US Corn Yields Predicted to be Lowest in 17 Years

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/b...?_r=1&hp&gwh=109CFAAEC61E37CE9FB3647E61E48ADB

If you understand (1) corn subsidies and (2) how much of an influence this can have on the economy, please discuss.

Will we see:
a) additional government spending in order to keep the cost of goods artificially low and keep us buying the bullshit "food" we do?

b) price hikes in all of those areas, making a lot of food completely unaffordable or more difficult to afford?

c) something else?
 
End the subsidies and let the price rise even higher. You'll see consumers substitute away from processed food after that first grocery bill.
 
We'll probably see a cutback in subsidies somewhat. But I imagine this will get companies to import other goods as alternatives to corn because of the increase in prices, promoting some variety in what we intake.

I still think as a country we need to get off of intaking so much corn products, because they're really not all that healthy in the amounts that we consume them.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']You mean I might get some actual sugar in my sodas now?[/QUOTE]

Doubtful, because most of the major soft drink manufacturers sign long term contracts assuring they get their corn or corn syrup at a set price. However, I'm sure they'll pass the "rising cost" on to consumers.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Doubtful, because most of the major soft drink manufacturers sign long term contracts assuring they get their corn or corn syrup at a set price. However, I'm sure they'll pass the "rising cost" on to consumers.[/QUOTE]

And that'd be surprising because...?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']

I still think as a country we need to get off of intaking so much corn products, because they're really not all that healthy in the amounts that we consume them.[/QUOTE]

This.

I know spending more for stuff goes against CAG creed but there is way too much corn in our diet.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Repubs to my guess wouldn't like the idea of government spending money to that us po' folk can continue to stuff our faces with tasty treats.[/quote]

That sounds sensible, but keep in mind that Republicans LOOOOOOOOOOVE spending if it's supply side. When you see people buy shit with their welfare cards that makes you wanna fucking kill (e.g., sodas, gummy bears, burger king, etc.), it's so win-win for Republicans. They increased access for businesses to accept EBT (but few people know that). For them, businesses should have equal access to EBT funds, and consumers should have open choices. It helps put more money in the hands of mega corporations when someone spends their welfare money at McDonalds (yay for Republicans) and it increases outrage at the use of welfare (yay for Republicans). It's devilishly brilliant politics, actually.

Anyway, they love corn subsidies because it allows companies to buy corn *below* the actual cost of production. Farmers get the subsidies, then they can sell it to, say, Kraft for inclusion in their thousands of food products as HFCS for less than it cost them to grow. The savings are passed onto the consumer (one major reason - the other being shelf life - why shitty processed food is cheaper by far than fresh, healthy food). So Republicans love the subsidies, because it allows the economy to chug along at a smooth and even pace (and help their re-election efforts because when Papa John sells 2-liters for $2.50 that cost him less than 50¢ to purchase because the subsidies absorbed the cost of producing said 2-liter, that's a lot of profit he can pass on to them in the form of PAC donations and campaign funds).

And it's a political trap because the moment any politician suggests ending subsidies, they're "putting farmers out of business" or "hurting American families" or somesuch. Which is silly, since the corn would still be sold, but that 99¢ 2-liter is gonna be priced accordingly (i.e., what it costs to produce.)

I doubt anything will change any time soon.
Click to expand...

Subsidies won't go down, that's for sure. I'd be surprised if they didn't go up, though (so 2-liters are still bought).

[quote name='Spokker']End the subsidies and let the price rise even higher. You'll see consumers substitute away from processed food after that first grocery bill.[/QUOTE]

But it won't turn us into a healthy people just yet. There's a demonstrated link b/w the cost of cigarettes and declining numbers of Americans who smoke. But it's a weak link overall. This would be much the same, I suspect - we wouldn't see people buy fewer sodas until 24 packs begin to cost $8 and up. People still won't shop along the perimeter of the grocery store (where the bulk of the good food tends to be).

[quote name='kill3r7']Doubtful, because most of the major soft drink manufacturers sign long term contracts assuring they get their corn or corn syrup at a set price. However, I'm sure they'll pass the "rising cost" on to consumers.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, yes, futures. Good point. They'll rise the price before they begin actually paying said higher price, though. A very cynical point, but well made.
 
Getting corn out of peoples' diets, or at least reducing it from where levels are at right now, is a good start to get people more healthy over the long term. I think I saw a graph correlating the rise of corn in food in the US in relation to obesity somewhere, although that might just be my imagination.
 
This wouldn't be an issue if we weren't plying our food on countries that need it via FTA's that deliberately seek to make countries unable to feed themselves.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/free_trade_kills_korean_farmers

Case in point Haiti's situation as well when Jean Bertrand-Aristeed was allowed by the U.S. to be reinstated. He had to approve a bullshit FTA that led to the current conditions of Haiti without food that we see now. The reason those Haitians can't feed themselves is because, by cheaper prices for American food, we sabotaged the land.

We need to stop the subsidies and stop exporting as much food. If these other countries were allowed to have tariffs on food we would stop wasting so much oil in transportation costs alone. Yes I know I'm about the free market but food should be completely exempt.
Having food as a bargaining chip slants the table too much in terms of a fair exchange.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']This wouldn't be an issue if we weren't plying our food on countries that need it via FTA's that deliberately seek to make countries unable to feed themselves.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/free_trade_kills_korean_farmers

Case in point Haiti's situation as well when Jean Bertrand-Aristeed was allowed by the U.S. to be reinstated. He had to approve a bullshit FTA that led to the current conditions of Haiti without food that we see now. The reason those Haitians can't feed themselves is because, by cheaper prices for American food, we sabotaged the land.

We need to stop the subsidies and stop exporting as much food. If these other countries were allowed to have tariffs on food we would stop wasting so much oil in transportation costs alone. Yes I know I'm about the free market but food should be completely exempt.
Having food as a bargaining chip slants the table too much in terms of a fair exchange.[/QUOTE]

Your post is detailing government intervention in the farming and food markets, then your conclusion is that we can't have a free market in food because of the government intervention in farming and exporting/importing food that requires more government intervention in farming and food?
 
Re: Fuel (ethanol) prices - what are the odds this could help drive prices up enough that we could get something passed allowing the cultivation of hemp for the purposes of producing fuel?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Re: Fuel (ethanol) prices - what are the odds this could help drive prices up enough that we could get something passed allowing the cultivation of hemp for the purposes of producing fuel?[/QUOTE]

You think the Free Market cowards known as Dupont would allow that since it would open the door to jeopardize the racket they created by pushing their overpriced Hemp alternative known as Nylon?

But Feeding, those Free Trade agreements just loosen up regulations. ;-P

But seriously food should be an exception and tariffs should be kept. Maybe if not for these bullshit FTA's not as many people in the world would be starving now.
 
The government needs to suspend the use of ethanol in gasoline for the next year. What many people don't realize in the western world is that many countries depend on corn exports. This is much worse than the last shortage a couple of years ago.

You would be surprised what hungry people will do. There will be food riots, governments will be overthrown, and people will starve.
 
[quote name='confoosious']so was that supposed to be funny?[/QUOTE]

The bit is a classic and the comedian who performed it is a legend.
 
No, we don't need to stop ethanol production, we need to make it with something that we don't already need for food, like switchgrass. Besides, corn isn't even the most efficient way of making ethanol, in Brazil they user sugar cane I think. Look forward to higher fuel prices though, because now it isn't just oil prices getting factored in, it's going to be rising ethanol prices too.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The bit is a classic and the comedian who performed it is a legend.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know who Sam Kinison is.

But that wasn't funny at all.
 
[quote name='Clak']No, we don't need to stop ethanol production, we need to make it with something that we don't already need for food, like switchgrass. Besides, corn isn't even the most efficient way of making ethanol, in Brazil they user sugar cane I think. Look forward to higher fuel prices though, because now it isn't just oil prices getting factored in, it's going to be rising ethanol prices too.[/QUOTE]

Using Sugar is an extremely efficient way to make Ethanol. Unfortunately now I believe they may have torn down Rainforest for more land they can use to plant Sugar Cane right?
The best way to handle getting off the teat of Oil and making a reasonable alternative solution is twofold. For ANYTHING on rails, convert it to electric. I know that rail cars are extremely efficient with gasoline but why do that when we can get so much more of an efficient yield with electric. Secondary for the transportation that is off rail like Semi's we need them to get a huge fucking design overhaul. Even a few miles would be a huge improvement and would drop the yield by an easy 100K or more barrels. There's also something to be said about raking people over the coals who make recycled products in China from recycled stuff shipped there.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Getting corn out of peoples' diets, or at least reducing it from where levels are at right now, is a good start to get people more healthy over the long term. I think I saw a graph correlating the rise of corn in food in the US in relation to obesity somewhere, although that might just be my imagination.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

Would be hard to prove that trend line though as the rise of HFCS would coincide with other factors like increase of sedentary lifestyles with decline of manufacturing jobs and rise of computer jobs, overall increase in eating processed foods etc.

But studies show HFCS tends to lead to weight gain more than sugar--which is already not good for you. So any move away from HFCS being in damn near everything would be a positive change.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Using Sugar is an extremely efficient way to make Ethanol. Unfortunately now I believe they may have torn down Rainforest for more land they can use to plant Sugar Cane right?
The best way to handle getting off the teat of Oil and making a reasonable alternative solution is twofold. For ANYTHING on rails, convert it to electric. I know that rail cars are extremely efficient with gasoline but why do that when we can get so much more of an efficient yield with electric. Secondary for the transportation that is off rail like Semi's we need them to get a huge fucking design overhaul. Even a few miles would be a huge improvement and would drop the yield by an easy 100K or more barrels. There's also something to be said about raking people over the coals who make recycled products in China from recycled stuff shipped there.[/QUOTE]Well technically most trains are electric, it's just that they're powered by a diesel generator. Finding a different fuel for that generator would be a good step in the right direction.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Yes, its complete bullshit that we are still driving cars that only get 25-30 mpg. We have enough engineers and scientist that we should have been able to come up with a much better design by now.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt Obama the president that finally said enough is enough and made a standard high mpg for modern cars? Its been awhile but I thought he did that very early in his presidentacy.

Cars have been a racket for a while....the fact that MOST of the country has piss poor public transportation says a lot. I grew up in Detroit, we have a train station that has been shut down for generations because they dont want anyone using alternate forms of transportation.[/QUOTE]
Fuel mileage standards were increased I believe, to what I can't remember. I know car manufacturers bitched about it.

We don't even have to make ethanol from one sole source, you can use basically anything than contains some amount of sugar to make it. So if one thing grows well in one part of the country but not another, plant some in that area that will grow and that we can use to make ethanol. That's why some people were pushing to use switchgrass, cause the stuff grows so easily, and we don't eat it. We only use corn because corn farmers have such power here.
 
You are better off taxing pollution than imposing regulations like mpg requirements. Here's an old but good article that explains why.

http://econlib.org/library/Enc1/Energy.html

That was 1990 and we are still talking about this in 2011, so it's not really something that is going to change anytime soon. Congress is full of lawyers and lawyers tend to favor regulations.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08...e-second-best-solution-to-a-gas-tax-increase/

Taxing pollution, or the behavior that causes pollution, can be done in several ways and each has their own pros and cons. We have a gas tax and that could simply be raised. There's also a vehicle mileage tax but this requires tracking or self-reporting. I think self-reporting could be done on your income tax return.

Of course, there is no political capital left to spend tackling this issue.
 
Cap and tax Spokker?! fuck no unless all that money goes towards liability money paid out to those individuals suffering medical ailments like bronchitis, asthma and other things who live near coal plants and other polluters as such. If you're talking about Cap and Tax and the bullshit carbon BUBBLE they want to create then fuck no!!!!
 
[quote name='Clak']No, we don't need to stop ethanol production, we need to make it with something that we don't already need for food, like switchgrass.[/QUOTE]

Ditto.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I think that in the short term it is most productive to simply raise the gas tax.

The federal gas tax is one of the few taxes that I think we need to raise, and we should have done it a while ago. Even some in the auto industry are advocating for this.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/feat...tax-one-auto-dealer-says-yes-please--20120809

"Cap and tax," as you call it, is something I wouldn't push for right now as a practical matter.[/QUOTE]

This would be a terrible short term solution since it would increase the costs of goods across the board not to mention piss off folks who have long commutes. Keep in a mind that a large part of the country still has to use a car to get around.
 
"some in the auto industry" = a dude who owns a Chevy dealership.

That tax increase makes the Volt more appealing.

So, in the end, "some in the auto industry are advocating for this" is rather redundant when you consider that what they are advocating makes the products they offer the market more appealing, and what the competitors offer the market less appealing.

so, yeah. breaking news there.
 
So don't tax people who are burning hundreds to light their cigars, but raise a tax that direcrtly effects the middle and lower class? Brilliant, absolutely, diabolically, brilliant.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"some in the auto industry" = a dude who owns a Chevy dealership.

That tax increase makes the Volt more appealing.

So, in the end, "some in the auto industry are advocating for this" is rather redundant when you consider that what they are advocating makes the products they offer the market more appealing, and what the competitors offer the market less appealing.

so, yeah. breaking news there.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of the Volt, Myke, am I the only one who finds it pathetic that GM isn't even giving an electric only option, Ford being the only one out of the American car makers.
Mitsubishi has the "i-MiEV" and Nissan has the "Leaf". Although if it's true what has been said about Nissan's ownership this may mean two electric only vehicles coming from Ford.
 
if I didn't live in a place where your 7 mile commute can turn into a 3hr nightmare of snow in the span of an hour, I'd totally be saving my pennies for a Tesla. Such as it is, I tend to buy a 4x4 beater for the winter and junk it come summer time.
 
Given how short your commute is you could actually buy the Volt, it would benefit you. I'd just encourage you to buy the other one's that I mentioned though.

As for the Tesla I would fuck that car if I could. What a sexy car, at least the original model.

The sad thing about them using Lithium Ion as their batteries is that there's already a superior battery tech from 123Systems. I don't think this will be launched until they've fully milked Lithium Ion though.
 
I'm not much interested in electric only cars. Even with a short daily commute I want the ability to drive a few hours to do stuff outside the city without shelling out to rent a car.

So a plug in hybrid like the volt appeals to me for my next car (which is years away hopefully).

Only way I'd get an electric only is maybe once I'm settled down and married etc. and had one regular or hybrid car and one pure electric car just for driving around the city.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']This might be really stupid....but is there a reason why we cant use solar power for cars? I mean, we do have that star floating outside that seems to be source of decents amounts of power.[/QUOTE]
The car's batteries would run out of power quicker than a car sized solar cell could recharge it. There have been solar powered cars built, but they were extremely small and light, not practical at all at the moment.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']This might be really stupid....but is there a reason why we cant use solar power for cars? I mean, we do have that star floating outside that seems to be source of decents amounts of power.[/QUOTE]

As Clak correctly stated above the technology just isn't there yet.
 
Simple reductio ad absurdism version:
Sun don't shine 24 hours

Slightly more complex version of that:
solar energy through photovoltaic cells doesn't store well and is more for instant use. Also, and I'm not fully versed on how this works outside of guitar amps to speakers, the ohmage/amperage/voltage/wattage makes it not very suitable for long distance transmission.

The best use of solar energy (on a large scale) remains heat energy which will boil water producing electricity through steam turbines. Steam energy is what powers more than 90% (either coal or nuclear) of our current electricity. Instead of constantly burning coal, supplimenting with solar energy would be ideal.
On a smaller scale, putting a PV slab on your roof will eventually become very commonplace. There's no transmission loss and if it's a brutally sunny day amidst a summer long drought excess energy gets exported to the grid (AC/DC) and reduces your power consumption to 0 even if you're running the A/C on your house to make it snow inside. The wiring gets done by an electrical contractor and the installation of the PV can be done by yourself if you're handy with power tools and have a way to get the damn thing on your roof (they're really effin' heavy) or with a general contractor.


http://www.amazon.com/Sunforce-37126-260W-Crystalline-Solar/dp/B004LWXSHA/ref=pd_sbs_auto_2
I mean hell, why not? Only $900 + install to more or less remove your fridge from your power bill.

Sarang - I already have a heavy as hell family sedan that spins tires in 3" of snow. No way in hell would I try an even lighter electric in those conditions. Note: I'm not saying to hell with puny electric cars because I want a 3/4 Ton Pickup. I just don't want to get stuck in the snow because something is very light.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what we need is a really big freaking parabolic mirror to focus the sun's rays onto a holding tank of water, which will in turn boil and the steam will turn the turbine. There, I just solved the energy crisis. ;)
 
[quote name='Clak']So what we need is a really big freaking parabolic mirror to focus the sun's rays onto a holding tank of water, which will in turn boil and the steam will turn the turbine. There, I just solved the energy crisis. ;)[/QUOTE]
And what happens on a cloudy day? TROLL'D BIATCH:booty:
 
[quote name='Clak']So what we need is a really big freaking parabolic mirror to focus the sun's rays onto a holding tank of water, which will in turn boil and the steam will turn the turbine. There, I just solved the energy crisis. ;)[/QUOTE]

http://energy.sandia.gov/?page_id=1267

They beat you to it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well we can probably look forward to higher prices for fuel containing ethanol, great.[/QUOTE]
Whose bright idea was it to put ethanol in the frickin' gasoline in the first damn place? Every time I fill up with gas mixed with 10%(or more) of that corn alcohol shit, I swear it burns off faster than my interest in the current political shenanigans in Washington.

Back when gas was $1 a gallon in the 90's, I'd put $5-10 in my car and have that for the whole week of going all over creation just about. Now it seems like the piss water they call gas now evaporates as it's going in your tank.
 
[quote name='nasum']Simple reductio ad absurdism version:
Sun don't shine 24 hours

Slightly more complex version of that:
solar energy through photovoltaic cells doesn't store well and is more for instant use. Also, and I'm not fully versed on how this works outside of guitar amps to speakers, the ohmage/amperage/voltage/wattage makes it not very suitable for long distance transmission.

The best use of solar energy (on a large scale) remains heat energy which will boil water producing electricity through steam turbines. Steam energy is what powers more than 90% (either coal or nuclear) of our current electricity. Instead of constantly burning coal, supplimenting with solar energy would be ideal.
On a smaller scale, putting a PV slab on your roof will eventually become very commonplace. There's no transmission loss and if it's a brutally sunny day amidst a summer long drought excess energy gets exported to the grid (AC/DC) and reduces your power consumption to 0 even if you're running the A/C on your house to make it snow inside. The wiring gets done by an electrical contractor and the installation of the PV can be done by yourself if you're handy with power tools and have a way to get the damn thing on your roof (they're really effin' heavy) or with a general contractor.


http://www.amazon.com/Sunforce-37126-260W-Crystalline-Solar/dp/B004LWXSHA/ref=pd_sbs_auto_2
I mean hell, why not? Only $900 + install to more or less remove your fridge from your power bill.

Sarang - I already have a heavy as hell family sedan that spins tires in 3" of snow. No way in hell would I try an even lighter electric in those conditions. Note: I'm not saying to hell with puny electric cars because I want a 3/4 Ton Pickup. I just don't want to get stuck in the snow because something is very light.[/QUOTE]

Well there was originally some info I saw on an electric SUV that got good electric distance and was suppose to be up in the 100's of miles to the charge at $50K. Called the Zap-X but I believe they're made in China. X-(

Now dmaul I'm disappointed in you. The issue with the Volt is the battery is only 30 mpc which means you will still get fucked over strongly on gas prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top