Rescind The Ethanol Mandate

[Nirvana]

A new major study on ethanol put the nail in the coffin of anyone who was dumb enough to hang on the notion that the nation is well served by the ethanol mandate. Among the findings:

• Ethanol, because its energy cost is higher than gasoline and because of its negative effect on fuel mileage, added about $14.5 billion, or 10 cents a gallon, to motorists' fuel costs in 2011.
• Increased ethanol production since 2007 has had no effect on gasoline production or oil imports. Contrary to supporters' claims, oil imports have declined not because of increased ethanol production but because of increased domestic crude oil production and higher refinery yields.
• Corn used for ethanol production rose 300% from 2005 to 2011, increasing from 1.6 billion bu. to 5 billion. (Ethanol production now uses more than 40% of the U.S. annual corn supply.)
• Corn now represents about 80% of the cost of producing ethanol compared with 40-50% before implementation of the mandate.
• Corn prices jumped to more than $6 a bu. in 2011 from $2 in 2005.
• The rate of change for the Consumer Price Index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs increased by 79% while it decreased by 41% for non-food items since the RFS was revised in 2007.
• Ethanol production costs and ethanol prices have all but eliminated a market for ethanol blends higher than 10%.
• The United States exported 1.2 billion gallons of ethanol in 2011.

[link]

[Nirvana]

"The Hunger Games" looms in our future [/hyperbole]

[Happy Monkey]

Is the last point a negative? Isn't the US looking for anything we can export other than jobs and movies?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Considering the effect on food prices I'd call it a negative.

[Nirvana]

HP if it costs more to produce the ethanol because of subsides paid, then exporting it is like pissing in the wind and expecting gold in return.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Is the last point a negative? Isn't the US looking for anything we can export other than jobs and movies?

Those exports are impossible without taxpayers subsidizing it. Wacko extremists want to cut spending on necesary items. But want government to spend $billions subsidizing what was obviously stupid - ethanol. The facts I posted so many years ago when it was first started still apply today. Because I bothered to first learn numbers.

If government was patriotic, then the US would not have a $0.50 per gallon tarrif on imported ethanol. Because nations that used engineering rather than extremists politics make ethanol at productive prices. So America has virtually banned foreign ethanol to protect business school types and their anti-American (unproductive) product. (Using same reasons that protected anti-American tire companies - ie Uniroyal, Firestone, Goodrich, etc) from the radial tire). Government then spends more money to give ethanol to foreign consumers. All in the name of jobs that only destroy American jobs.

Well, government (bought and paid for politicians) did same with American HDTV. Forcing on America a standard that is incompatible with HDTV everywhere else in the world. All to protect American jobs in Zenith. Zenith then sold their TV company to foreigners. Giving management big buck bonuses. And screwing American workers.

The ethanol example was exposed with numbers many years ago. Other examples of the same business school spin were found in radial tires (1975) and in HDTV.

[glatt]

Ooh. Let's hear about the radial tires in '75. This isn't the whole underinflated Firestone tires on Explorers caused them to crash and burn, is it?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

Ooh. Let's hear about the radial tires in '75.

You are confusing a 1990 event (ATX Wilderness) with their 1975 conspiracy (Firestone 500s). Properly constructed tires do not fail when under inflated. That was business school graduates spinning myths to consumers who only believe the first thing told rather than learn facts.

ATX Wilderness tires failed because many treads were improperly glued directly to a steel belt. Using a defective manufacturing process. Firestone promised Ford that they would add a fifth ply to eliminate that problem. Marked all future tires as 5 ply. And never installed that fifth ply. Ford eventually discovered the fraud and demanded Firestone replace all $2billion of defective tires. Firestone refused. Ford terminated a contract with Firestone dating back to when Harvey Firestone and Henry Ford even vacationed together.

That story is irrelevant to this discussion. A radial tire (that got 40,000 miles) was developed in 1948. To keep selling their inferior bias belted tires (only 10,000 miles), the American tire industry got Congress to place a massive tariff on radial tires from superior foreign firms (ie Michelin). Once Michelin opened factories (secretly) in Nova Scotia and South Carolina, then domestic manufacturers panicked. All made tires so defective that a government study later discovered failure rates at about 50%. I met a Firestone paraplegic. He told me the story. I was not sure until latter reading more details in Consumer Reports. As long as he kept quiet, Firestone would pay for him for life.

Firestone determined it was cheaper to pay off all the paraplegics and quadriplegics. And then the government exposed a conspiracy that included Goodrich, Uniroyal, Goodyear, Firestone, and others.

Why do foreigners now own most former American tire companies? They conspired to get Congress to keep the radial out of America. Because the purpose of a company is only profits. Conspired rather than innovate. Had those companies been patriotic, then the purpose of each company was its product. No paraplegics. No loss of American jobs. But those companies believed what the mafia also believes. Their only purpose is profits - the consumer is best financially raped or loses body parts.

Ethanol is a similar story. Ethanol that actually works comed from Brazil. But more important are profits; not the product or the advancement of America. American ethanol is crap. Brazil spend a few decades letting engineers develop a superior ethanol. So, just like with Michelin, corrupt businessmen bought politicians and the 50 cent per gallon tarrif.

See those GM cars marked with a faceplate claiming ready even for 15% ethanol? That is not about advancing America. They get a generous government subsidy for each car assembled to have that Ethanol sticker. More subsidizes by corrupt Congressmen to business school graduates who claim, "The purpose of a company is its profits."

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

That was business school graduates spinning myths to consumers who only believe the first thing told rather than learn facts.

How interesting it would be if there was someone who would release accurate and truly helpful information first, so the first thing consumers are told would be the information most beneficial to them.

But that doesn't help sales.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

How interesting it would be if there was someone who would release accurate and truly helpful information first,

You are asking for people to think in terms of facts and numbers. To immediately suspect the worst from anyone who makes only subjective claims. To know facts before making conclusions. And to condemn those who make only subjective recommendations.

Why would anyone do that? Frazier in the Penn State trustee investigation committee did not bother. So many just knew Saddam had WMDs because spin said so. The Challenger was only an accident even thought not even one engineer said it was safe to launch. The plant manager in Fukishima was literally yelling at top Tokyo Electric management that he needed action now to avert a melt down. Even Tokyo Electric ignored facts until it was too late.

Or view what your computer is plugged into. Is it a power strip protector? Why make surge damage of that computer easier? Read its spec numbers. Knowledge only from subjective claims and outright lies is rather routine.

After all, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. Much later, we all learned otherwise when the stock market crashed. No problem. We just forget those denials. Pretend it was only an accident. And then reelect the people who created this economic mess.

Ethanol was clearly a bad idea. A number says how bad. To protect that bad idea from free market forces, the Congress also put a 50 cent per gallon tax on important Ethanol. Because superior Ethanol would harm the American consumer? How is that number - $0.50 - not damning?

At least one poster in the Cellar said so, with facts and numbers. When it was first forced on all motorists by people using concepts taught in the business schools, and by advise from large campaign contributors (that the Supreme Court said are not a problem).