Death comes to us all. Life's but a walking shadow | While we wait (with bated breath) for the next Profarmer installment and at the risk of life and limb I want to respond to VRbuck, Harmon, OOroster and others. I can't seem to resist.
First, the analogy about mandating ten percent of old farmer's land to to young farmers is somewhat inappropiate. Unlike Big Oil, in about ten years I'll either be dead or too wornout to need this farm and some young fifty year old will be welcome to it.
Second, apparently none of you ethanol detractors are a livestock farmers (or milk farmers). Otherwise you would be aware of the prenicious economics of packer consolidation and the structure of that industry.
Third, as to the "food vs. fuel" debate, VRbuck you left out the operative word, "cheap" food. In a free market the allocation of resourses is guided by the economic principle of "Utility" namely resourse will naturely go to the "highest use" or in this case highest price. It is easy to show that if crude oil is priced at about $100 barrel then corn is worth at least $8 bushel as fuel ethanol and DDGS (and that's a low estimate). The only way you can save "cheap" food is to mandate it.
Finally, there is possibly one way to eliminate the Mandate. If you really believe in free markets and built a firewall between petroleum extraction, refining and fuel marketing then supposedly any fuel would have a chance to compete on its merits. However, I am skeptical of this because history shows that every new producer needs some initial protection from existing established producers. For example, it is widely acknowledged that the industrial development of this country depended on tariffs to protect nascent industry from European industry. Otherwise you would be living in a client state of Europe today.
For what it's worth.
|
While we wait for the next Profarmer installment and
