidents.
2. This article appears to have a slant, but then again this is a POV article, not a Peer review study or some other scholarly discussion.
3. Bush pissed away a lot of money with the help of Democrats. To be fair, they were scared of appearing to be weak, girly mean that were scared of blowing shit up like big strong Bush! Ironically, they were cowards for just being yes men - Patriot Act anyone? And please, I know, some parts of the Act are vital. But they deliberated 10 minutes to pass a 1,000 page bill. Derp.
5. Obama did inherit a mess, but he has shown incredible skill at making it even more F'd up.
5. There must be some sort of narrowing in scope of the content of these articles. It is fine if the site mods want to include Ethanol subsidies as part of that content, but the technology connection does seem a little tenuous. Seriously, almost everything involves technology.
5. I am saddened no one has invoked Godwin's Law




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki