I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
arguments against EPA's push for E15:
Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the
millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:
1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car
after the old one gets ruined.
4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer
subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of
how grateful they are to their political appointers.
all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa
watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah,
the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.
Agribusiness lobby will not get righer. Corn growers and processors
probably will but, the season here (ND) was so late it maybe that all
the folks with corn may not get a good crop--we put in beans.
when i say "agribusiness", i mean the traders. those guys own the
market, and they make big bucks whatever way the market goes. and if
they can sell high priced corn from a poor crop into the ethanol
industry, which they also substantially own, with taxpayer subsidy, they
get even richer.
bottom line, burning food is either an act of war where you want to
starve your enemy, or it's a symptom of complete retardation. when
grain reserves are at their lowest since ww2, and when it's done by
government mandate, and when their actions are egged on by traders, most
of whom are really smart people, you really have to wonder whether some
kind of war isn't the actual objective. the british ruthlessly
exploited the irish potato famine for example.
we contract with the ethanol producer--that would be the normal rout. I
works that way for most of the crops grown up here. So oilseed
sunflower is contracted with Red River Commodities. Confectionery
sunflowers the contract is with the company that markets the final product.
ok, two things:
1. how is pricing set? spot at delivery? pre-agreed with no subsequent
market adjust? any hedging? if you're contracted at one price, and
they can re-sell at something higher, that's often what they'll do as
long as basic requirements are met.*
2. just because they're a processor doesn't mean they don't trade.
hersheys are big cocoa consumers, but they're also huge cocoa traders,
selling as well as buying and gaming the markets. the bigger the
player, the more pricing influence they have.
* here in kalifornistan when we had the enron traders manipulating our
electricity markets [with complete impunity], aluminum smelters shut
down because it was more profitable to re-sell their electricity to this
fine state than it was to stay in production.
Hedging is always a good thing to do because it protects the grower and
I can tell you that in "lean years" it has saved our butt. Usually
there is a trigger price but, if the market goes up then you get that
price. I know all about Enron--lost $200,000.00 to those guys. If
Skilling gets out I hope somebody finds him with some high velocity lead.
ok, good. guessing you didn't get screwed by that asshole corzine -
many farmers hedged with m.f. global and got thoroughly corn-holed.
it's not "if" - he's just had his sentence reduced:
justice would be better served by finding out who his friends are.
skilling was no great architect - but the lawyers and accountants that
devised the plans he followed sure were. and they're still walking
about scott free.
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.