Some grocery prices begin to climb

Quote :

"As the price of corn escalates — fueled by the demand for ethanol — meat prices are also on the rise. Corn serves as the primary feed for chickens, hogs and cattle. It is also the key component of ethanol gasoline, which is in high demand with the escalating gas prices. With a greater demand for ethanol gasoline comes a greater demand for corn, causing prices to shoot up from approximately $2 per bushel in 2006 to its current price of almost $4 per bushel."

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/06/23/latest_news/doc467ca6a4c5d5b301890450.txt

This means that a lot of cereal and snack food prices are going up, too--just in case some of you heads think that this doesn't matter. The munchies are going to cost you more, see?

6/27/2007 2:42:04 AM

[old]

6/27/2007 2:50:43 AM

^ This isn't Chit Chat. If you can't do any better than that, get the fuck out.

Run, dnl, run.

6/27/2007 2:52:31 AM

And what do you suppose we do to counter this? Oh that's right, you don't offer solutions. You just post snarky little threads with ambitions to discredit ideas of those evil progressive initiatives. I guess it's cool to keep burning dead dinosaurs at the expense of our air quality and environment as long as your ass has cheap food. Pathetic.

Oh and [old].

And where are your articles and rollyeyes decrying high fuel prices due to instability WE caused in the middle east by blowing up brown people? But I guess the Bush regime gets a free pass with you.



[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 4:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 4:37:03 AM

Quote :

"And where are your articles and rollyeyes decrying high fuel prices due to instability WE caused in the middle east by blowing up brown people? But I guess the Bush regime gets a free pass with you. "

GG.

Oh, and hooksaw, maybe I am the only one, but I view this as good.

Perhaps it will improve the overall health of the country, by making "cereal", "snack food", and "munchies" more expensive, shit that is responsible for the explosion in obesity and the dieseases it causes.

6/27/2007 4:50:51 AM

Well, economically speaking, while the price of corn (a healthy food) has gone up 100%, the price of munchies and meat are only fractionally linked to corn, since most of the price goes to cover labor and other unchanged production costs, so their prices are only going to rise 10%. If anything, this price shift in the market is going to push the poor to consume more junk food, since it is now relatively cheaper.

Quote :

"And what do you suppose we do to counter this?"

Easy, legalize the importation of Ethanol. The U.S. will import large quantities of Ethanol; the world price of ethanol will rise, increasing foreign production; the U.S. price of ethanol will fall, causing U.S. ethanol production to stop growing or fall; allowing corn prices (both domestic and international) to fall, bringing an end to the tortilla riots in Mexico, starvation in rural South America and Africa, and making healthy food cheaper in the U.S..

And yes, the ultimate fault of all this lies with Bush, whose invasion of Iraq removed a large chunk of worldwide production and thus sparked the whole energy price war. But now that we are here, it is inexcusable to continue a policy which causes the 3rd world's poor to starve, makes Americans poorer, destroys greenspace, and needlessly pollutes the environment with pesticides.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/27/2007 8:10:49 AM

Corn prices are going to continue to go up - which is why ethanol isn't the golden ticket like everyone wants it to be.

Even if farmers put all the land back into production the government has been paying them to keep bare, it still won't even touch the amount of corn ethanol plants will be using in 10 years. Ethanol is a bad alternative, but people don't care because they feel better about themselves for using it.

You can't ship it by pipeline (so it has to be trucked, using diesel), more foods have corn products in them than you think - and most importantly, other farmers are taking a hit because corn is what they feed their animals. So, in essence, you're helping a small minority of farmers at the expense of everyone else.

Oh, and don't forget in many developing countries, corn is a staple of their diet.



[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 8:20 AM. Reason : edit.]

6/27/2007 8:18:05 AM

Quote :

"Ethanol is a bad alternative, but people don't care because they feel better about themselves for using it. "

I don't agree they don't care because they "feel better about themselves". Your average (and even above average) citizen can't even begin to wrap their mind around the economic/social/environmental impact of a process to switch from dino to ethanol. Most folks get the most basic and generic message (whether it is right or wrong) that reliance on foreign oil is bad and that a home grown alternative is good. For most people it ends there.

If we'd shrink the government, get this back to a proper representative democracy where the people can trust their elected officials not to fuck up, and stop meddling in corporatism, the free market will sort this out for us.

6/27/2007 10:07:06 AM

That's a big if; it's not going to happen unless we have a revolution here or the revolution happens somewhere else and shames Americans into action.

The Divinization of Democracy has been complete; the people have been brainwashed to worship democracy and condemn anything standing in its way. As such, even if we convince everyone that our current democracies are producing bad outcomes, convincing them the fault lies with the concept of Democracy is impossible; they will instead place blame on politicians, the people, or even God, but not the system which incentivises politicians and the people to be corrupt.

But this campaign is at least possible. What you need to do is flood the tv with commercials calling the high terriffs on imported Ethanol a form of corporate corruption, making ADM filthy rich at the expense of the American people and poor people. True, no one here is willing to pay for this campaign, since the politicians cannot get elected on it and no company will profit from it; maybe we could get the Brazillians to pay for it.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/27/2007 10:24:21 AM

Quote :

"You can't ship it by pipeline (so it has to be trucked, using diesel), "

it can be shipped by pipeline, but not by existing petroleum pipelines. don't go around spewing propaganda that you don't understand.

6/27/2007 10:27:31 AM

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/4EE0E81C-C607-4C3F-BBCF-B75B7395C881/0/ksupipelineethl.pdf

^he might technically be wrong, but the logistics for an ethanol pipeline are so outrageous, it might as well be impossible.

6/27/2007 10:32:43 AM

Quote :

"I guess it's cool to keep burning dead dinosaurs at the expense of our air quality and environment as long as your ass has cheap food. Pathetic"

now there's an issue, save the planet or let hungry people in poor countries starve

you people are going to have to choose something

but letting the poor get poorer and hungrier doesn't seem to be a fair trade off just because Al Gore tells us that the polar bears are gonna die

6/27/2007 10:33:31 AM

^not to mention ethonol doesn't really help the climate situation, while simulaneously worsening the food problem......its a lose, lose.

6/27/2007 10:41:10 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps it will improve the overall health of the country, by making "cereal", "snack food", and "munchies" more expensive, shit that is responsible for the explosion in obesity and the dieseases it causes."

That philosophy applies for developed countries such as the US, but in third world countries where corn is a life sustaining staple, a global rise in corn prices is going to be devastating.

A slight reduction in fossil fuel consumption does not justify taking food away from people.

6/27/2007 10:44:22 AM

Quote :

"The Divinization of Democracy has been complete; the people have been brainwashed to worship democracy and condemn anything standing in its way. As such, even if we convince everyone that our current democracies are producing bad outcomes, convincing them the fault lies with the concept of Democracy is impossible; they will instead place blame on politicians, the people, or even God, but not the system which incentivises politicians and the people to be corrupt."

As opposed to what?

I'm a fan of a republic, not a straight democracy, and our system at present is pretty disfunctional, but I'm not sure what you are driving at here.

6/27/2007 10:47:46 AM

Can corn grow all over the world? Can these third world countries, that are agrarian anyway switch to corn production to capitalize on the rising corn prices?

6/27/2007 10:51:44 AM

yeah they can grow it in 120 degree heat with arid rocky soil and sandstorms all day

6/27/2007 10:53:39 AM

but then a good percentage of the same nutjobs will complain because we'd send genetically altered corn seed to these places that can't grow normal corn crops due to drought, insects, or diseases


hungry people don't care about genetically altered corn and I'd be willing to bet that they don't care about "global warming" either

6/27/2007 10:56:49 AM

Quote :

"but then a good percentage of the same nutjobs will complain because we'd send genetically altered corn seed to these places that can't grow normal corn crops due to drought, insects, or diseases "

Eh? Who are these people you are referring to? Link?

6/27/2007 10:58:33 AM

JCASHFAN: The usual depressing conclusion "no matter how dysfunctional the system gets, it is all we are ever going to have."

Blind Hate: Corn cannot grow everywhere and there is simply not enough furtile farm land for enough production.

That said, if the 3rd world managed to excape its current socio-political system and actually develop economically, thus bringing Mexican farm yields in-line with American farm yields, that would go a long way to feeding America's demand for corn.

Or, we could stop praying for the impossible and accept the reality that if we want Ethanol sugarcane is the best place to get it.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/27/2007 11:02:14 AM

oops

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 11:03:59 AM

Why you can't ship ethanol by pipeline:

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/4EE0E81C-C607-4C3F-BBCF-B75B7395C881/0/ksupipelineethl.pdf

and about starving people and the GM corn: (from the first page of a google search)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1114/p12s01-woaf.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DE163EF937A3575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=health

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N34/long_4_34.34w.html

6/27/2007 11:06:10 AM

but it sounds good! the words "alternative energies" just sound good! i dont know the details but the buzzword sounds good!

6/27/2007 11:08:37 AM

^^ Oh, I see, so one leader of one third world country complained about GM corn, and we have a collection of "nutjobs" that are complaining? Are there more countries that you didn't link to?

6/27/2007 11:12:04 AM

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: The usual depressing conclusion "no matter how dysfunctional the system gets, it is all we are ever going to have.""

Fair enough. Read this month's Foreign Affairs though, it talks about the rise of authoritarian capitalism and draws some interesting conclusions.

Democracy is like being on a sports team, you get out of it what you put into it. There are a lot of benchwarmers in the United States right now.

6/27/2007 11:14:17 AM

considering food prices haven't increased that much in 20 years we shouldn't really be bitching...

tho having to pay taxes on food is complete bullshit

6/27/2007 12:42:06 PM

^ thats because the government has a "cheap food" subsidy policy.

the reason inflation hasn't hit food like it has on other things is because your tax dollars are going to farmers and processors to keep prices low. essentially, you are paying more for food, but in a round-about way.

6/27/2007 12:46:24 PM

^ That is true for some crops. But most of the governments money is going to keep food prices high by paying farmers not to farm or buying up surpluses.

6/27/2007 1:00:35 PM

To LoneSnark: Livestock feed is not a fixed cost. And the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other organizations disagree with you about increased food costs as a result of increased ethanol production being passed along to consumers:

Grocery Manufacturers Want End to Ethanol Tariff and Subsidy

Quote :

"Consumers have already seen an increase in the cost of food, as corn traditionally used for livestock feed and processed food is increasingly used for fuel. In fact, the price of corn has nearly doubled in the last nine months."

http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Grocery_Manufacturers_Want_End_to_Ethanol_Tariff_and_Subsidy-44251.html

6/28/2007 1:50:43 AM

What I said was: "the price of munchies and meat are only fractionally linked to corn, since most of the price goes to cover labor and other unchanged production costs, so their prices are only going to rise 10%"

So I did not say feed was a "fixed" cost, I said it was a fraction of the cost, implying total cost. This is why while corn as a bulk item has doubled in price, the price of canned corn has only gone up 10%, and corn derivatives like meat has only gone up 4%. This is because most of the cost of a can of corn is the canning process and putting it on store shelves, not the corn itself.

6/28/2007 7:51:38 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps it will improve the overall health of the country, by making "cereal", "snack food", and "munchies" more expensive, shit that is responsible for the explosion in obesity and the dieseases it causes. "

6/28/2007 8:25:56 AM

^Didn't somebody in here say that this is actually going to make junk food relatively cheaper now? So isn't that actually going to worsen our obesity epidemic?

6/28/2007 9:11:24 AM

Quote :

"Or, we could stop praying for the impossible and accept the reality that if we want Ethanol sugarcane is the best place to get it."

If we cut back on the sugar tariffs, we could make ethanol much more efficiently, reduce the impact on food prices, and possibly even reduce the heavy use of high fructose corn syrup in our foods. Doesn't play well in Iowa, though.

6/28/2007 9:43:58 AM

Quote :

"Last week, the Senate passed an energy bill mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2022—a sevenfold increase over current levels."

Quote :

"The Senate's ethanol mandate will increase the consumption of corn, the single most subsidized crop in America. In 2005 alone, according to the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. By increasing ethanol production—and thus corn production and consumption—the mandate will likely cost taxpayers extra billions both in the form of higher subsidy payments and higher food costs. But set aside the budget concerns for a practical one. How much ethanol can be produced from corn?"

Quote :

"According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, distillers can produce about 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn. In 2006, U.S. farmers produced about 10.5 billion bushels of the grain. So, even if Congress mandated that all of America's corn be turned into ethanol, it would yield only about 28.3 billion gallons, far less than the mandated volume. And, clearly, most of America's corn is still going to be used for animal feed, family barbecues, and high-fructose corn syrup."

This is an excerpt from a great story on Slate.com http://www.slate.com/id/2169124/

There is also an podcast version on itunes.

6/28/2007 11:13:47 AM

Can someone explain again why we keep the sugar tariff?

6/28/2007 11:19:40 AM

^ bribes

6/28/2007 11:32:24 AM

^^ Eliminating it "Doesn't play well in Iowa"

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ^ is a secondary influence]

6/28/2007 11:43:34 AM

From this^^^ article:

Quote :

"So, what about using more ethanol from sugar cane? Well, the United States could, at least in theory, grow more cane. But that wouldn't make much sense, given that Brazil can produce it at far lower cost. And, thanks to pressure from farm-state senators, Congress has effectively limited the use of Brazilian ethanol with its $0.54 per-gallon tariff on foreign ethanol."

i.e.

Quote :

"Doesn't play well in Iowa."

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 1:16:47 PM

STOP FEEDING CORN TO THE MOTHERFUCKING LIVESTOCK, FOR STARTERS

at least the cows. COWS EAT GRASS, NOT GRAIN.

and get rid of high fructose corn syrup all together

Then we can see how much more we need to deal with this.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 1:31:30 PM

If you put all the livestock on free range you would not have enough food to eat. So you can forget that idea. Cattle can eat 10% of there body weight a day. In grass that is a lot of grass to be comsumed. Nice try I would say stop using corn for ethanol when there are other plants that can be converted into ethanol easier and cheaper.

6/28/2007 1:36:24 PM

^,^^ i agree with both of you in ways...

high fructose corn syrup should be phased out somehow...

corn fed cattle (grain) grows bigger and better than just grass fed... now if you could feed them kudzu with no ill effects we would have solved our problem...

6/28/2007 1:47:42 PM

Simple we call that animal a GOAT!! Eat more goats they require less food and they eat anything.

6/28/2007 3:11:33 PM

This is why the gov needs to stay out of the open markets

6/28/2007 3:15:45 PM

Quote :

"If you put all the livestock on free range you would not have enough food to eat. So you can forget that idea. Cattle can eat 10% of there body weight a day. In grass that is a lot of grass to be comsumed. Nice try I would say stop using corn for ethanol when there are other plants that can be converted into ethanol easier and cheaper."

Obviously you're right, but we shouldn't be eating so much meat. Meat should be a rare thing, from grass-fed cattle, and we should eat more legumes, beans, and high-protein grains. Ethanol is a joke, especially from corn,so don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that if we would change the way we did one thing, it would make the other thing simpler.

6/28/2007 3:42:32 PM

The problem is that people want to be green and use ethanol so they get on the corn ethanol band wagon. Sadly this is the first technology that they have developed and its not to most effective. I agree that we eat to much meat. I eat alot because growing up we ate what we had on our farm and hogs chickens and cattle the only expense was the butchering of the cattle.

6/28/2007 3:46:14 PM

Quote :

"Obviously you're right, but we shouldn't be eating so much meat. Meat should be a rare thing, from grass-fed cattle, and we should eat more legumes, beans, and high-protein grains."

Oh for chrissakes. I'll eat whatever damn meat I please. Who the hell are you to dictate to me what is "so much meat"? Hippie.

Quote :

"^^ Eliminating it "Doesn't play well in Iowa" [Edited on June 28, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ^ is a secondary influence]"

So we are letting a few ghey senators from Iowa dictate the entire country? What the hell?

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : hippoe]

6/28/2007 3:59:12 PM

We can't produce enough corn in this country to supply the needs of ethanol. All this will do is further increase the price of corn and other foods that are in similar markets. Meat prices will also increase. This inst terribly bad. The US spends the least amount of money on food than any other country in the world.

6/28/2007 4:09:48 PM

Quote :

"and get rid of high fructose corn syrup all together"

DirtyGreek

I certainly agree with that concerning soft drinks. Shit, I didn't ever ask them to start putting that damn syrup in there anyway--Coke and all the others taste better when made with sugar. And I don't care that they say you can't taste the difference--I can!

Quote :

"So I did not say feed was a 'fixed' cost, I said it was a fraction of the cost, implying total cost. This is why while corn as a bulk item has doubled in price, the price of canned corn has only gone up 10%, and corn derivatives like meat has only gone up 4%. This is because most of the cost of a can of corn is the canning process and putting it on store shelves, not the corn itself."

LoneSnark

I did mix my disciplines a bit there--accounting and economics. I simply meant that corn as a resource in the input-transformation-output process obviously fluctuates in price. It is not a fixed cost like, say, the lease payment, which will stay the same no matter how many units are produced.

At some point, the continually increasing cost of corn as an input has to be passed along to consumers. I mean, if corn demand is up and corn supply is down, the corn price will increase.

6/29/2007 2:52:31 AM

why didnt you make this thread like 6 months ago

6/29/2007 2:56:00 AM

^ Um. . .I was too busy with the Al Gore thread?

6/29/2007 3:07:09 AM