The most amazing thing happened yesterday

[cardcounter0]

Of course, there is always "switch grass" research which would replace both corn and sugar. Bush spoke about this in his State of the Union Address. Prime land for growing switch grass crops is in South America. Hey, maybe that is why the Bush Crime Family is buying all that land there.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, there is always "switch grass" research which would replace both corn and sugar. Bush spoke about this in his State of the Union Address. Prime land for growing switch grass crops is in South America. Hey, maybe that is why the Bush Crime Family is buying all that land there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's better then Bush's other knee-jerk reaction.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

How fun it is to see a CardCounter post that isn't about Bush.
[ QUOTE ]
A while back farmers would cry "free market!" at the drop of a hat. Of course, when the government moved to drop price supports, stop buying surplus to stockpile, etc. they shut up real fast.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. They make money off prive supports, why wouldn't they? What's you're point?
[ QUOTE ]
Without government regulation, you would see the old drought, flood, wiping out farmers and then farmers boom and bust, too many bumper crops and the supply exceeds demand, etc. The government helps keep a consistent market, instead of feast or famine that you used to see in the old days.


[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of fear mongering with no substance. Are you going to take anytime to actually show why without government intervention the food market would just collapse?
[ QUOTE ]
Most wheat is traded in Kansas City. There a regulated exchange oversees the trading, so somebody can't corner the market, create artificial shortages, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, the cries of artificial shortages. Because that's how businesses make money, by producing less...
[ QUOTE ]
Today transportation of the wheat is usually done by railroad. These railroads were granted land

[/ QUOTE ]
This means nothing when you realise the claim to the land the government has isn't legitamate, and even if it was, them granting that land hurts someone anyways. I mean, I don't suppose you were too happy with the government granting Halliburton no bid contracts in Iraq, right?
[ QUOTE ]
by the government for their tracks, and benefit from many government regulations to keep them running cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]
Government doesn't make costs disappear, they just move them around. Government regulation costs taxpayers money, and it also hinders the market. What is so special about government regulations that private individuals wouldn't be able to figure out?
[ QUOTE ]
You might study some history, particularly the Old West, where the farmers today were granted the land from the government when the Kansas Territories where opened up, and how the railroads where able to link both coasts with government help.


[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell me how government help was superior to, any type of voluntary help?
[ QUOTE ]
You might study some of the old trading scams that were pulled with wheat, cotton, sugar, etc. That government regulations stopped the old boom/bust cycles that were pretty frequent back in the 1800s.


[/ QUOTE ]
Could such regulation only be enacted by force, and through government?


***overused strawman alert***
[ QUOTE ]
You might visit some third world, or not so third world countries, and see how that "free market" provides a very chaotic labor pool, and the "buyer beware" philosophy of eating in a resturant in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no respect for property rights in the third world, so there's not much "free market" to be had. And surely you don't think if only government intervention was used the place would instantly improve, do you?
[ QUOTE ]
It is really simple minded to chant "GOVERNMENT IS BAD".


[/ QUOTE ]
Beats the hell out of "GOVERNMENT HAS ANSWERED ALL OUR PROBLEMS" Unless of course, we're talking about Republicans that is.
[ QUOTE ]
Especially after you have taken advantage of all the infrastructure that the government has put into place (roads, railroads, markets, even a police force so you aren't killed on your way to work, etc.) Have a legal system so transactions can be conducted efficently (so buying a hamburger isn't like a cocaine deal which requires guns on both parties part, etc.)


[/ QUOTE ]
And again I'm forced to repeat myself from this very thread-
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Have the state monopolize production and stifle competition of all of the above then claim you owe the state. Interestingly enough everything you mentioned was first provided by a free market before the state's monopolization of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself why cocaine deals require guns. Can you tell me why?

I hope you can get back to me on this.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the government succeeded in making the hamburger more expensive then it had to be?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the government probably helped in getting the whole thing to happen.

Take the wheat for the bun, for example.

A while back farmers would cry "free market!" at the drop of a hat. Of course, when the government moved to drop price supports, stop buying surplus to stockpile, etc. they shut up real fast. Without government regulation, you would see the old drought, flood, wiping out farmers and then farmers boom and bust, too many bumper crops and the supply exceeds demand, etc. The government helps keep a consistent market, instead of feast or famine that you used to see in the old days.

Most wheat is traded in Kansas City. There a regulated exchange oversees the trading, so somebody can't corner the market, create artificial shortages, etc. Without a well regulated exchange, you would probably see the old Boom and Bust, shortage/glut, that you used to see with old commidities way back when.

Today transportation of the wheat is usually done by railroad. These railroads were granted land by the government for their tracks, and benefit from many government regulations to keep them running cheaply. Back in the old days, people pretty much used what was grown locally, there were not nationwide transportation networks to get things to market. You ate what food was available when it was in season.

You might study some history, particularly the Old West, where the farmers today were granted the land from the government when the Kansas Territories where opened up, and how the railroads where able to link both coasts with government help.

You might study some of the old trading scams that were pulled with wheat, cotton, sugar, etc. That government regulations stopped the old boom/bust cycles that were pretty frequent back in the 1800s.

You might visit some third world, or not so third world countries, and see how that "free market" provides a very chaotic labor pool, and the "buyer beware" philosophy of eating in a resturant in the first place.

It is really simple minded to chant "GOVERNMENT IS BAD".
Especially after you have taken advantage of all the infrastructure that the government has put into place (roads, railroads, markets, even a police force so you aren't killed on your way to work, etc.) Have a legal system so transactions can be conducted efficently (so buying a hamburger isn't like a cocaine deal which requires guns on both parties part, etc.)

Yeah, take advantage of all that, kick back, and proclaim "government is bad".


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know what futures are? If you don't, you have no business discussing this topic.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the cries of artificial shortages. Because that's how businesses make money, by producing less...

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare the standard Microeconomic model of monopoly output compared to a duopoly. The monopoly generates higher profit by producing less than the duopoly market would.

In a very specific sense, firms produce until their marginal costs are equal to their marginal revenues. So it's very obvious sometimes that firms would make more money by producing less.

Specifically relating to artificial shortages, a monopoly could produce where marginal costs are equal to demand (as would occur under perfect competition) and still be making profit. However, a monopoly does not do this; it will produce where its marginal costs equal its marginal revenue, which is necessarily an output less than previously described. So to maximize its profits the firm produces less than it could.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Today transportation of the wheat is usually done by railroad.These railroads were granted land by the government for their tracks, and benefit from many government regulations to keep them running cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you sure posted this in the wrong forum. The railroads that accepted government subsidies routinely built the worst tracks, over the longest routes (they received subsidies by the mile so they built fast and as cheaply as possible). Every one of them went bankrupt at some point during the late 1800s because cost overruns from having to fix crapilly installed tracks which couldn't stand up to higher loads and use (or even regular loads and use).
All of them except of course the

Great Norhtern
Which was built without subsidies, without using the army to kill or drive off the plains Indians (and even worked out compensation deals for putting the railroad through their land).


[ QUOTE ]
Without government regulation, you would see the old drought, flood, wiping out farmers and then farmers boom and bust, too many bumper crops and the supply exceeds demand, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a government buy sup surpluses they ensure that there will always be a bumper crop, and they ensure the biggest surpluses you can get. Until of course the land is exhauseted.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we could grow sugar (in the south maybe, I don't know enough about climates vis a vis Farming) and grow less Corn, we could actually rid ourselves of forign oil, that's not going to happen on Corn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know myself, but you didn't answer any of my questions. If they move off corn for ethanol, what happens to the people growing that corn? What happens the next time Iowa is wiped out? Will there still be Indiana and Ohio corn farmers without an ethanol market? With all the corn produced for ethanol keeping the price down, what happens to the price of all the other corn products if ethanol is removed?

Plus now your solution is going to require growing more sugar (down South or someplace?). So what happens to the stuff that this new sugar production displaces? Obviously the price of something is going to go up, because the land it is using is now going to be used for sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the corn growers will do what the cassette manufacturers are doing....presumably working at McDonalds?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we could grow sugar (in the south maybe, I don't know enough about climates vis a vis Farming) and grow less Corn, we could actually rid ourselves of forign oil, that's not going to happen on Corn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know myself, but you didn't answer any of my questions. If they move off corn for ethanol, what happens to the people growing that corn? What happens the next time Iowa is wiped out? Will there still be Indiana and Ohio corn farmers without an ethanol market? With all the corn produced for ethanol keeping the price down, what happens to the price of all the other corn products if ethanol is removed?

Plus now your solution is going to require growing more sugar (down South or someplace?). So what happens to the stuff that this new sugar production displaces? Obviously the price of something is going to go up, because the land it is using is now going to be used for sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the corn growers will do what the cassette manufacturers are doing....presumably working at McDonalds?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your sarcasm, but there is a small differnce here. First I imagine we're talking about more displaced farmers then manufactures (given the fact that factories can be converted, and there are more farmers). Secondly, those manufacturers had some shiftable skills, whereas farming is pretty specific.

Cody

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we could grow sugar (in the south maybe, I don't know enough about climates vis a vis Farming) and grow less Corn, we could actually rid ourselves of forign oil, that's not going to happen on Corn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know myself, but you didn't answer any of my questions. If they move off corn for ethanol, what happens to the people growing that corn? What happens the next time Iowa is wiped out? Will there still be Indiana and Ohio corn farmers without an ethanol market? With all the corn produced for ethanol keeping the price down, what happens to the price of all the other corn products if ethanol is removed?

Plus now your solution is going to require growing more sugar (down South or someplace?). So what happens to the stuff that this new sugar production displaces? Obviously the price of something is going to go up, because the land it is using is now going to be used for sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the corn growers will do what the cassette manufacturers are doing....presumably working at McDonalds?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your sarcasm, but there is a small differnce here. First I imagine we're talking about more displaced farmers then manufactures (given the fact that factories can be converted, and there are more farmers). Secondly, those manufacturers had some shiftable skills, whereas farming is pretty specific.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, there are very legitimate differences between the two situations. I'm just not sure any of them make any different to the point, which is that people who do things that other people don't need do not have some fundamental right to subsidization. That doesn't mean subsidization is always wrong, or that it isn't sometimes in our best interests to subsidize, it is just an attempt to deflate the "But what about the poor X!" style of argument.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of these uses was High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is fattening our nation at an alarming rate, but it's the other that really reeks of government corruption. They use it for Ethonol fuel. That's all well and good until you realize that Corn ethonol is useless compared to Sugar ethonol. The Corn lobby continues to push this and politicians follow suit. Kinda sad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not real sure what you mean by Corn ethonol is useless? You mean my car won't run if I use corn ethonol? Back in the day, my Grandfather used to brew some stuff from corn in a thing called a "still", I bet a car would run on that stuff.

I don't know anything about it, but before you get down too hard on the corn lobby, how many farmers and how many States grow corn? I remember one year when almost the entire State of Iowa's corn crop was wiped out by flood (which is where you assume most of the corn is grown) the price of corn really didn't budge, it seems the farmers of Indiana and Ohio pretty much picked up the slack by the loss of Iowa. I wonder if they would be able to do that without an ethonol market?

I have a couple of cans of corn in my cupboard. I wonder how much they would cost if corn wasn't being "subsidized" by ethanol?

Don't really know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm from Indiana, so my knowledge of the Corn industry is fairly extensive.

Also, by corn ethonol is useless, I meant it's ~9 times less efficient (energy used to make it -> energy it produces) then Sugar. If we could grow sugar (in the south maybe, I don't know enough about climates vis a vis Farming) and grow less Corn, we could actually rid ourselves of forign oil, that's not going to happen on Corn.

Don't get me wrong, I like corn, but there are changes that need to be made for better results.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Hemp fuel crushes sugar and corn both and it grows everywhere.