US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

Page 2 of 2  
On 6/25/2013 8:47 PM, jim beam wrote:


good year there will be 2 billion bu. at the end of the year
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/26/2013 07:14 AM, Pawalleye wrote:

yes, production has increased, but with the burning of food, so has consumption. last i read in the financial press, consumption has outstripped even increased production and grain reserves [the buffer between consumption and production which is supposed to see us through bad crop years] are at post-ww2 lows. low reserves increase price volatility [good for traders], but it's absolute freakin' insanity strategically.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/26/2013 8:07 AM, jim beam wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/26/2013 02:49 PM, cameo wrote:

no kidding. adm and cargill [one of the biggest scariest companies you've never heard of] completely dominate - you'd think that with their enormous buying power, companies like kelloggs and [former] hostess would have some kind of say in the grain markets, but the reality is that they have to kiss adm's/cargill's rear end. and make out they like it.
ethanol, that ridiculous political frankenstein, is grain market manipulation on steroids, all with taxpayer subsidy and lobbying corruption thrown in. the supremes kiss a$$ when it comes to business interests. and that's just a sorry fact.
<http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-upholds-class-action-waive-27367/ <http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/us-supreme-court-upholds-monsant.html and more famously: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html?_r=0
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Increased alcohol use by SCOTUS justices would explain it nicely.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/26/2013 1:49 AM, JRStern wrote:

More likely increased Koch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2013 10:49 PM, JRStern wrote:

virtually guarantees that some of them are serving in diminished mental capacity, with their staff making up the deficit. There should be a manadatory retirement age for government employees, just like for private business leaders.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/26/2013 1:20 PM, cameo wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/26/2013 11:46 AM, Pawalleye wrote:

That's being quite generous compared to most CEO's mandatory retirement age. Frankly, I would extend it to Congress as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/26/2013 02:53 PM, cameo wrote:

any congress-critter shouldn't have to worry about retirement age - they should all be strictly term limited. one term. same for the senate.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'd have no problem extending it to Congress, but at least they stand for reelection so in theory the people have a say.
I would certainly extend it to SCOTUS - 20 years or age 72 whichever comes first.
They get nutty after a while even if it's not exactly senility.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.