Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Up Against Big Sugar, aka the Sugar Cartel on CNBC













24 Comments:

At 2/03/2010 4:34 PM, Blogger Colin said...

Good job Mark. Instead of speaking about inefficiencies and the 3 jobs lost, maybe you could have made it a bit less abstract by talking about jobs lost at candy producers and candy producers that have packed up for overseas because of the high sugar cost.

 
At 2/03/2010 4:41 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Oh my, you made that poor man look like a fool.

Well, I guess that wasn't really your fault, it was mostly his own.

I liked how the moderator stopped him when he said US sugar didn't cost the taxpayers anything, what a load.

 
At 2/03/2010 5:09 PM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

Colin: I had all of that information ready and loaded to deliver, but the segment was short and we never got to it.

Mark

 
At 2/03/2010 6:02 PM, Blogger Ryan said...

Roger Johnson said that the U.S. was one of the largest sugar importers in the world. Although the host pointed out the absurdity of using absolute terms with such a large nation. Do you have any idea where the U.S. would rank on a per capita basis?

And way to go on CNBC!

 
At 2/03/2010 6:32 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Good job Professor P!

Actually I was sort of suprised at Johnson who I normally take as a level headed and common sense sort of guy...

Its almost like Johnson was working the lobbyist angle there...

 
At 2/03/2010 6:35 PM, Blogger Dion said...

It was a pity you didn't get the last word. That had to be the first I have ever heard of a countries quota policy stopping a country from dumping on a foreign market. I think I must of learnt the "wrong" economic models.

 
At 2/03/2010 7:19 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

It's important to note that the farm welfare representative currently hangs his hat at the American Enterprise Institute. Too many think that is a free market or conservative outfit. It ain't.

 
At 2/03/2010 7:22 PM, Blogger John said...

So ... the developing countries are thankful that the US isn't dumping its overpriced sugar on the market? oooooookaaaaaay.....

 
At 2/03/2010 7:24 PM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

Prof. Perry, one might say that you were part of a cane mutiny that put a beet down on that sweet talker - as an economic pun-dit!

 
At 2/03/2010 7:26 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

The load of hooey about foreign companies being grateful that they are blocked from selling their product here because it keeps the US from dumping sugar at low prices worldwide is simply mind boggling.

It reminds me of that wonderful movie "Thank you for smoking" where our hero was tasked with the onerous job of justifying smoking.

Actually, the smoking advocate lobbyist Nick Taylor did a FAR better job defending his industry than this bozo did defending our agricultural welfare queens.

 
At 2/03/2010 7:29 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

A bit of advice, Mark. As one who has done innumerable short TV debates, you need to be more aggressive. Interrupt to get your rebuttal point in before the show ends. The producers actually LIKE such lively exchanges!

 
At 2/03/2010 7:45 PM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

Richard the Tax Fighter said " a bit of advice Mark...."

Mr. Rider, I think the professor did great considering the gorgeous "Money Honey" Erin Burnett was moderating. Those blue eyes enthrall despite her obviuous poignant intellect.

 
At 2/03/2010 8:16 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

Just to state the obvious -- Prof Perry's opponent doubtless profits from his position defending farm subsidies.

Dig a little, and it's almost sure we'd find that he is either paid directly as a lobbyist, or indirectly by being paid to do "studies" that give farming parasites their desired protectionist result.

 
At 2/03/2010 8:19 PM, Blogger Matt said...

Nice work, Mark!
You got'er done. You accomplished getting an important message/data across - and exactly what the average American wants and needs to hear; the government is prolific and shameless at wasting the peoples money while cramming square pegs through round holes. This needs to be sung from the mountain tops!
Thanks for your part.

 
At 2/03/2010 9:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a nice segment, but if one wants to get real interesting, do a study on the total cost that excessive sugar consumption not only has on Americans' health, but how it contributes to excessive medical costs through obesity and diabetes.

As someone who barely touches sweets (I'll eat cake and ice cream maybe once or twice a year; I rarely consume soda), as far as I'm concerned, make American consumers pay a bit more for sugar instead of letting them consume more of a cheaper product.

 
At 2/03/2010 9:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're losing candy manufacturing jobs because of the sugar tariffs? Pffftt... they'd probably get outsourced anyway.... Besides, I thought you guys liked outsourcing.

 
At 2/03/2010 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A bit of advice, Mark. As one who has done innumerable short TV debates, you need to be more aggressive. Interrupt to get your rebuttal point in before the show ends. The producers actually LIKE such lively exchanges!"

I've discovered people who do that are typically idiots who don't have their facts straight, and try to shout down others in the effort of avoiding embarrassment. If you have your facts straight the first time, the argument itself will hold water, and there shouldn't be any reason to resort to childish tactics.

 
At 2/03/2010 10:46 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

For Anonymous at 9:18 make it a tax on the fructose content of sweeteners. Fructose is the bad part of sucrose the other half is glucose which the body can handle well. Sugar was until very recently a luxury, and really drove the settlement of the western hemisphere, starting with Hispanola, and Cuba. Lots of money was made on it, and lots of wars had. Before this you only had fructose in fruit which the body can handle. So right on tax fructose and cut its use.

 
At 2/04/2010 8:34 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 2/04/2010 8:36 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


that have packed up for overseas because of the high sugar cost.


...or the reality, which is more to spite the US.


the sugar tariffs? Pffftt... they'd probably get outsourced anyway.... Besides, I thought you guys liked outsourcing.

Just make it impossibly expensive to exist outside the regulatory domain of the US while being able to do business within the US.

 
At 2/04/2010 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Job!
But, I have always thought that many manufacturers use High Fructose Corn Syrup instead of Sugar. (Since our Sugar prices are so high). I think it would be interesting to hear what role that plays.

 
At 2/04/2010 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the midwestern accent and inflection......I'm a native Floridian but my parents are from Michigan....they speak similarly as do my Aunt, Uncle and cousins from the great state of MI:-)

 
At 2/04/2010 5:55 PM, Blogger John Thacker said...

But, I have always thought that many manufacturers use High Fructose Corn Syrup instead of Sugar.

For some things, like candy, HFCS is no substitute.

 
At 2/05/2010 2:26 PM, Blogger Thomas said...

We spend $2.5 billion more on sugar than we need to? That's enough money to buy an additional 125,000 cars at $20k each. That's enough money to buy up 12,500 mortgages at $200k each. This money could be used to start new factories and businesses. Instead, it's going to some sugar barons in Florida and North Dakota? Disgusting!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home